Inverted PolyWell?

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
Santiago Arcila
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:07 pm
Real name: Santiago Arcila

Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Santiago Arcila »

This idea came from thinking about what would happen if free electrons were injected to a sealed dielectric container,

Instead of creating a cloud of electrons in the center and locking it with fields, let a highly dielectric container build up an electron shell on its walls by thermionic emission. If a low pressure hydrogen gas is contained within (with a high ratio of electrons in the shell vs. atoms of the gas) , some of its atoms would ionize near the walls when its electrons are trapped by the shell, these freed protons would start being attracted to the walls sometimes bouncing at accelerations enough to pass a now lowered Gamow window by perturbations of the shell. If the wall has a thin layer of boron-11 or lithium-7, there would be chances of aneutronic fusion if protons cross the shell. Proton-proton chains could happen if bouncing protons collide between themselves. If there are sharp edges in the surfaces, proton collision between edges would further accelerate free protons.

Using 'Particle Simulator' App by Alfredo Prades I've played with the idea to check it visually. It only simulates 'electronic' attract/repell and collisions with the walls. Here's how it simulates a low pressure gas: https://youtube.com/shorts/zv6dA8GTDxs?feature=share And a short simulation of the charged container: https://youtube.com/shorts/IpKTaORxcVI?feature=share Check at the top right a bouncing proton in the corner, and at the left the bouncing 'free' protons.
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Santiago,

The maximum cross section for p/B11 is equal to 1.2E-28 m2 against 5E-28 m2 for D/T. Moreover this maximum is located at a center-of-mass energy of 600 keV (versus 65 keV for the D/T fuel).
Collisions of protons (as let's say several keV) with the Boron-11 thin layer will produce several aneutronic fusions for sure, but much more probably heat by simple collisions. The global efficiency will be extremely low (probably of the same order of a fusor, i.e. 1E-9).

Patrick Lindecker
Santiago Arcila
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:07 pm
Real name: Santiago Arcila

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Santiago Arcila »

Patrick thanks a lot for reminding of those constraints, but much more for considering there could be fusion in this setup.
Patrick Lindecker wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:00 am
The global efficiency will be extremely low (probably of the same order of a fusor, i.e. 1E-9).
Yes, about efficiency, I've been wondering how to calculate it... Since this concept is more like a passive setup, of just creating an electron shell once and then let the reactions just happen from then on...
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

Once again all fusions are easy if you just want fusion to occur and have the materials and energy to make it happen. Our motto is "fusion is easy", as it is a true statement. When one speaks of net energy fusion plasma power gain that is another matter, (break-even). Break even is a distant goal with any combination of fusion fuels. P-B11 is a joke related to any useful fusion process.

There is another goal far distant beyond break-even. This is net power gain of input energy to distributable electrical energy out. This relates to the electrical industry's interest in accepting fusion future energy possibilities. The electrical industry has accountants and "bean counters" and they do their job to secure profits for the producers that hire them.

Among the chief concerns is how many times over break-even will the recoverable, distributable electrical energy have to be, after construction costs, to make coal and gas fired plants obsolete at producing power at the same cost or less using fusion power plants.

A 20X return on the energy input to the fusion reaction beyond break even might entice them if the cost of the fusion system can be amortized over time to beat coal and gas. Thus a 20 gigawatt fusion facility might require a 1 gigawatt coal, gas or fission reactor to power it.

Fusion sounds nice until the profit margin is considered. The electrical industry is driven solely by profits not ideals and green energy. These niceties come last in any considerations related to how they generate energy for their paying consumers.


Efficiency, costs and, profits are the sole goal in energy production by the industry as they know that $2.50/KWhr electricity from pure green renewables will never happen. They are in the $0.10-0.20 /KWhr range and so are their consumers. Currently, at my home here in Virginia, if I use under 1 megawatt/hour of electricity per month, I am billed at the rate of 11.6 cents per kilowatt-hour

Sorry to drift so far off the physics of fusion to the future realties around it. Again, the struggle to merely do fusion is forever an easy one. To make fusion "Do Something" is, yet, a distant dream.

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
Santiago Arcila
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:07 pm
Real name: Santiago Arcila

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Santiago Arcila »

Thanks Richard, I guess... Are you sure you were replying to this thread? I mean, yes, nvm, it's relevant. Breakeven and net energy gain. The setup I'm proposing would be for a small device, mostly for continued thermal output: It'd be started by thermionic emission for some time to build up the electrons shell, so basically the input energy would be finite (ideally), and equal to the self-energy of the container for when the number of electrons is greater than hydrogen atoms within. If fusion does happen in such a setup, I believe it'd be a matter of time and fuel availability until breakeven is reached. However, on the issue of useful output, it's something I'm still trying to check if it might be possible.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

Ideas regarding fusion are $1.00 per 100. Action on those ideas is always 0.000. I always say build, it test it, and report back on how the idea worked out, giving us extensive data regarding the entire effort. Press releases not accepted at all. We've got a fist full of press releases about this or that new fusion idea and they all sound like they might work.

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
Santiago Arcila
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:07 pm
Real name: Santiago Arcila

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Santiago Arcila »

Well, I think that's the encouragement I was looking for. As energy in a vacuum, I wouldn't say action on fusion ideas is always 0 tho'. Thanks.
It's just tedious not having anyone to bounce back ideas and develop something in a self echo chamber. I'll better get back to the lab.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

The sad part of fusor.net is that ideas that sound really good are never tested unless there is a person with a budget, mostly out of pocket, that can actually test the idea, be it their own idea or someone else's. It is true that money feeds all research....It also stops it in its tracks. Thinking outside the box is great but remember, all ideas are themselves trapped within a box, a huge box! The money box!

