Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

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
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

In case you were having too good of a day and wanted more rocks in the "we're doomed" bucket...

Stumbled on this lunacy advertised in asinine comments on a Zap Energy LinkedIn announcement:

https://www.quantumkinetics.co/

This reeks of satire (like good god, who would fall for this?) but videos of not-inexpensive hardware and links to the person's books for purchase indicate otherwise. The "inventor" has a full LinkedIn profile with job history and "Quantum Kinetic" updates.

Unfortunately the word "fusor" shows up among the rambling, so here we are.
Attachments
Screenshot 2024-04-23 223437.png
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15115
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

Oh wow! The usual. A lot of graphics with no form of in depth data. An Arc sediment generator? Isotope alteration? Gravity? How did that get in there? I am waiting for this device to show up in a blister pack at walmart, then, maybe I'll take notice.

It is nice to think someone is excited about this.

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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Yeah, this one showed up in my Google Alerts yesterday, too:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/climate ... akthrough/
Funded by oil and gas giant Chevron and the Bill Gates-founded Breakthrough Energy, scientists at US company Zap are among many trying to make this work on Earth.
Also

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-tra ... -1-1632487
Zap said in a press release on Tuesday that its unique approach, known as a sheared-flow-stabilised Z pinch, has now blasted past this milestone – achieving temperatures roughly equivalent to 11 to 37 million degrees Celsius.

“This feat is a key hurdle for fusion systems,” said Zap, claiming that its Z pinch reactor is the “simplest, smallest and lowest cost device to have achieved it.”


PT Barnum would be pleased.

Too bad nobody has a trademark on 'fusor' so that it can't be misappropriated as it was here.

--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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Also, I think we get some idea here why Bill Gates might be so anxious to get fusion energy online:

Microsoft Reportedly Building ‘Stargate' to Transport OpenAI Into the Future

https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-building- ... 1851375210
Stargate....could take up several hundred acres of land, and require up to 5 gigawatts of power.
Good luck with that, Bill.

--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: 15115
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

Skynet is effectively being assembled by the private sector and will be taken over by the government to keep it from being misapplied.
As for fusion, those who have millions to burn have little knowledge of fusion and are advised by the fusion hopefuls who, no matter what, always say, "Let's do it. It seems like a great idea!"

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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Zap is still making the rounds.

This article showed up in my Google Alerts this morning:

https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/ ... ommercial/

... and I find the embedded Zap promo video quite persuasive:

https://youtu.be/7kwDV10b0oc?si=vKmvIvyxIxvm4S8H

🤣
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: 15115
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

What I saw on their demo was a zap flash. (in the pan). More putt putt boat fusion attempts. Let's heat electrons. Seems plasma temps are out and electron temps are in. At least they are operating in the small, but with zero reported fusion at any level. They join Helion in "kit visible", but also no fusion demonstrated. I am sure they are funded well by some source that is looking for a tax break in write-offs while, at the same time, looking like they care about and are investing in future energy.

For many, temperature is the thing. Fusion....Well....Get the right temperature and fusion will follow. I now ask, how long can you generate and hold that magic much sought after temperature? If in bursts, how many bursts per second and at what RMS energy level can the burst deliver? Don't fool us with claims of peak energy per burst of 2+ megajoules. Those of us who know, really know, that you can't do that at a 1mhz PRR.

We are employed and will muddle on, making it up as we go along. (Nice work, if you can get it.)


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
Liam David
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

The stuff of the original post has made it into Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00179-w
https://www.pnnl.gov/publications/reson ... rification

The 2nd author is a researcher at PNNL specializing in environmental biogeochemistry and so does not seem to be qualified to separate fact from fiction on the physics front.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

And it appears somebody wants a trademark for...
Quantum Kinetic Fusor™
I'm no IP expert, but it seems to me like that's not gonna fly because at least a third of the expression has been in the public domain for decades.
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: 15115
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

The article re: Nature, is stunning and smacks of a special case of cold fusion. I note in the references they give papers from many cold fusion workers, among them, Bockris. Brockis was a very professional electrochemist and was rather mistreated at his own university. (A tale all its own)

It seems cold fusion is still out there. A lot of work is still showing up related to it.

