FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Richard Hull »

I have pulled together some data mainly from reliable books and also from NASA and Solar observatory websites. I wished to do the math and figure stuff out based on a recent posting related to the sun and put it in FAQ form.

Anyway, check my math guys.

***********************************************************

The Sun

Solar energy output each second = 386 yotta joules/sec 3.86 X10e26 joules/sec
Solar volume 2.7403 X 10e18 cubic kilometers
Solar fuel (mass) 1.989 X 10e30 kg

Output energy per unit mass 3.86 / 1.989 = 1.94 X 10e-7 joule per gram per second or……~0.2 micro-joule/gram/sec

Output energy per unit volume 3.86/2.74 = 1.4 X 10e8 joules per cubic kilometer per second. Lets move that to cubic centimeter volumetric.
A cubic meter has 10e6 cc in it and a cubic km has 10e9 cubic meters so a cubic km has 10e15 cc in it. Thus the solar output energy per cc is 1.4 X 10e-7 joules per cc or….
0.14 micro-joules/cc

The sun, for our purposes, will be called a functional fusion reactor consisting of just fuel that is self bound and contained, for the most part.

Much quibbling, erudite point making and general trolling is possible about solar boundries, burnable mass, etc., but the above facts are what scientists have quoted as the accepted energy, diameter, volume and mass so it's what I am rolling with.

********************************************************************************

The Fusor ( Fusor IV stats)

Energy output at 1 million neutrons/ sec
This is 2 million fusions 1 million X 4.03 mev and 1 million X 3.27mev
Total of 4.03 X10e12 ev + 3.27 X 10e12 ev = 7.3 x10e12ev
1 ev = 1.6 x 10e-12 ergs. The total energy in fusion per second is 11.68 ergs/sec
(Have I mentioned I like ergs n' dynes)
1 joule/sec = 10e7 ergs/sec or 11.7 X 10e-7 joules/second

So a running fusor IV at 1 million neutrons/second produces 1.17 microjoules of fusion energy per second.

Now to figure the mass of fuel on hand in a running fusor and its volume. I work at about 8 to 10 microns in my running 6” diameter fusor at 1mega neut/sec.

Reactor fuel volume of fusor IV

4/3 pi x R^3 = 4.18 X 7.6cm^3 = `1850 cc of fuel volume

D is atomic weight 2 but the molecule is mass 4 so 22.4 liters of D fuel at STP is 4 grams.
At STP the fusor will hold 4 X 1.85/22.4 = .33 grams of d as fusible ions. However, we operate at ~ one 100,000th of an atmosphere.

So, the total fusible mass in the reactor is 3.3 X10-6 grams.

******************************************************************************************

Now to do solar comparisons.

The fusor produces 1.17 x10e6/3.3 x 10e-6 or .35 micro-joules/gram/sec of fusion energy

Thus fusor IV, as a reactor, out produces the sun as a reactor, per unit of fuel mass present, in said reactor by 75%!!

The above fact is no doubt due to a lot of the solar mass, (fusion fuel), residing in more tenuous, cooler regions

The fusor loses out on overall volumetric efficiency, however, as it produces
1.17/1850 or only .00063 micro joules per cc per second. This makes the sun about 222 times more volumetrically efficient as a fueled fusion reactor that fusor IV.

The above fact is no doubt due to the extremely dense fusing core in the sun.

************************************************************
In summary:

We can at least proudly say that our fusors produce 75% more energy per unit fuel mass in our reactors than the solar fusion reactor, itself!!

Like any good, non-self respecting, lying-assed, dispeptic fusioneer we might neglect to tell of the poor comparative, volumetric efficiency. That's right, just razzle-dazzle 'em into th' tent like any good fusion barker would do.

Richard Hull

P.S. make replies of a corrective math nature or to add other interesting facts I might have left out. Of course, boundless praise is always held in high regard. RH
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
Quantum
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:30 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Quantum »

Richard, may I be the first to offer you the praise you so richly deserve.

However, the other post to which you refer related to calculating the energy required to produce a plasma with a density similar to the core of the sun, thereby achieving thermonuclear conditions comparable to the centre of the sun.

Yours is a very interesting post, though.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Richard Hull »

I just got the idea from the solar related posting. This is not a continuation of anything even obliquely related to that post. It was just a seed for this fresh idea of a reactor vs. reactor mathematical comparision.

