Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2024 3:31 pm
- Real name: Jonathan Filip
Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
It seems on this site that one particular fusion device is used and that is the Farnsworth fusor which utilizes electrostatic inertial confinement via a DC input. I personally think that there are an infinite number of ways to complete a single task, and thus there is more than one way to achieve fusion. One of my favorites is the dense plasma focus (DPF) device. Although there has been no over unity achieved with this device it still is a fantastic method for attempting nuclear fusion. We also know of the stellarators and other fancy devices developed with billions of dollars to boot. Of course the Farnsworth method is great for the amateur, like me, who has little funds to complete the task of utilizing plasma physics to achieve what we humans call fusion. One thing that interests me is how I can use AC currents instead of DC currents to create a so called fusor; this is what I am currently undertaking which brings me to the purpose of this post.
Salvatore Pais works for the US Navy and has released several patents which seem like science fiction. The one of interest is US20190295733A1 titled "Plasma Compression Fusion Device". Of course the argument could always be made that this is merely a patent and could be caught up in theoretical work thus resulting in a device which does not actually work. But this is the US Navy were talking about and they have been known to get things done and also have a hefty budget to ensure things get done. Also Pais has gone on YouTube and other sources to talk about his patents and always gets to the point where he refuses to answer the questions asked due to the clearance he holds (I'm guessing regarding the clearance).
I have two questions for the viewers and members:
1) Do you think Salvatore Pais and the US Navy have achieved over unity with US20190295733A1?
2) Do you think over unity has been achieved behind closed doors by the military industrial complex?
Whether you think I'm a charlatan or that maybe there is a chance over unity has been achieved without our knowing I would HIGHLY recommend reading US20190295733A1. It is the US Navy after all who owns the patent.
Salvatore Pais works for the US Navy and has released several patents which seem like science fiction. The one of interest is US20190295733A1 titled "Plasma Compression Fusion Device". Of course the argument could always be made that this is merely a patent and could be caught up in theoretical work thus resulting in a device which does not actually work. But this is the US Navy were talking about and they have been known to get things done and also have a hefty budget to ensure things get done. Also Pais has gone on YouTube and other sources to talk about his patents and always gets to the point where he refuses to answer the questions asked due to the clearance he holds (I'm guessing regarding the clearance).
I have two questions for the viewers and members:
1) Do you think Salvatore Pais and the US Navy have achieved over unity with US20190295733A1?
2) Do you think over unity has been achieved behind closed doors by the military industrial complex?
Whether you think I'm a charlatan or that maybe there is a chance over unity has been achieved without our knowing I would HIGHLY recommend reading US20190295733A1. It is the US Navy after all who owns the patent.
- Attachments
-
- US20190295733A1.pdf
- (902.26 KiB) Downloaded 28 times
-
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
- Real name: Joe Ballantyne
- Location: Redmond, WA
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
If the US Navy had a working fusion reactor, you can rest assured, that they would NOT be patenting the details.
They would be classifying them top secret, or higher.
Furthermore, the fact that they had a working fusion reactor would most likely be very public knowledge.
Take the US Navy's Nautilus from the 1950's as an example. The fact that it was a nuclear fission powered submarine was broadcast to the whole world. The details of its reactor - locked down as tight as possible.
Joe.
They would be classifying them top secret, or higher.
Furthermore, the fact that they had a working fusion reactor would most likely be very public knowledge.
Take the US Navy's Nautilus from the 1950's as an example. The fact that it was a nuclear fission powered submarine was broadcast to the whole world. The details of its reactor - locked down as tight as possible.
Joe.
- Liam David
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
- Real name: Liam David
- Location: PPPL
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
No, to both questions.
The patented device produces magnetic fields similar to those of a polywell. It just uses spinning charged electrodes to create the fields instead of superconducting coils. The cusp losses are extremely high. It also shares some similarities to a device proposed and extensively studied by Andrew Chap at UMD, the "Continuous grid IEC device," papers attached.
Also consider that the patent mentions scaling to TW powers, where the neutron yield would be O(1e24n/s). No serious person who knows what they're doing would add such a ridiculous statement. I'm not saying TW reactors are impossible sometime in the distant future, but if you know anything about neutron material damage alone, it would give you serious pause.
Although completely anecdotal, for those of us "in the business," it's abundantly clear that no one possesses Q>1 fusion reactors. If I had a nickel for every "revolutionary fusion reactor" patent I've encountered over the years.... I'd have a few dollars.
The patented device produces magnetic fields similar to those of a polywell. It just uses spinning charged electrodes to create the fields instead of superconducting coils. The cusp losses are extremely high. It also shares some similarities to a device proposed and extensively studied by Andrew Chap at UMD, the "Continuous grid IEC device," papers attached.
