http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRtheoretica.pdf
All must check out this pdf!
The Chubbs offer an interesting paper presented in 2000 regarding alternate fusion ideas. It is worth a read by all who would do any kind of fusion.
The Chubbs are NRL(Naval Research Lab), Phds, (father-son), and are only two among a cadre of Naval researchers who are deep into fusion in the cold. (CANR-LENR)......go Navy!
The paper suggests expanding concepts from "inside the box" to expand "the box". This stems from thinking outside the box while still sitting in it. As knowledge expands, so must "the box".
True fusion.........You know..........The one we can't do......D + D = He4.........It is the one seen in CF cells for the most part. I forget who the poster was here in the discussion of the O-P reaction noted that all our fusion was a form of stripping (from one to the other). While this though might be extreme it impressed the hell outta' me. True, absolute fusion is, indeed, total fusion of both bodies as is D+D=He4 (obviously, the other reactions are also forms of fusion and must involve the hypothesized strong force).
We may still be on the slow, upward part of the "understanding fusion" curve and nowhere near as far a long as we might want to think we are. There could be many ways to skin this cat.
The crux of the Chubb's paper is that we tend to see fusion in geometrically regular, loaded metal latices where the density of coherence capable "cells" is high and coherence opportunities at the EMI levels are more probable. Interesting....And the math tends to show that one would truly need ideal conditions that just might not be repeatable at a macro scale casually. Furthermore that heating due to energy output might just shut the whole thing down due to changing the parameters. They further note that in their posited scenario, the requisite 17+ mev gamma would not be demanded which is observed in the rare hot fusion reaction as the energy-momentum balance is occuring at a lower energy state.
I could easily imagine biological systems self-organizing to do this stuff at low levels without our explicit permission over the eons. Bio-physicists in some quarters are sniffing around at this, currently. While Kervran might have been a been out there a bit in his 70's book, the gist of his overall argument might have been right on all along.
I found the conundrum of the Chubb's paper regarding precise conditions a bit like the early fission piles wherein they would "bump", (start then stop then start again). This confounded early nuclear researchers. Unfortunately, the unpredictability of the CF reaction will not be solved as easily as venting off the Xenon gas poisoning of those early piles.
By going to the CANR-LENR home page.....
http://lenr-canr.org/
......and clicking on the "US Navy special collections" You can access thermal camera image movies taken at Naval Warfare Research Center of a CF electrotrode having the CF reaction spread over the electrode over 90 seconds. The formal paper presented regarding this is also highlighted, among other NRL papers.
Yet more grist for the mill.
Richard Hull
P.S. I swear, I see more hope in the new science scratched and clawed at here than any results proceeding from a system of hot gases in vacuo. The hope is for new forms of fusion and new science and not, necessarily, immediate new energy. RH
A very interesting and thought provoking paper
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
A very interesting and thought provoking paper
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
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
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Interesting indeed and this is one paper I for one agree with.
In chemistry, chemicals don't usually just react. There are intermediate steps for even the simplist of reactions. It would not surprise me in the least if this is true with nuclear reactions like fusion. It would be naively simplistic to think that 2 deuterons just happen to jump together to make helium if they are in the local femtometer neighborhood. Things must be just right.
Often I have talked about resonance in the fusor using RF potentials. Perhaps my use of the word is not sufficient. The noun string, coherent resonance is more accurate. If the overlap of wave functions occurs in a matrix of atoms that can fuse, then there is a good statistical chance that they will indeed fuse. In the case of cold fusion, deuterium atoms (not D2 molecules like we start with) are in a very unique and environment. They sit tighter with other atoms that are at the equivilent of thousands of atmospheres pressure. Colder temperatures enhance this effect and work to make the uniformity in the matrix much higher.
My point is that the minimum ~20 KV potential for fusion to occur in a fusor is not necessary correct under coherent resonant conditons. If the atoms can be made to overlap thier probability of being in nearly the same place, at the same time, with other atoms then there can be fusion.
I believe strongly that the answer is in front of all of us. We just need to quit trying to hit the deuterons together harder and start thinking how to get them together smarter!
Frank S.
In chemistry, chemicals don't usually just react. There are intermediate steps for even the simplist of reactions. It would not surprise me in the least if this is true with nuclear reactions like fusion. It would be naively simplistic to think that 2 deuterons just happen to jump together to make helium if they are in the local femtometer neighborhood. Things must be just right.