It is as I always thought....The sun is a big loser by most any desireable earth based standard of fusion energy. About the only thing it's got going for it is it is a free 400 yotta joule energy source, it is self contained, self-igniting, self-running, it has fused for billions of years and will continue to fuse for billions more. Nothing like our glorious fusors that are microscopic is size, by comparision, with higher fusion energy to mass output and demand billions of times more energy to be jammed into them than we will ever get out and are tough to keep going for more than a few tens of minutes.

(tongue set well in cheek)

Yes, Virginia there is always a heapin' helpin' o' bad news with the good.

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
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Chris Bradley »

If you liked this post, you might also like to read one I did some time ago;

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7433#p52520

and also my observations;

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7418#p52505

neither of which are meant to be strict scientifically-evidenced back-of-envelope stuff for peer review, but you'll get the general idea!
Quantum
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:30 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Quantum »

Chris, once again I'd like to point out that the sun's density is not uniform.

I believe you've not taken this into account.

It would be no good replicating the 'average density' of the sun, as most fusion occurs in the higher density regions ie the centre.

Gravity is the 'driving force' here, and surely any comparison has to take gravity into account.

There are theories that suggest that 'mass' is a fifth dimension, and that the properties associated with mass (inertia, gravity, etc) can't be understood without an understanding of this.

To simply say 'condensing' some plasma to the average density of the sun will produce the average fusion rate in the sun doesn't follow.
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Chris Bradley »

Ash Small wrote:
> To simply say 'condensing' some plasma to the average density of the sun will produce the average fusion rate in the sun doesn't follow.

Then don't say it if you don't like it!

These are *my* posts! I welcome *constructive* comment on the myriad of assumptions or technical limitations that are obvious to most, so I don't need your *approval* or otherwise! The purpose of embellishing comments with numbers is to provide the reader the chance to get a feel for the scales and to go away and improve on the loose accuracy I applied to my quickie calculations. It's not my job to run through pages of scientific numbers, I'm merely writing numbers down as I type the post with the purpose of illustration of the points, and a lack of precision suitable for *Journal publication* and Nobel prize-winning dissemination is inevitable but utterly immaterial to the objective.

Come up with your own figures, to which I may say 'yeah' or 'nay' as to whether I see them as an improvement on my own. What I have suggested are [I feel] novel, original comments with an already admitted level of finger-in-air but nonetheless with some figures one might contemplate for general order-of-mag.

You are behaving a bit like a leech, sucking out the blood of other people's ideas then telling them how bad it tastes!! Just come up with your own ideas, run your own numbers, and tell us something new - rather than saying everyone has just done or said what you have already suggested (which you seem to do regularly and that I cannot see the connection with your prior posts most of those times).
Quantum
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:30 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Quantum »

Chris, I was trying to be constructive.

I was pointing out that the density of the sun isn't the same at all points, and that your maths doesn't appear (to me) to take that into account.

I realise it was a 'rough and ready' calculation, I notice you don't find fault with my reasoning.

I was merely pointing out that the density of the sun is much, much greater at the centre than it is at the edges, due to gravity.

While I also appreciate that gravity isn't really relevant to fusors, it is relevant to thermonuclear fusion in the sun.

People have 'introduced' theories on gravity on this site in the past, without criticism, so I don't regard that as an issue.

The same is true of the earth. density is not a constant all the way through, it is more dense at the centre.

I was merely suggesting that 'average density' is pretty meaningless in thermonuclear plasmas, where most fusion occurs close to the centre, probably with none occuring at the edges.

In order to create a mathematical model of the sun, you surely need to address this concept.

I certainly didn't mean any offence, Chris.
JamesC
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 pm
Real name: James Caska

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by JamesC »

>I certainly didn't mean any offence,

But offence you have given. Maybe you dont realise it but you have become quite annoying on this list but perhaps you dont know why so I will tell you clearly.

For months you have been highjacking , fragmenting and sidetracking forum thread after forum thread into irrelevent unresearched sideshows corrupting the stream of thought the original threads represent reducing their value to others. Its very selfish of you.

How about starting a new thread each time you want to inject yourself into an otherwise thoughtful thread and if others want take up your thoughts they can do so in your own seperate thread.

If you reply to this hint on this thread you will categorise yourself as a troll in my view
Quantum
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:30 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Quantum »

James, you can't find fault with my reasoning, so you resort to insults.

