I've been reading the boards for a while, and have been entranced by gunning and the sort. But, it appears that the Aussies have leapfrogged any tech we have presented. Their approach to Boron-11 Fusion is brilliant and seemingly immaculate. This begs for re-creation and augmentation.
We have a 1400 W CW Nd;YAG which I will propose to attempt to re-purpose to Chirp modification, for the use in Boron Fusion. Wish me luck, the Board of Directors can be recalcitrant.
https://e-catworld.com/2020/02/23/austr ... on-fusion/
Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
-
russssellcrow
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:40 am
- Real name: Russell Crow
- Contact:
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15023
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
Putt-putt boat fusion again. As always, much ado with no physical embodiment or key data related to an assembled and tested device. Stuff missing like PRR, a total collected energy tally for the reaction and the actual returned, usable electrical energy output.
I know....Its new, it needs time to develop, It is still in the conceptual stage, it is a theoretical thing right now. You just wait and see!.....Yada-yada-yada.
With the lack of anything concrete and physically positive, all I have are negatives. It isn't real now, has no physical embodiment and no electrical output even if fully tested. Of that I am positive.
In the end, it is another announced fusion wonderment. I have put it on my shelf of fabulous fusion ideas and concepts in the shelf-section marked P-B11.
Richard Hull
I know....Its new, it needs time to develop, It is still in the conceptual stage, it is a theoretical thing right now. You just wait and see!.....Yada-yada-yada.
With the lack of anything concrete and physically positive, all I have are negatives. It isn't real now, has no physical embodiment and no electrical output even if fully tested. Of that I am positive.
In the end, it is another announced fusion wonderment. I have put it on my shelf of fabulous fusion ideas and concepts in the shelf-section marked P-B11.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
I think there are much better things to do with IC pulsed fusion than generate electricity.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15023
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
I agree with Ian.
Richard Hull
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
russssellcrow
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:40 am
- Real name: Russell Crow
- Contact:
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
Interesting responses...
When I was in college, our Director was hooked up with the Lab Manager at Los Alamos. He would take a box truck out to New Mexico every January, and fill it up with the lab hardware that LANL was discarding from the previously ended projects, then we would sort through it to catalog and utilize what we could scavenge.
In 1981, John brought back the amplifiers from the Helios Project. Capacitors the size of suitcases, salt windowed C02 Lasers that were meters long, cables as fat as your thumbs.
Los Alamos had been researching Laser Implosion Fusion, which gave birth to the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs.
We set up and fired one of those gigantic (at the time) C02 amplifiers on the backside of our own oscillator. We were hitting over a GigaWatt per pulse before I left, but we were prohibited from targeting a Tritium balloon. The Control Room was isolated from the pulse forming network, and the cables were looped and affixed to the wall. When we charged the system, static electricity would make weird things happen in the Lab, and when we hit the Fire Button, the cables would leap from the current surge.
Because the Helios Project returned promising results, LANL scaled up dramatically to the Antares Project, which gave way to NIF at Livermore. None of them have produced break even, but they are so far ahead of Ion Gunner Fusors, that it is not even a contest.
I think that ITER may live up to about 1/2 the expectations, if they ever finish it. Lockheed Martin may even break even with their new super compact super conducting fusion project. But in the end analysis, in order to sustain fusion at break even, I have a hunch that it will take the ability to target a clean reaction with an enormous punch at a high rep rate. The Aussies appear to be on the right track, if their press releases can be believed.
A link to Helios' documentation from Wiki is below, there is much more on the Net.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 98131).jpg
When I was in college, our Director was hooked up with the Lab Manager at Los Alamos. He would take a box truck out to New Mexico every January, and fill it up with the lab hardware that LANL was discarding from the previously ended projects, then we would sort through it to catalog and utilize what we could scavenge.
In 1981, John brought back the amplifiers from the Helios Project. Capacitors the size of suitcases, salt windowed C02 Lasers that were meters long, cables as fat as your thumbs.
Los Alamos had been researching Laser Implosion Fusion, which gave birth to the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs.