Also consider that the patent mentions scaling to TW powers, where the neutron yield would be O(1e24n/s). No serious person who knows what they're doing would add such a ridiculous statement. I'm not saying TW reactors are impossible sometime in the distant future, but if you know anything about neutron material damage alone, it would give you serious pause.
Although completely anecdotal, for those of us "in the business," it's abundantly clear that no one possesses Q>1 fusion reactors. If I had a nickel for every "revolutionary fusion reactor" patent I've encountered over the years.... I'd have a few dollars.
- Attachments
-
- Chap - SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF THE CONTINUOUS ELEC.pdf
- (34.53 MiB) Downloaded 17 times
-
- Chap and Sedwick - 2017 - Simulation and Optimization of the Continuous Grid.pdf
- (3.78 MiB) Downloaded 21 times
Last edited by Liam David on Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Rich Gorski
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:34 pm
- Real name: Rich Gorski
- Location: Illinois
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
As Liam said the device in this patent is similar to the Polywell idea. In this case rather than having coils of wire with a current to produce an axial magnetic field they have charged rotating cylinders that can produce the same axial magnetic field. A spinning disk with a surface charge density will act like a coil of wire and produce a magnetic field along the axis of the spinning disk. The one difference I see in this patent compared to polywell is that they talk about rapid acceleration of the spinning charged elements. I think this changing magnetic field is what they claim can be used for radio frequency heating of the plasma.
Beside the scaling to TW power output they also talk about gain of 1000X (kilowatt input to megawatt output) and B field strength from the rotating charge as high as 10^6 Tesla ????? Crazyness !!
Rich G.
Beside the scaling to TW power output they also talk about gain of 1000X (kilowatt input to megawatt output) and B field strength from the rotating charge as high as 10^6 Tesla ????? Crazyness !!
Rich G.
- Liam David
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
- Real name: Liam David
- Location: PPPL
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Good catch Rich.
I too find 1e6 Tesla fields trivial where the surface pressure on materials exceeds 1e17 Pa....
Another gem:
I too find 1e6 Tesla fields trivial where the surface pressure on materials exceeds 1e17 Pa....
Another gem:
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2024 3:31 pm
- Real name: Jonathan Filip
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Didn't NIF demonstrate Q>1 in 2022?
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2024 3:31 pm
- Real name: Jonathan Filip
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Wow a Deuterium reaction! Never seen that before.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2024 3:31 pm
- Real name: Jonathan Filip
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Sometimes seeing is not believing.
- Paul_Schatzkin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
- Real name: aka The Perfesser
- Contact:
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Jeez
Should I lock this one, too?
Not an encouraging sign...
--PS
Should I lock this one, too?
Not an encouraging sign...
--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
- Rich Gorski
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:34 pm
- Real name: Rich Gorski
- Location: Illinois
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
NIF Q > 1 ?
Depends on how you define Q. If Q is fusion energy out over laser energy in then NIF experiment produced a Q of 2 or 3. More fusion energy output than laser energy input.
However if you include the poor efficiency of the lasers (~ 1 or 2%) then the real wall plug Q was no more than 0.02. The input power to the lasers was like 100X the fusion energy out. So, no excess power available to send to the grid.
Rich G.
Depends on how you define Q. If Q is fusion energy out over laser energy in then NIF experiment produced a Q of 2 or 3. More fusion energy output than laser energy input.
However if you include the poor efficiency of the lasers (~ 1 or 2%) then the real wall plug Q was no more than 0.02. The input power to the lasers was like 100X the fusion energy out. So, no excess power available to send to the grid.
Rich G.
- Liam David
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
- Real name: Liam David
- Location: PPPL
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Jonathan, the fact you looked no closer than noticing the DD reaction and then assumed I was stupid enough to be referring to that says everything about you and nothing about me. I was referring to the author labeling it as a CHEMICAL reaction. I literally do the DD NUCLEAR reaction in my fusor.
It turns out Salvatore Pais has a Wikipedia page and likes to make the rounds on pseudo-scientific Youtube channels. It looks like he did some legitimate research for NASA on bubble generation in reduced gravity on the "Vomit Comet" but then spiraled into fantastical BS including "craft using an inertial mass reduction device" and "piezoelectricity-induced room temperature superconductor." From the outside it looks like a classic case of a late-career researcher falling into narcissism after a respectable but unfulfilling career, and believing they have all the answers to physics' greatest questions. Bullshit, attention-seeking charlatanry, all of it. Patents are not how science is done.
A +1 from me for Rich's response.
You have one chance to salvage this thread, Jonathan, else I ask Paul to lock it. Yeah Paul, its been a week on the forums. Jeez.