Often I have talked about resonance in the fusor using RF potentials. Perhaps my use of the word is not sufficient. The noun string, coherent resonance is more accurate. If the overlap of wave functions occurs in a matrix of atoms that can fuse, then there is a good statistical chance that they will indeed fuse. In the case of cold fusion, deuterium atoms (not D2 molecules like we start with) are in a very unique and environment. They sit tighter with other atoms that are at the equivilent of thousands of atmospheres pressure. Colder temperatures enhance this effect and work to make the uniformity in the matrix much higher.
My point is that the minimum ~20 KV potential for fusion to occur in a fusor is not necessary correct under coherent resonant conditons. If the atoms can be made to overlap thier probability of being in nearly the same place, at the same time, with other atoms then there can be fusion.
I believe strongly that the answer is in front of all of us. We just need to quit trying to hit the deuterons together harder and start thinking how to get them together smarter!
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Right on Frank!
One thing that hurts CF is the relatively low apparent carnot efficiency and shutdown of the reaction as if it is poisoned.
The CF energy out is far in excess of any chemical energy per unit reacting atom, but also far below the classic hot fusion output with its MEV flyoffs.
The key to making CF a goer in the energy field is getting a large amount of burnup that can be controlled and predicted (long way off, I bet). There is a vast gulf between classic chemical reactions and the fission/fusion/nuclear reactions.
In the chemical reaction, virtually every molecule joins in and supplies an ev or two to the energy output. There is not a lot of unconsumed residue in a nitro explosion. (naturally all the mass is still there, effectively. It is just in another chemical form that is now stable and recombined or separated)
In the nuclear reaction, the opposite occurs. Virtually all of the mass in the reaction remains as it was before the reaction.... untouched. A criminally small amount is actually consumed. However that tiny amount produces 6 to 8 orders of magnitude more energy per unit atom than the chemical reaction.
While CF is still being quantified, the figures bandied about are on the order of 1 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than a chem reaction per unit atom so reacted. If we could just reach 50% reaction, then that output would serve us well.
Unfortunately, as in hot fusion, the act of "cold" fusing in metal lattices leaves the lattice shattered and unusable for a second run just as the hot plasma can't be contained in classic HF.
As in the "Don Juan" play of Shaw, The Devil's words haunt us.
"Mans strength is measured by his destructiveness"
Fission we can do as we are the destroyers of matter, releasing long pent up energies within the nucleus placed there in some long gone super nova that created the Uranium or its parent.
As nuclear assemblers, it appears, we are bunglers!
We are poor creators, but superb destroyers.
Are we doomed to forever be destroyers of matter and chemistry for our energy quest?
"hard sayins" as Brother Dave Gardner used to say (50s-60s southern comedian)
More "ifs" and no direction leaves this issue for the future.
Richard Hull
One thing that hurts CF is the relatively low apparent carnot efficiency and shutdown of the reaction as if it is poisoned.
The CF energy out is far in excess of any chemical energy per unit reacting atom, but also far below the classic hot fusion output with its MEV flyoffs.
The key to making CF a goer in the energy field is getting a large amount of burnup that can be controlled and predicted (long way off, I bet). There is a vast gulf between classic chemical reactions and the fission/fusion/nuclear reactions.
In the chemical reaction, virtually every molecule joins in and supplies an ev or two to the energy output. There is not a lot of unconsumed residue in a nitro explosion. (naturally all the mass is still there, effectively. It is just in another chemical form that is now stable and recombined or separated)
In the nuclear reaction, the opposite occurs. Virtually all of the mass in the reaction remains as it was before the reaction.... untouched. A criminally small amount is actually consumed. However that tiny amount produces 6 to 8 orders of magnitude more energy per unit atom than the chemical reaction.
While CF is still being quantified, the figures bandied about are on the order of 1 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than a chem reaction per unit atom so reacted. If we could just reach 50% reaction, then that output would serve us well.
Unfortunately, as in hot fusion, the act of "cold" fusing in metal lattices leaves the lattice shattered and unusable for a second run just as the hot plasma can't be contained in classic HF.
As in the "Don Juan" play of Shaw, The Devil's words haunt us.