I seem to stomp on many ideas only in that, be they good or bad, they will never be tested. Certainly never tested by the person with the idea here and that is sadly very frustrating for a person use to taking an idea or concept and doing something about it.

We are mostly serious "doers" here. Complex fusion ideas just can't be tested by the amateur fusioneer, forever trapped within the money box. Few here remember Mark Suppes who came here and got funded with a huge amount of bucks to test out his fusion ideas. He rented a large building and built a lab with top grade gear and instruments. He made the usual splash in the news, nation wide. He kind of outgrew fusor.net, playing in the "big time". We didn't hear much from him or about his efforts for about 1 year. Then, suddenly, he placed an ad in our trading post looking to sell all that nice gear, piece by piece. I doubt if anyone here at fusor.net bought such expensive, nearly brand new top flite gear.

Real fusion energy research can't even get underway for a 20 million dollar commitment. I am sure the giant corporation, Lockheed, has already dumped far more than this into their work of fusion energy and still seem to be committed to their dream. The dream always seems to be just around the bend. It costs ever more money to go around that bend even after spending millions to arrive at that bend.

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
User avatar
Bob Reite
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:03 pm
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Bob Reite »

I got started by buying Mark Suppes vacuum gear for ten cents on the dollar after he thew in the towel.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

Fabulous! I am glad some of his big spending rained upon one of our better fusioneer folks here for a decent, viable payout. Thanks for this piece of info. Did he communicate any data or info on his fusion effort during the purchasing e-mails?

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
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

That is really good news and best of luck with that set up. Mark did really great work (one does not need to achieve some arbitrary goal to succeed. He certainly advanced polywells.) Hope you, Bob, can continue and further advance his work. Hope to see you get that system running - that will be an accomplishment in of itself; getting a previous system back into operation can be a very difficult endeavor.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

Did Suppes monkey with the polywell?? I do know he assembled a first rate standard fusor.

Is Bob dreaming of polywell work?? He has a handful with restoring and peaking the system he took over. Polywell work that advances over the efforts of the ONR San Diego effort is a big bucks zone for sure. I never heard of a fusing amateur polywell. Lots of boosters and hangers on for the polywell concept. I know of no successful fusion efforts at the amateur level, just a lot of wind over the decks by hopefuls and boosters.

Enquiring minds want to know.

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
User avatar
Bob Reite
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:03 pm
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Bob Reite »

I bought Suppes' vacuum equipment to use for a standard fusor. I had briefly considered building a Polywell, but then along came the report of "Gonzo Mode" which I will still be pursuing once I get caught up on the work that pays the bills.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
Guillaume_Liere
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:31 am
Real name: Guillaume Liere

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Guillaume_Liere »

Hi Santiago Arcila,

I'm just a layman (and new here on fusor, hence the late answer) and fully support your idea, you made a clear description of the intended way to get longer term energy gain and it's very interesting.
Comparing it to other Ampere-based fusion projects, I'm only afraid it might in reality prove difficult to maintain long enough the exact same number of electrons in the exact same energy state / position / trajectory without having to re-inject some periodically? I mean, the device must be attached to something (on Earth at least), and surrounded by something (air is cheap but can leak electrons). I guess it would work wonder out there in space, wich is an amazing thing to think of! Would be great to test the idea at a small scale to check if it works as good as you make it sound.
Oh or maybe underwater in a dielectric liquid having the ad hoc density?... Ok wild idea from my side...

Anyway I wish you luck in your project!
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Bob Reite wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:17 pm I got started by buying Mark Suppes vacuum gear for ten cents on the dollar after he thew in the towel.
That's fabulous!

I am so glad to see the myriad ways in which this site serves a useful purpose.

It's still the most valuable and lasting thing I've had anything to with in this entire millennium.

Thanks for that, Bob.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

This is the number one site for folks to not only do fusion, but to learn about fusion and how to apply it in amateur experiment. It never demands you do fusion, but assumes you are interested enough to read to discover the truth behind why it is, at once, easy to do and yet hard to make a useful, controlled, net power producing system consecrated to the betterment of man.

As Bacon said in his essay on studies.

Read not to accept and take for granted, nor to find discourse, but to weigh and consider.

Science, we are told, is the final answer. Follow the science, we are told. Like politics and religion, science is of man. Science can go off the rails at times, being of man. However, its saving grace is that it is auto-correcting due to others in the field giving the lie to bad science or correcting science done in an unscientific manner. So, the temple of science is built upon repeatable experiment. Hopefully, science is constructed by men of some honor and unbounded curiosity.

I reiterate the Perfesser provided a safe and serious entity that is a place of both learning and doing for those curious about fusion at many levels.

It survives by its vibrance and practical approach to fusion contributed to by its many occupants over the years.

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
Santiago Arcila
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:07 pm
Real name: Santiago Arcila

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Santiago Arcila »

I'm not sure how I ended up revisiting the idea.

Following the motto "fusion is easy".
Someone elsewhere told me the setup sounded like a lamp.
Deuterium lamps, Hydrogen discharge tubes, etc. They've been around for a while. If.. The glass is made of borosilicate (I don't know)... Perhaps there could be some evidence of spontaneous rare fusion reactions on the walls of the glass. A couple of He atoms locked in the glass.
Although.. The chances would be so slim I guess.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Inverted PolyWell?

Post by Richard Hull »

Indeed, Fusion in a deuterium spectral lamp would be hyper rare, though not impossible, in theory. 3He build up in the lamp at a near zero fusion rate would never be seen in any spectral analysis. The same false narrative plays out in a real fusing fusor for those silly enough to posit that the build up of tritium over run times would boost D-D fusion to include some D-T fusion.

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
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”