We set up and fired one of those gigantic (at the time) C02 amplifiers on the backside of our own oscillator. We were hitting over a GigaWatt per pulse before I left, but we were prohibited from targeting a Tritium balloon. The Control Room was isolated from the pulse forming network, and the cables were looped and affixed to the wall. When we charged the system, static electricity would make weird things happen in the Lab, and when we hit the Fire Button, the cables would leap from the current surge.
Because the Helios Project returned promising results, LANL scaled up dramatically to the Antares Project, which gave way to NIF at Livermore. None of them have produced break even, but they are so far ahead of Ion Gunner Fusors, that it is not even a contest.
I think that ITER may live up to about 1/2 the expectations, if they ever finish it. Lockheed Martin may even break even with their new super compact super conducting fusion project. But in the end analysis, in order to sustain fusion at break even, I have a hunch that it will take the ability to target a clean reaction with an enormous punch at a high rep rate. The Aussies appear to be on the right track, if their press releases can be believed.
A link to Helios' documentation from Wiki is below, there is much more on the Net.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 98131).jpg
-
Dennis P Brown
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
- Real name: Dennis Brown
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
Didn't see this thread before but since it has been pulled up, guess I'll add my two cents and offer some further info on this topic.
First, some background - The issue with most interial fusion devices are pellet instablities; these can be highly suppressed by using very short wavelength lasers. The failure of the CO2 laser and NIF's failure are directly related to this issue. NIF used frequency tripling to get into the green but that is still too long. A deep UV laser is what is most likely needed and what models indicate will work best. Also, direct drive is likely the best approch and it must be highly symmetric - likely a few hundred beams from all angles and each beam as uniform as possible. Aside - a KrAr laser could likely achieve these results but except for the Nike Laser (KrF) and their UV work, this is a field still mostly unexplored.
As for the Aussie gibberish that they posted (alpha particle flow creates the elctricity (!) - lol ;ok, that is just utter nonsense), I will not waste too much time commenting on too many other details but the absurd statement that a laser exstablishes the magnetic containment - makes no sense - so magnetic fields are created by lasers - not exactly something that anyone would waste their time discussing. Now there are complex ideas on collapsing existing magnetic fields but to do that in a metal pellet is not viable for many reasons but pellet instability is many orders more sensitive than that for simple non-magnetic implosions and those still don't work (see NIF's laughing stock results.)
As for a single laser driving the pellet - sorry but that will simply accelerate the pellet in a single direction resulting in zero containment or compression. They did add a neat techno-jargon word about "chirp" laser pulse system and that the person who developed that got a Nobel - well that proves they are correct simply by association - lol. As for the inference they made about fast ignition (if you don't follow, not important) that has been modeled for the absolutely easiest reaction fuel (D-T) and does not currently work. To do that for the vasty higher Coulomb forces involved with boron is absurd exstrapolation totally unsupported by any physics they offer in the slightest.
So much wild speculation and no real science - a perfect article for most people now-a-days.
First, some background - The issue with most interial fusion devices are pellet instablities; these can be highly suppressed by using very short wavelength lasers. The failure of the CO2 laser and NIF's failure are directly related to this issue. NIF used frequency tripling to get into the green but that is still too long. A deep UV laser is what is most likely needed and what models indicate will work best. Also, direct drive is likely the best approch and it must be highly symmetric - likely a few hundred beams from all angles and each beam as uniform as possible. Aside - a KrAr laser could likely achieve these results but except for the Nike Laser (KrF) and their UV work, this is a field still mostly unexplored.
As for the Aussie gibberish that they posted (alpha particle flow creates the elctricity (!) - lol ;ok, that is just utter nonsense), I will not waste too much time commenting on too many other details but the absurd statement that a laser exstablishes the magnetic containment - makes no sense - so magnetic fields are created by lasers - not exactly something that anyone would waste their time discussing. Now there are complex ideas on collapsing existing magnetic fields but to do that in a metal pellet is not viable for many reasons but pellet instability is many orders more sensitive than that for simple non-magnetic implosions and those still don't work (see NIF's laughing stock results.)