"Mans strength is measured by his destructiveness"
Fission we can do as we are the destroyers of matter, releasing long pent up energies within the nucleus placed there in some long gone super nova that created the Uranium or its parent.
As nuclear assemblers, it appears, we are bunglers!
We are poor creators, but superb destroyers.
Are we doomed to forever be destroyers of matter and chemistry for our energy quest?
"hard sayins" as Brother Dave Gardner used to say (50s-60s southern comedian)
More "ifs" and no direction leaves this issue for the future.
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
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
-
Edward Miller
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:50 am
- Real name: Edward Miller
- Contact:
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Richard, I absolutely love reading your posts.
-
ChrisSmolinski
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Richard's spot on - we human use high density sources of potential energy
(oil, coal, fission), which the universe has spent millions of years slowly
building up. We need lots of energy, and we want it NOW.
What strikes me as interesting regarding the current attempts at hot fusion is
the apparent lack of "big picture" thought about the models nature has
provided us with - namely the stars. That is, if you could reproduce the output
of the Sun, would it be useful?
The best figure I could find for the sun is 230MW/sq m toal power output,
which works out to 1.40e+27 W (using 6.1e+18 sq m as the surface area).
The core of the sun is roughly the inner 30% radius region, or a volume of
about 3.81e+25 m^3. So the Sun's "power generation density" is roughly 37
W per cubic meter. (Please, someone, check my math)
37W / m^3 does not excite me very much. For example, my house uses
about 1600 kW/hr of electrical power every month (it's a 100% electric house
down to the well pump). That's 53 kW/hr a day or about 2222 W continuously.
I'd need a 60 cubic meter "Mr. Fusion Reactor" to power my house, assuming
100% efficiency of conversion to electrical power, and negligible additional
volume other than the reactor core itself. Or do we think we're going to find a
way to do fusion *better* than nature does in stars?
It sometimes baffles me that we're trying to hard to build our own fusion
reactors when we've got one operating in the "neighborhood" sending energy
our way already. And this one didn't even need an NRC license.
The trick, IMHO, is thinking "outside the box" and finding novel ways of using
that energy. Everyone's focused on turning it into electricity (using solar cells)
because electricity is our hammer and everything looks like nails. So we
want to turn solar energy into electricity (at some horribly low efficiency) so
we can later use it to heat something up.
There's a great little book from the early 1960s called "Direct Use of the
Sun's Energy" (or close to that). Yeah, it's 4 decades old, but sadly enough
not much has changed since then. Besides the basics of using solar energy
to heat your house and water, you can also use it to cool things down. Think
basic chemistry and phase changes of materials.
Frank's post also was very interesting, I too have pondered whether or not
there are certain "magic" operating conditions that suddenly make the fusion
reaction rate increase by several orders of magnitude. That's an area
researchers IMHO should be looking into, not beating down the same old
path over and over, which we know leads nowhere. But I guess it's easer to
get grant money doing what is "accepted" rather than something new and
might upset the apple cart.
(oil, coal, fission), which the universe has spent millions of years slowly
building up. We need lots of energy, and we want it NOW.
What strikes me as interesting regarding the current attempts at hot fusion is
the apparent lack of "big picture" thought about the models nature has
provided us with - namely the stars. That is, if you could reproduce the output
of the Sun, would it be useful?
The best figure I could find for the sun is 230MW/sq m toal power output,
which works out to 1.40e+27 W (using 6.1e+18 sq m as the surface area).
The core of the sun is roughly the inner 30% radius region, or a volume of
about 3.81e+25 m^3. So the Sun's "power generation density" is roughly 37
W per cubic meter. (Please, someone, check my math)
37W / m^3 does not excite me very much. For example, my house uses
about 1600 kW/hr of electrical power every month (it's a 100% electric house
down to the well pump). That's 53 kW/hr a day or about 2222 W continuously.
I'd need a 60 cubic meter "Mr. Fusion Reactor" to power my house, assuming
100% efficiency of conversion to electrical power, and negligible additional
volume other than the reactor core itself. Or do we think we're going to find a
way to do fusion *better* than nature does in stars?
It sometimes baffles me that we're trying to hard to build our own fusion
reactors when we've got one operating in the "neighborhood" sending energy
our way already. And this one didn't even need an NRC license.