Criticize my reasoning, or don't bother posting.

Or do you really think the density of the sun is the same at the edges as it is at the centre?
Kade
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:42 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Kade »

Just a little bit of trivia to add to the astronomical numbers that mass seems to have when you are discussing the sun, It is interesting to make a comparison between the electrostatic forces and the mass related gravitational forces, and relaize how much more electrostatic force is available from a very small mass than gravitational force.
2* 2 gram bottles of ionized hydrogen (i.e. 2 grams of ions 10 to the 24 elementary charges), placed on opposite sides of a diameter of the earth will repell each other with a force of about 50 tons. Helps to explain perhaps why electrostatic confinement is more "Edit Mass" efficient than the sun when it comes to fusion.
Edit: I guess this means that if a fair amount of the sun is comprized of ions, the gravitationally related pressure near the center could get pretty low!
Quantum
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:30 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Quantum »

Following on from what Kevin has said, Newtonian physics (gravity, mass, inertia, F=MA, etc) has been around for as long as charge and magnetism (maybe longer), yet we know far less about the mechanisms of gravity and mass than we do about charge or magnetism.

Personally, I'm extremely interested in what they are trying to do at CERN, trying to investigate the 'nature' of gravity.

Also that when mass changes velocity, photons are produced.

While charge and magnetism are 'wavelike', ie fields, and photons are also wavelike, and gravity also exerts a 'field', mass is 'percieved' as being something completely different, yet there has been no 'serious' attempt to explain what gives matter the property of 'mass'. It's just something that seems to be 'taken for granted', without an attempt to explain it.

(I realise I'm probably leaving myself wide open to attack here, but what gives matter the property of mass?)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Richard Hull »

Just back from the wars.......

Quote from my original post above...."Much quibbling, erudite point making and general trolling is possible about solar boundries, burnable mass, etc., but the above facts are what scientists have quoted as the accepted energy, diameter, volume and mass so it's what I am rolling with."

Oh how true it was.......... troll on......
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
Doug Coulter
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:18 pm
Real name: Doug Coulter
Location: Floyd, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Doug Coulter »

Hopefully not a troll, but here I think we're doing it a lot differently than the sun does it, and so the comparison may not be worth a whole lot.

The sun is getting all this pushed together via gravity, we are not.

The sun has a gradient due to density of the various elements in it, we don't.

As far as I know we know (can I say that?) the sun is purely thermal, there's no directed aiming of this at that -- the energy of each particle is more or less equipartitioned between all available degrees of freedom, in a fusor, the particles are mostly "cold" but have a lot of velocity along just one vector per particle.

The sun has a feedback mechanism we don't -- IIRC it takes a long time for energy created near the center to make it out -- many times each photon hits something and gives up energy, to be re radiated later on (in general in a random direction). A fusor is so tenuous that this is very unlikely.

The sun can and does use more different reactions than we do, some of which are a lot harder to get, but they happen anyway due to the high energy density, and just plain density.

Thus a straight up comparison is pointless. We had better be doing better than a clumped ball of gas can do, even though we lack that nifty gravity well. We have something better if we set it up right, gravity is a very weak force compared to Coulomb and nuclear forces.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Richard Hull »

This whole comparison was a fusion reactor versus fusion reactor comparison and had no bearing on the manner or form of fusion, how done, when done or by what process.

It was all about efficiency related to two working systems that do fusion. Mass of fuel contained versus energy out. (Fuel use efficiency)

Also it compared volumetric effeciencies, nothing more. Very clear results were stated.

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
Chris Roberts
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:35 pm
Real name: Chris Roberts

Re: FAQ - The Sun versus the Fusor

Post by Chris Roberts »

Richard, thanks for the FAQ, I for one really enjoyed the comparison. I see it as the engineer's way of looking at things rather than the physicist's. More of a "but what does it ultimately do" rather than a "but how does it actually work" sort of comparison.

Oddly enough, I think I will be using the less-impressive volumetric comparison more often, as when showing others the fusor it will be a perfect way of helping visualize what this gadget is actually doing. Simply put, if you were able to shrink the sun down to the same size as this device, the mini sun would be cranking out roughly 200 times more power. (That is assuming of course I can match Richard's neutron numbers. ) So, it is not going to solve our energy problems, it is not going to explode, but it is a fascinating machine that can actually bottle a weak, miniature star...ish...thing.

-Chris
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”