As for a single laser driving the pellet - sorry but that will simply accelerate the pellet in a single direction resulting in zero containment or compression. They did add a neat techno-jargon word about "chirp" laser pulse system and that the person who developed that got a Nobel - well that proves they are correct simply by association - lol. As for the inference they made about fast ignition (if you don't follow, not important) that has been modeled for the absolutely easiest reaction fuel (D-T) and does not currently work. To do that for the vasty higher Coulomb forces involved with boron is absurd exstrapolation totally unsupported by any physics they offer in the slightest.
So much wild speculation and no real science - a perfect article for most people now-a-days.
Last edited by Dennis P Brown on Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jerry Biehler
- Posts: 975
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:08 am
- Real name:
- Location: Beaverton, OR
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
Tripling YAG gets you 355nm, 266 for quadruple. But the losses go up every time you go up a harmonic where we were pushing 8W of green to get 2W of 266.
-
Dennis P Brown
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
- Real name: Dennis Brown
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
Correct on the triple - couldn't remember their value - google is one's friend - lol.
Still the Aussie work explains a lot about the state of science or what passes for science when money is involved.
Still the Aussie work explains a lot about the state of science or what passes for science when money is involved.
-
russssellcrow
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:40 am
- Real name: Russell Crow
- Contact:
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
To begin, CO2 Laser wavelength is 10,600 nm, Nd:YAG is 1064 nm. A SHG crystal can be used to double Nd:YAG to 532nm. A THG crystal can triple the frequency to 354.7 nm. This is the configuration used at NIF, in 192 amplifiers with Neodymium crystals the size of microwave ovens. It really was an impressive attempt, some still debate that they have gotten as close to break even as any work yet done. They continue to jigger the coatings on their microballoons of fuel, hoping that they will magically hit on the perfect wavefront property to achieve that perfect burn. NIF has an army of detractors as well. With billions upon billions of Dollars gone, DOE can't rally much support any more.
The thing that intrigues me about the B11 Aussies is that their approach leverages some interesting new technologies. This beam driven microsupermagnet thingy is beyond any tech I have studied. Also, the concept of accelerating their Ion Beam to velocities only achievable previously in Super Colliders, by hitting it with a super high intensity Laser from behind, is admittedly VERY creative. If indeed they are creating kiloTeslas of magnetic containment around the target, and driving Hydrogen Ions in at near Light Speed, that has to create some mojo.
The thing that bugs me is that they filed over 20 patents, but they have yet to publish. Something about that just smells funny.
The thing that intrigues me about the B11 Aussies is that their approach leverages some interesting new technologies. This beam driven microsupermagnet thingy is beyond any tech I have studied. Also, the concept of accelerating their Ion Beam to velocities only achievable previously in Super Colliders, by hitting it with a super high intensity Laser from behind, is admittedly VERY creative. If indeed they are creating kiloTeslas of magnetic containment around the target, and driving Hydrogen Ions in at near Light Speed, that has to create some mojo.
The thing that bugs me is that they filed over 20 patents, but they have yet to publish. Something about that just smells funny.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15023
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
The number of patents on file versus the number of ground breaking physical implementations is about 1000 to .006.
The rule is, "if you think you got it", CYA and patent it.
Usually, you don't got it.
Note: I leave the ratio reduction of the 1000 to .006 to the more common form of... "x to 1", as an exercise for the student
Richard Hull
The rule is, "if you think you got it", CYA and patent it.
Usually, you don't got it.
Note: I leave the ratio reduction of the 1000 to .006 to the more common form of... "x to 1", as an exercise for the student
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Dennis P Brown
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
- Real name: Dennis Brown
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
NIF did not get anywhere close to breakeven - they claimed they did but don't include the laser energy nor power for the laser. What they calculated was energy from the pellet compared to the x-rays that the hohlraum produced (and to really lol - even using that insane measure they were still a factor of five below breakeven!) So they ignored nearly five orders of magnitude loss, invent a new word (to make it look like they are close) and had the nerve to publish that utter nonsense - so how in the world is that near breakeven?
As for accelerating a target to create fusion - the Nike Laser group did that years ago. It produces little energy. They do hold the record for fastest acceleration of a microgram target; big deal.