The trick, IMHO, is thinking "outside the box" and finding novel ways of using
that energy. Everyone's focused on turning it into electricity (using solar cells)
because electricity is our hammer and everything looks like nails. So we
want to turn solar energy into electricity (at some horribly low efficiency) so
we can later use it to heat something up.
There's a great little book from the early 1960s called "Direct Use of the
Sun's Energy" (or close to that). Yeah, it's 4 decades old, but sadly enough
not much has changed since then. Besides the basics of using solar energy
to heat your house and water, you can also use it to cool things down. Think
basic chemistry and phase changes of materials.
Frank's post also was very interesting, I too have pondered whether or not
there are certain "magic" operating conditions that suddenly make the fusion
reaction rate increase by several orders of magnitude. That's an area
researchers IMHO should be looking into, not beating down the same old
path over and over, which we know leads nowhere. But I guess it's easer to
get grant money doing what is "accepted" rather than something new and
might upset the apple cart.
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
There is a similar, longer, less densely mathematical and more conversational review paper by Scott Chubb. He fills in a lot of historical context.
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publicat ... 2-vol1.pdf
This is a book. Goto page 101 to find the paper.
Incidentally, Talbot and Scott Chubb are Uncle and Nephew, respectively.
Best, John
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publicat ... 2-vol1.pdf
This is a book. Goto page 101 to find the paper.
Incidentally, Talbot and Scott Chubb are Uncle and Nephew, respectively.
Best, John
-
Alex Aitken
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:33 am
- Real name:
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Chris, its not an impressive number but then the sun does it the hard way. 4H an all and even that wouldnt happen if it wasnt cheating by using a catalyctic method.
1kw/m2 might seem reasonable for sunlight but this is peak under the best conditions and its not much use for a power plant anywhere land costs real money. In the northern half of europe of course a solar power plant is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
1kw/m2 might seem reasonable for sunlight but this is peak under the best conditions and its not much use for a power plant anywhere land costs real money. In the northern half of europe of course a solar power plant is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Sorry about the error on the Chubb's. I know the Uncle is retired from NRL after many years service and they have a small research facility carrying on the work.
This is the way it happens........good scientists smell a winner, devote as much time as an employer will allow and ultimately quit their jobs or retire early to follow the CF dream. Ed Storms is another fine example. (I think ex-Los Alamos)
Chris' calcs are about right as an average. The sun isn't doing fusion very well. It is just doing it on the large. This is one reason I don't hold out a lot of great hope on plasmas.
Richard Hull
This is the way it happens........good scientists smell a winner, devote as much time as an employer will allow and ultimately quit their jobs or retire early to follow the CF dream. Ed Storms is another fine example. (I think ex-Los Alamos)
Chris' calcs are about right as an average. The sun isn't doing fusion very well. It is just doing it on the large. This is one reason I don't hold out a lot of great hope on plasmas.
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
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
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Was thinking a little bit about the comment that the sun's output is not very efficient. I wonder .. efficient as compared to what?
I actually calculated about 46 MW per cubic meter, for the energy output as light (the 1kW/sq m ) incident on the earth's upper atmosphere . or the std 1 Sun energy level. )
But this number far exceeds anything we do on earth... particularly if you consider the mean time between "major maintenance events".
I think some combustion turbines, might get close to the 46MW/m^3 figure, if you consider only the combustion volume, O f course they don't last a long time at these operating power levels. But the firebox volumes of std power plants are in the range of 5000 cu meters give or take.... so that with a 3000MWt (thermal) output, gives about 0.6 MW/ cu meter. Old Sol does it pretty well, wouldn't you say?
I didn't bother to look up how much more energy is emitted at higher energies, and as particles... So if Jon's figure of 230 MW/cu meter covers all that, old Sol looks even more impressive.
Our fusors are generating about a nanowatt with a cubic mm (??) of poissor volume... that's about 1 watt per cu meter. And if the site of fusion events in the table-top IEC device is actually out in the neutral gas volume, then the power density is lower by several more orders of magnitude.
Interesting things to ponder.
Dave Cooper
I actually calculated about 46 MW per cubic meter, for the energy output as light (the 1kW/sq m ) incident on the earth's upper atmosphere . or the std 1 Sun energy level. )
But this number far exceeds anything we do on earth... particularly if you consider the mean time between "major maintenance events".
