Would including screening be possible?

For Short Term Learning Discussions ONLY. This area is for CURSORY questions and connecting with other users ONLY. ALL technical contributions need to be made in the appropriate forums and NOT HERE. All posts are temporary and will be deleted within weeks or months. You should have already search the extensive FAQs in each of the forums before posting here as your question may already be answered.
Post Reply
Yunus-Emre KAPLAN
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:29 pm
Real name: Yunus-Emre KAPLAN

Would including screening be possible?

Post by Yunus-Emre KAPLAN »

Hello everyone,

I’ve been a passive observer of fusors and various technologies to achieve fusion for a while.
One of these that I find interesting is lattice confinement fusion with deuterated erbium lattices bombed with gamma rays.
The two main principles on which this technique relies are:
- the high density of deuterium nuclei within the piece of erbium, which therefore doesn’t require huge amounts of energy to confine them.
- screening effect with the electrons flowing around, that lowers the electrostatic repulsion between the deuterium nuclei.

Wouldn’t it be possible to build "fusors" (quotes because they doesn’t exactly work the same way) that harness and enhance this screening effect to achieve better results?
For example, by building some kind of capacitor with the negative plate being the deuterated piece of erbium -thereby lowering the electrostatic repulsion even more- which we would bomb with gamma rays?

I’m grateful in advance for your answers
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15205
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Richard Hull »

One Question. Have you personally locked deuterium atoms within an erbium lattice and bombarded the erbium with gamma rays and detected fusion? Or, have you just read this somewhere and are musing around this supposed concept that fusion is taking place and want to improve it in some fashion?

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
Yunus-Emre KAPLAN
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:29 pm
Real name: Yunus-Emre KAPLAN

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Yunus-Emre KAPLAN »

I didn’t just hear it, 4 years earlier or so NASA succeeded in achieving fusion by bombarding deuterated erbium with gamma rays,
They explained their models relied on the two principles I mentioned in my previous post,
Since both that system and fusors aim for achieving fusion in a rather "cold" setup, I allowed myself to ask this question on this forum where brillant people exchange ideas, that I had discovered years ago,
And since I don’t have the required material to answer my own question, I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me gives an answer to my suggestion with that capacitor-lattice idea,
To know if it’ll improve anything or if it would just be totally useless.
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Liam David »

I skimmed the NASA papers a while back and don't have any reason to doubt their success. Papers are attached.

There are a few problems with the gamma-driven approach, however. Consider, for example, that O(10^16) or so MeV photons irradiated the samples every second while something like a few 10^3 n/s were emitted. That's an extremely low conversion rate. Also consider the efficiency of the required particle accelerator.

The macroscopic applied fields from e.g. a capacitor do essentially nothing to screen the microscopic nuclear fields. They only accelerate the involved charged particles. Only in specific microscopic cases do electrons actually shield nucleons to an appreciable degree.

Deuterons/tritons impinging on a deuterated/tritated target will cause fusion via standard tunneling. This happens in standard fusors and in many types of neutron generators. Due to the higher atomic numbers of the target material (e.g. Z=68 > Z=1) the higher stopping power will yield fewer total reactions than deuterons/tritons impacting a pure gas target (thick target yield equation) for a given power input.
Attachments
PhysRevC.101.044609.pdf
(321.88 KiB) Downloaded 18 times
PhysRevC.101.044610.pdf
(3.08 MiB) Downloaded 19 times
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15205
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Richard Hull »

Such a scheme is novel, but as mentioned above, another "never make it" scenario. Huge input energy for no return in fusion. I imagine we do better at a billion to one net energy loss with our fusors! I will never cease to be amazed at folks thinking they will get useful energy from this or that new fusion process. The capacitor idea is a bust. Just more IEC dreaming.

I hope you aren't thinking any power is to be had in any iteration of this concept. There is none.

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
Yunus-Emre KAPLAN
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:29 pm
Real name: Yunus-Emre KAPLAN

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Yunus-Emre KAPLAN »

I was precisely waiting for the approval of more knowledgeable people like you to keep fantasising about it, now I know I should abandon this dream, thank you for your feedbacks :)
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3375
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

I know that the Introduction section was locked for awhile. So, do new members no longer need to introduce themselves anymore or is it still flagged as required for any new members? I am asking since this new member has not done that as yet.
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
Yunus-Emre KAPLAN
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:29 pm
Real name: Yunus-Emre KAPLAN

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Yunus-Emre KAPLAN »

Maybe I read the before-registering text very fast but I thought new members did no longer have to introduce themselves,
If it is still compulsory I apologise.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3375
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

I am in error. The policy is optional so you did in fact, followed the rules. Sorry for my post.
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
Yunus-Emre KAPLAN
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:29 pm
Real name: Yunus-Emre KAPLAN

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Yunus-Emre KAPLAN »

Absolutely no problem Sir
Richard Hodson
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:26 pm
Real name: Richard Hodson

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Richard Hodson »

It's good to investigate other fusion methods. I need to review this sites theory and alternative fusion ideas posts. Your idea sounds like NASAs lattice confinement tests or they may have just done modeling. X-rays are easier to make than gamma rays. The D2 ions created would escape if they were heated enough to fuse. I'm trying to investigate past gridless fusor design attempts. Some were tried here. This club has many experts and some are very tough critics. They may be correct about the futility of fusors breaking even but I think a properly designed grid less fusor could possibly be the elusive successful fusion design.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3375
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Y. E. Kaplan and Richard Hodson, the issue of any fusor's - no matter the design - not breaking even is a lot worse than say, a Tokamak. Tokamaks get close to "Q=1" by almost an order of magnitude. A fusor is missing the mark by like 12 orders of magnitude (i.e. 10^12.) That is like comparing a drop of water to a large lake of water. It is a staggering miss.

Fusor's depend on nuclear 'tunneling' and there is no know way, no matter what you do, to increase the rate of tunneling - period. Otherwise, one must overcome the Coulomb barrier and that takes massive energy per ion no matter what you do.

No electron shielding what's-so-ever in any physical lattice will reduce that barrier in any significant manner to make any real difference. Remember, Muon fusion uses a super massive negative charged particle so that type of 'screening' is a completely different approch (and massive loss of energy even compared to a fusor!)

Exotic ideas always fail because there is no 'cheat' in the Universe for fusion (other then simple "mass".) Otherwise, highly unlikely we'd exist - ;)
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Liam David »

Pretty much the fundamental issue with non-thermal designs is that the coulomb scattering cross section is something like 1e4 times larger than the fusion cross section. Thermalization happens much faster than fusion. Scattering losses are significant. I'm not saying that non-thermal designs won't work; on the contrary, I think they're better than thermal designs for a variety of reasons, but it's a tougher problem.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15205
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Would including screening be possible?

Post by Richard Hull »

Got a whole lot of energy you don't know what to do with? We will show you how to get rid of it and do fusion, as well. We have been totally successful for the last 25 years, here.

Never get tired of throwing the wet fusion blanket on far out ideas that are posited and never to be tested by their proponents. Lot of thinkers, few doers. I will admit that they are not funded to the level of $100,000 just to get started on their ideas. Admittedly there are those now funded to the level of tens of millions trying to do fusion that is doomed to fail. Even the ones funded to the level of tens of billions.

Two crowds: Those with ideas that will never be tested and no money. Those with ideas shown to do fusion in the lab, working on scaled up hardware with other people's money. All, doomed to ignominious defeat and failure.

I have full faith that fusion is the energy of the future, and it always will be.

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 “New User Chat Area”