As for the army of distractors - they are mostly in congress and the scientist that form the many military black programs that got sold a bill of goods. NIF is nowhere close to breakeven yet they promised ignition many years ago! Numerous physicist knew the truth and said so before they got their funding - yet LLL (Lawrence Livermore (national) Labs) lied and went ahead. So all NIF has to really show for the many hundreds of millions of dollars spent is to have convinced congress that inertial fusion is a dead-end rat hole like tokamaks; maybe true but maybe not. Thanks to them, that method is DOA.
As for that complete nonsense the Aussise put out - all I'll repeat is anyone that says alpha particles provide the electrical power from fusion has never studied fusion even at the Wiki level (heat, sure but electrical power!? lol.) Using a ultra-short pulse laser does not increase fusion probability; if it was that simple, they'd use deuterium and publish great results. So as you said, (relative to lack of published results) "Something is rotten in LLnL" (to use Hamlet in Shakespeare and paraphrase.)
As for accelerating a target to create fusion - the Nike Laser group did that years ago. It produces little energy. They do hold the record for fastest acceleration of a microgram target; big deal.
As for the army of distractors - they are mostly in congress and the scientist that form the many military black programs that got sold a bill of goods. NIF is nowhere close to breakeven yet they promised ignition many years ago! Numerous physicist knew the truth and said so before they got their funding - yet LLL (Lawrence Livermore (national) Labs) lied and went ahead. So all NIF has to really show for the many hundreds of millions of dollars spent is to have convinced congress that inertial fusion is a dead-end rat hole like tokamaks; maybe true but maybe not. Thanks to them, that method is DOA.
As for that complete nonsense the Aussise put out - all I'll repeat is anyone that says alpha particles provide the electrical power from fusion has never studied fusion even at the Wiki level (heat, sure but electrical power!? lol.) Using a ultra-short pulse laser does not increase fusion probability; if it was that simple, they'd use deuterium and publish great results. So as you said, (relative to lack of published results) "Something is rotten in LLnL" (to use Hamlet in Shakespeare and paraphrase.)
-
russssellcrow
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:40 am
- Real name: Russell Crow
- Contact:
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
I think you are talking about Dr. Moses's report from 2011. He moved the goalposts, ignoring the energy required to charge up their 192 Nd amplifiers, and focussing (pun intended) on only the energy absorbed into the holhram, compared to the energy they measured coming out. In this case Moses claimed a 40% gain, or Q=1.40
His claim was dubious at best, but vastly exceeded anything seen before in a Laser Driven ignition. 2 E+14 neutrons in 100 ns, when we're thinking 1M n/m is a fusion device? Seriously? That's a factor of E+15 in timely production of neutrons, if that is our measure...putt, putt, boat indeed.
His claim was dubious at best, but vastly exceeded anything seen before in a Laser Driven ignition. 2 E+14 neutrons in 100 ns, when we're thinking 1M n/m is a fusion device? Seriously? That's a factor of E+15 in timely production of neutrons, if that is our measure...putt, putt, boat indeed.
-
Dennis P Brown
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
- Real name: Dennis Brown
Re: Australian Breakthrough Fusion (Duh, Chirp Lasers)
As for burning a small amount of fuel, yes they did manage to do that; and yes, it is dwarfed by tokamaks - which isn't saying all that much, either. Again, I'm talking about NIF's last claim of breakeven - which as I said, is complete non-sense. Not sure about the claim in 2011 - they lie so often I'd think they were trying to one up the president. I explained exactly what they achieved and what they call 'scientific breakeven'. Which is a definition they invented to allow them to call their lastest work breakeven - like saying one has gone faster than light because one made a bad measurement (forgot about the extra co-axial cable - see CERN) - but hey, that now counts because NIF redefined words. Yes, they are doing putt-putt fusion. So, guess we are in agreement.
By the way, was that when Moses's was falsely claiming, as he did for many years as he headed NIF, that he had his PhD; or was that earlier - lol.
By the way, was that when Moses's was falsely claiming, as he did for many years as he headed NIF, that he had his PhD; or was that earlier - lol.