It turns out Salvatore Pais has a Wikipedia page and likes to make the rounds on pseudo-scientific Youtube channels. It looks like he did some legitimate research for NASA on bubble generation in reduced gravity on the "Vomit Comet" but then spiraled into fantastical BS including "craft using an inertial mass reduction device" and "piezoelectricity-induced room temperature superconductor." From the outside it looks like a classic case of a late-career researcher falling into narcissism after a respectable but unfulfilling career, and believing they have all the answers to physics' greatest questions. Bullshit, attention-seeking charlatanry, all of it. Patents are not how science is done.
A +1 from me for Rich's response.
You have one chance to salvage this thread, Jonathan, else I ask Paul to lock it. Yeah Paul, its been a week on the forums. Jeez.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2024 3:31 pm
- Real name: Jonathan Filip
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Alright I'll give you that on the DD reaction. I didn't realize you were quoting the patent. And I'm not a nuclear physicist or a nuclear engineer; I'm fully self taught on nuclear physics and the likes. And all you said was "another GEM" and just posted a picture of the DD reaction. Am I supposed to read your mind and know exactly what you were referring to? Maybe some clarification next time would be nice.
And I don't see what all the fuss is about? It's a cool design and its backed by the US Navy. It should raise a lot of questions and speculation which I was hoping to get from my fellow engineers and scientists. All I get is ridicule. For what? Because you have more experience? Because you have a $10,000 reactor sitting in your house and that makes you better? And now you're threatening to close this post? It's a legit reactor design that is owned by the US Navy! One of the most powerful organizations on the planet! How is this not super cool and how are we not talking about this? Why aren't y'all super excited to see this? It makes no sense. Yeah Pais makes some bold claims in his patent BUT again its owned by the US Navy. This is an extremely important detail that should not be overlooked.
And inertial mass reduction isn't some "fantastical BS". Simply holding a large gyroscope and experiencing the force of the rotating mass is proof enough. And if you read some of Nikola Tesla's work he goes into great detail about using gyroscopes for flight and mass reduction as well as many others (I'd have to dig for the books, its been awhile since I read that specific entry).
All in all this forum has proved to be run by a pack of bullies. If y'all don't like what you hear or think someone is not as smart as you then they are bullied. This is not the awesome cool forum I thought it would be. It seems like I stumbled upon a giant pissing contest with ignorance as the leading ideal. It's so unbelievably disappointing and embarrassing. Yeah I'm not as smart as y'all but damn do y'all really have to treat me like crap? Literally since the second I stepped into this place.
I showed you a unique reactor design backed by the US Navy and y'all swatted it down without hesitation. You should be ashamed.
And I don't see what all the fuss is about? It's a cool design and its backed by the US Navy. It should raise a lot of questions and speculation which I was hoping to get from my fellow engineers and scientists. All I get is ridicule. For what? Because you have more experience? Because you have a $10,000 reactor sitting in your house and that makes you better? And now you're threatening to close this post? It's a legit reactor design that is owned by the US Navy! One of the most powerful organizations on the planet! How is this not super cool and how are we not talking about this? Why aren't y'all super excited to see this? It makes no sense. Yeah Pais makes some bold claims in his patent BUT again its owned by the US Navy. This is an extremely important detail that should not be overlooked.
And inertial mass reduction isn't some "fantastical BS". Simply holding a large gyroscope and experiencing the force of the rotating mass is proof enough. And if you read some of Nikola Tesla's work he goes into great detail about using gyroscopes for flight and mass reduction as well as many others (I'd have to dig for the books, its been awhile since I read that specific entry).
All in all this forum has proved to be run by a pack of bullies. If y'all don't like what you hear or think someone is not as smart as you then they are bullied. This is not the awesome cool forum I thought it would be. It seems like I stumbled upon a giant pissing contest with ignorance as the leading ideal. It's so unbelievably disappointing and embarrassing. Yeah I'm not as smart as y'all but damn do y'all really have to treat me like crap? Literally since the second I stepped into this place.
I showed you a unique reactor design backed by the US Navy and y'all swatted it down without hesitation. You should be ashamed.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2024 3:31 pm
- Real name: Jonathan Filip
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
Oh so patents aren't important and not related to science? You wanna go tell Lockheed Martin that and maybe Honeywell too? You say its bullshit because you can't begin to think outside of the tiny box which you created for yourself. You're the reason why Galileo died a nobody. People like you who can't see anything but what they want to see.
- Paul_Schatzkin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
- Real name: aka The Perfesser
- Contact:
Re: Fusion Device - US Department of Navy
That’s enough.
Locking.
Locking.
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."