I think some combustion turbines, might get close to the 46MW/m^3 figure, if you consider only the combustion volume, O f course they don't last a long time at these operating power levels. But the firebox volumes of std power plants are in the range of 5000 cu meters give or take.... so that with a 3000MWt (thermal) output, gives about 0.6 MW/ cu meter. Old Sol does it pretty well, wouldn't you say?
I didn't bother to look up how much more energy is emitted at higher energies, and as particles... So if Jon's figure of 230 MW/cu meter covers all that, old Sol looks even more impressive.
Our fusors are generating about a nanowatt with a cubic mm (??) of poissor volume... that's about 1 watt per cu meter. And if the site of fusion events in the table-top IEC device is actually out in the neutral gas volume, then the power density is lower by several more orders of magnitude.
Interesting things to ponder.
Dave Cooper
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
I was referring to volumetric efficiency of fusion. Obviously, the bulk of the sun is not involved in any form of fusion, only the tiniest of fraction is. All of this is according to a number of sources. I have read many conflicting claims being an average of 0.5 fusions/cubic meter/second to 100 fusions/ cubic meter/second. I have no way of knowing the base line for these calcs.
The actual mechanism whereby the sun fuses is hidden, perhaps in the interior. Remember, there is a range of energies for each fusion depending on what fusion type occurs. Some fusions make our D-D fusion look pretty poor.
In the fusor, our fusion zone is pretty tiny and pretty active. There are obviously areas of the sun where it is an amazingly prodigious output that is beyond our comprehension. The bulk of the sun is fusing ZIP and this drags the average fusion rate per unit volume down ( I assume the figures I have read are based on only hydrogen and helium burning which appears to be the bulk of the solar fusion work.)
We are pretty much at the mercy of what "THEY" tell us. Of course, "THEY" are the ones we have allowed to try and do fusion for us with billions of the money.
Richard Hull
The actual mechanism whereby the sun fuses is hidden, perhaps in the interior. Remember, there is a range of energies for each fusion depending on what fusion type occurs. Some fusions make our D-D fusion look pretty poor.
In the fusor, our fusion zone is pretty tiny and pretty active. There are obviously areas of the sun where it is an amazingly prodigious output that is beyond our comprehension. The bulk of the sun is fusing ZIP and this drags the average fusion rate per unit volume down ( I assume the figures I have read are based on only hydrogen and helium burning which appears to be the bulk of the solar fusion work.)
We are pretty much at the mercy of what "THEY" tell us. Of course, "THEY" are the ones we have allowed to try and do fusion for us with billions of the money.
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
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
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Looking at the last 10 years, "THEY" did s**t , while amateurs ("WE") did fusion, and boy "WE" are good at it compared to those monsters "THEY" have created. What was the budget? Thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands...for a "small" tokamak? Millions and billions of dollars...
One half of my face cries while the other laughs.
Adam
One half of my face cries while the other laughs.
Adam
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Hi Adam:
Don't worry their time is fast approaching.
DOE put off doing anything for 30 years in the vain hope they might accidently find something.
They have not.
Soon in an ironic twist of fate Farnsworth will rule the day.
They can't cut our funding so our effort will go on.
Pityfull we might be ,but I like it.
Hirsch was right in his small is beautiful assesment of fusion.
Our folks in this group will carry on long after the mainline folks pull their websites and put all the gear on Ebay.
Get your fusion posters now,soon they might go byebye.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
Don't worry their time is fast approaching.
DOE put off doing anything for 30 years in the vain hope they might accidently find something.
They have not.
Soon in an ironic twist of fate Farnsworth will rule the day.
They can't cut our funding so our effort will go on.
Pityfull we might be ,but I like it.
Hirsch was right in his small is beautiful assesment of fusion.
Our folks in this group will carry on long after the mainline folks pull their websites and put all the gear on Ebay.
Get your fusion posters now,soon they might go byebye.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
People hate uncertainty. The higher up the ladder they are, the more
they hate it. Everything they do has consequences, some of which
are completely unpredictable. Now a bunch of eggheads comes along
with an idea that might well turn half to three quarters of the economy
on its head.