As some here might know, I was always fascinated with the concept, but personally never felt it would be a source of energy. However, I found the spectrographic post experiment materials to be fascinating. If there were not so many reputable people doing work in this area, I would have accepted, as so many have, that such work is trivial and going nowhere. The idea of transmutation of elements via electrochemistry in any form goes against all I have learned. Yet I remain open and forever curious.

As I have noted, hot fusion is just about where cold fusion is right now. No place where useful energy is being produced. I know and have done fusion via the acceptable path. No arguments there. We do hot fusion via random events in a maelstrom of plasma by the grace of quantum tunneling. Our work is fully controlled in nature as we control the process via pressure, containment, and energy input. It is just about the worst possible way to do hot fusion. We roll the dice by the billions per second and accept 99.99999% coming up snake eyes. We are happy to parse out a pitiful few fusion wins for our effort. This makes us profligate spenders of money/energy at the table to take what little we get out of the effort.

I had no expectation, being the first to do fusion here, of any great advances or breakthroughs in any effort here at fusor.net. I wanted neutrons and I got them. I did activation with them and resolved to merely be a teacher of sorts in the amateur fusion effort. I knew within 4 years at the effort that my original idea of how the fusor worked was just a wrong headed wish. So, I learned as well here, what fusion was and what it wasn't and how worthless power ready fusion was being pursued. I quickly relegated power fusion to a joke perpetrated on the public by the ever hopeful, yet well meaning scientists pursuing this gold ring. Having evermore knowledgeable eyes, I see many hucksters and "make busy" efforts fouling what is an undeniable, noble goal.

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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Richard Hull wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 4:07 am I knew within 4 years at the effort that my original idea of how the fusor worked was just a wrong headed wish.
Umm, Richard, what was the 'original idea' that turned out to be so 'wrong headed' ?

--P
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: 15115
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

I originally bought into the common belief that fusion took place at the star. Totally wrong headed. I supported this idea, more or less from 1997-2001. While it wasn't a dogma, it just seemed logical. Wrongo!

Even after abandoning the fusion star fallacy, I still felt that the fusion process in the fusor was somewhat simplistic. ( No!! The construction and operation is simplistic!!)

We live and we learn. I know I did. Study in depth and reviewing the excellent work of U of W showed that fusion took place over the entire volume of the simple fusor and very little occurred at the much hailed star. I figured that velocity space was the key and added in wall absorbed deuterium to the mix The great realization came when I came to accept that we did not a have a pure deuteron plasma environment, but were dealing with at least 4 different modalities of collisional fusion. Then came the concept of quantum tunneling and the realization that you did not necessarily need fusion energies in particle collisions to do fusion.

Fusion in the fusor is a mixed bedlam of particle collisions of high and low probability of doing fusion and the vast majority of collisions were wall collisions which just make the fusor a big heat source. (Thus, the billion to one net loss of electrical energy to the wall!) The simple fusor does fusion based on brute force and represents the worst application of fusion science possible in a directed effort. All of this is presented and explained in many posts, 2001- to present.

The star is just a very pretty and notable aspect of the device that is unavoidable due to its construction. Most all of the fusion is not done in or at the star!

Anyone constantly reading and learning here has come to understand this fully and completely. In the time period 1998-2004 the old boys learned this lesson well. We all learned together by doing and paying heavy attention to fusion theory and the superlative work done in the simple fusor of U of W.

Again, you had to get immersed in the forums and one quickly lost that blush of innocence from knowing just enough to think you know what it is all about. As Frank notes: There is a curve in learning and we fell from that initial peak of knowing it all related to the "star" to fall precipitously into realizing just how little we knew. This began the long climb upward to a less than romantic view of the fusor as we discovered how fusion really takes place and all the issues involved. The bloom was off the lily, so to speak. However, I got my neutrons and that was what I was after. On the way up that long learning curve, I now know a lot about fusion and many issues surrounding it. Whatsmore, a lot of others here who sought knowledge about fusion became savvy in the fusion arena. The result, for me, is that I know "fusion crap" when someone tries to feed it to me. Too bad others are ignorant of many issues regarding fusion. Such ignorance allows a lot of hucksterism and douchebaggery to lure some to believe in all manner of false fusion schemes.

To sum up, the star is pretty but isn't related to the bulk of fusion in our fusor. We figured all this out 20 years ago. Sorry if this blows your concept of how a fusor does fusion. Of course, you can still use the star in a jar expression as some small amount of fusion is done there.