Even though it sounds wonderful, in terms of what it will do, they want
it put off into some dreamy future that will come around on someone
else's watch. Why? Because there are so many uncertainties
involved. What is at work here is cowardice more than anything else,
besides, some expert somewhere back in fifties said this IEC
business would never work, right?
The other approaches haven't worked either and, in my best
judgment, they never will. If we are going to have fusion power, it will
be IEC or some variation thereof.
they hate it. Everything they do has consequences, some of which
are completely unpredictable. Now a bunch of eggheads comes along
with an idea that might well turn half to three quarters of the economy
on its head.
Even though it sounds wonderful, in terms of what it will do, they want
it put off into some dreamy future that will come around on someone
else's watch. Why? Because there are so many uncertainties
involved. What is at work here is cowardice more than anything else,
besides, some expert somewhere back in fifties said this IEC
business would never work, right?
The other approaches haven't worked either and, in my best
judgment, they never will. If we are going to have fusion power, it will
be IEC or some variation thereof.
-
Paul_Schatzkin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
- Real name: aka The Perfesser
- Contact:
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
yeah, it's hard to say what the output of a fusor is per unit of volume, but I've always maintained that there is no match for a fusor in terms of out put per dollar.
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."
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."
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
This is an absolute fact and is uncontestable.
Richard Hull
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
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
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
I found an interesting discussion of something like this in the .pdf that
John Hendron posted a link to here:
https://fusor.net/board/
view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_links&key=1093901178
Near the end of the chapter they talk about fusion taking place in a
titanium target that has adsorbed deuterium. They are bombarding the
target with deuterons, but they are NOT cooking deuterons out of the
target in advance of bombarding it.
There is a lot of stuff that seems to be of worthwhile interest in this old
book. A lot of the techniques discussed will eventually become
important to fusor work once budgets will allow for their
implementation.
John Hendron posted a link to here:
https://fusor.net/board/
view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_links&key=1093901178
Near the end of the chapter they talk about fusion taking place in a
titanium target that has adsorbed deuterium. They are bombarding the
target with deuterons, but they are NOT cooking deuterons out of the
target in advance of bombarding it.
There is a lot of stuff that seems to be of worthwhile interest in this old
book. A lot of the techniques discussed will eventually become
important to fusor work once budgets will allow for their
implementation.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
A lot of this has to do with the rather well documented surface chemistry of metal-deuterides, whereby the deuterium resides in bulk near the surface lattice interface.
Richard Hull
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
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
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
Well, here I go thinking again. This might be a good way to charge/
replenish a fusor with deuterium. The tube guys used finely divided
titanium or finely divided zirconium as a hydrogen reservoir to extend
the life of tubes that needed to be backfilled with H2.
I worked in chemical plant that used a lot of titanium piping and valves
and "hydriting" of the titanium components was a common problem.
Titanium becomes very brittle once it is saturated with hydrogen. The
upshot is, causing titanium to adsorb hydrogen isn't much of a
problem. The real question I have is about what form is the hydrogen/
deuterium is in when it is forced back out of the metal. Will it be
atomic or molecular? If it comes out in molecular form, I suppose you
could surround the reservoir with a tubular plate and put a strong
positive charge on it. That should at least ionize the molecules if not
break them down into separate atoms.
dabbler.
replenish a fusor with deuterium. The tube guys used finely divided
titanium or finely divided zirconium as a hydrogen reservoir to extend
the life of tubes that needed to be backfilled with H2.
I worked in chemical plant that used a lot of titanium piping and valves
and "hydriting" of the titanium components was a common problem.
Titanium becomes very brittle once it is saturated with hydrogen. The
upshot is, causing titanium to adsorb hydrogen isn't much of a
problem. The real question I have is about what form is the hydrogen/
deuterium is in when it is forced back out of the metal. Will it be
atomic or molecular? If it comes out in molecular form, I suppose you
could surround the reservoir with a tubular plate and put a strong
positive charge on it. That should at least ionize the molecules if not
break them down into separate atoms.
dabbler.
-
MARK-HARRISS
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:43 pm
- Real name:
Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper
I often wonder what neutron count this historical antique would produce with
a titanium plate and a deuterium charge in it.
http://www.r-type.org/static/round.htm
Mark H
a titanium plate and a deuterium charge in it.
http://www.r-type.org/static/round.htm
Mark H