It is only these forums that have been a beacon to those hungry to deeply understand the fusion process, not only in the fusor, but in any fusion system.

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: 3277
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Frightful that meandering world salad was accepted by NPL. The various claims are absurd and the method while certainly does remove waste makes secondary claims throughout the paper that are utterly false. Bizarre this was published using the insanely irrelevant claims in many parts of the text. I'd say I have no words except I just did. So take some real (through hardly useful) data on a real (through stupidly named device), add as much word salad as possible and make utterly false statements and that is published?
User avatar
Rich Gorski
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:34 pm
Real name: Rich Gorski
Location: Illinois

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Rich Gorski »

Just a thought on the fusor as a heat source as Richard described above...we have two particle species heating up the chamber.
1. Electrons accelerated to the chamber wall (X-rays)
and
2. Positive ions accelerated to the negative cathode.
Does this mean the power (Watts) from the main negative PSU is evenly divided between the cathode and the wall of the chamber?

So where are fusion events likely to take place in a typical fusor?
Positive D2 ions should end up with near zero energy as they approach the wall of the chamber so my thought is little or no fusion takes place at the chamber wall. Positive ions likely have maximum energy as they impact the negative cathode electrode. So some fusion (maybe most?) should happen in the D2 that is absorbed into the cathode material. D2 ions that don't impact the cathode have some probability of having a fusion reaction somewhere along their acceleration path between the wall and the negative cathode or as they pass into the interior of the cathode where the star forms.

I would love to see a simulation/analysis where one could plot the fusion events per cubic centimeter over the entire volume of a typical fusor. Where would the peak of this three dimensional plot be? I suspect the peak would occur either at the center of the negative cathode or at the cathode itself. However in terms of total fusion events the central star is not where the majority of fusion events takes place because of it small volume.

Rich G.
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

This thread is getting pretty off topic, but...

The power is generally not divided equally between chamber and cathode. Consider, for example, electrons generated via ion impacts. The long electron mean free path means these impact the chamber at virtually the full cathode potential. The ions that generated them have much lower energies. Just throwing out some hand-wavy numbers, in a typical fusor ions at the cathode have energies on average 1/5 the applied potential (viewtopic.php?p=96483#p96483). Thus, electrons cause 1/(1/5+1) = 5/6 of the dissipation. Adding in thermionic and field emission makes things worse.

Regarding your query on fusion locations, see viewtopic.php?p=96483#p96483.

Regarding simulations, see viewtopic.php?t=14157.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15115
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

All neutrals at or near the cathode /shell are doomed to hit it. (more heating and energy loss.) Neutrals will slowly embed in the cathode/shell. The shell of the fusor is a hopeful field emitter of electrons to ionize deuterium gas near the shell. The red to orange hot grid wires are significant electron emitters. Due to the long MFP of electrons under full acceleration most will impact the cathode/shell. (heating it more than any other viable source).

Thus, over time, the shell/cathode will emit deuterium and some deuterons into the hail storm of electrons impacting the shell, creating a more or less deuteron/positive ion at the ideal point for rapid full potential acceleration. Just another source of positive ions? How many? ....To what level of advantage? Just another positive fusion situation thrown into the mix? Truly unknowable without hard data.

I am speaking ONLY of a spherical fusor with a geodesic or multi-wire grid. Diameter may be tuned to a useful MFP for ions.

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: 3277
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Glad Rich has caused this thread to get off topic of that crazy Nature paper - his questions and Liam answers provide both very interesting issues and actual facts to this discussion; and frankly, the writer of the original article is borderline nuts (through, maybe purely by accident, he mixed in his craziness a real research paper to give the crazy some valid science*.) Rich's questions/speculation and Liam's post are the first breath of rationality for the thread and is a far more interesting and relevant topic for fusors.

Richard's first discussion on fusors and his follow-up nicely capped the discussion - so, I'm pleased this thread has evolved into something of both interest and use relative to a fusor rather then the tin foil stuff earlier as well.


* If so, then this is, beyond a doubt, an utter disgrace for Nature and an insidious attempt by the author to really create stupidity in science and discredit the field. Frankly, this paper is both shameful and a disgusting perversion of the scientific method. Though, I won't tell you how I feel ;)
Post Reply

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