Fusor Computer Modeling

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Guy's I've been doing a lot of rocket work and for guidance systems we have soft and hardware in the loop computer modeling to help design and test guidance systems. I was wondering if the fusor had progressed to a point that computer modeling was available? If not I think now would be a good time to work on a computer model openly that would allow us to do simulations of the device before we build it.
I think a good model could be built and everyone could benefit and actually enjoy playing with it? I myself am not a very good programmer however I don't expect anyone to do something for nothing. I would find a way to compensate those that might have an interest in doing the work part of the simulator. I myself am only interested in the use of said program and I would do the work of raising the funds for you.

Monroe

Contact me if your interested in such a project.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Chris Bradley »

Hello Monroe, and welcome.

The forum sees newcomers seeking to perform what they claim will be 'real' work-performing fusion on a semi-regular basis. In some cases it is merely words that are doomed from the start to remain a dream. In your case, given your background, I am confident you are a committed and practical experimenter who will make in-roads into some form of experimentation. So I am sure the folks here will, like me, be supportive of your dedication to this new 'road' of discovery for you, but will equally wonder at what point you will ramp up the learning curve to the point where you come to recognise the reality.

In one way, the fusor is too simple to be worth bothering simulating - it is an accelerator based neutron generator with a gaseous target. In another, the plasma discharge behaviour is so complicated that it is not worth attempting to simulate it. In general, folks focus on the latter in the hope that it will make some sort of difference. In reality, it is the former that is dominant.

The most energetic beam to plasma-target reaction is from the neutral beam injectors at JET, where 20MW of 100~200 keV neutral deuterium atoms are hammered into a 20~30 keV plasma. The fusion product is some 2~3MW of fusion power. So, even with the most extremely favourable conditions, beam-target fusion still does not pay back the energy you put in.

One day, who can really say, maybe a fusion energy amplifier, or break-even, machine will materialise. But there's no current reason to think it will look anything like a fusor.
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Indeed! I surely know the odds of me making any progress with the fusor are very low indeed. I have a few ideas I'd like to try focusing ions and setting up resonances. What I'd like to model is the effects of magnetic fields and electrostatic fields at different energies. Indeed the plasma modeling would be beyond the simulation I had in mind. I have some old beam optics software (dos lol) from my fathers work at Eaton and Hughes I can borrow for starters.
I'd also like to simulate cyclotronic resonance and different shape chambers for cavity resonance.

Monroe

I am just using this as a starting point for research I don't have any real plans to solve the fusion problem yet :) Iyselft's really just Mr Wizards fun with fusion for now. I expect to learn what I wanted about electrostatic confinement or Electrodynamic Confinement. I wanna see for my self I'm a visualize it experimenter and I need a toy to play with I can afford. It's not a lost cause in that respect by far.
I have access to resources to do some interesting work anyway.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

For those interested I have found with the help of Mike V. several softwares you may find useful I'll add to the list as I find more. If others have useful software to mention I will add them to the list:

Poisson Superfish
EPHI
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

SIMION is another my father mentioned.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Monroe,

I think we can exclude all the simple solutions and all of it's variations after 60 years of intense fusion research, so electrostatic confinement (first order approach) on it's own isn't going to do it, electrostatic/magnetic or electrostatic/mechanic (second order approach) probably isn't going to do it either, it is possible that the solution lies in the third or fourth order approach.

If we look at the sun, it more or less fits the third order, using electrostatic, gravitational and to an extent mechanical confinement in it's core, maybe there are also some magnetic forces that play a role in the fusion process as well.

Time wise, it may have taken 6 years to explore the first order devices, then 60 years to explore all the second order devices, and maybe 600 years to take it to the next level

Better get going, no time to loose :)

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

The software is not a solution it's just a tool to allow better understanding.

I would love to discuss this in my fusion theory thread.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett »

In Bussard's talk, "Should Google go Nuclear?" Bussard mentions that the reason he spent 12 years experimenting without computer models was that it would take 14 years of time on a Cray supercomputer to model his system.

I don't believe that for a minute - at least not with today's computers (definitely what he said is true in 1992).

Especially with parallel processing in a graphics card I think its do-able to model lots of systems and configurations in considerably less time (and $$$) than it would take to perform the experiments.

So what effects on the particles are most important to model? Each option below adds orders of magnitude of time to do the calculation, due to the need to calculate for each particle. I'm still in the beginning of understanding nuclear fusion reaction forces, so please do add your insight on what else should be in the list. I've been a long time out of Semiconductor Physics so my quantum physics is rusty.

Gravity
Electrostatic forces of Container walls, grid, apparatus fixtures
Magnetic forces
Quantum uncertainty of position/velocity
Particle loss by diffusion into grid, wall, vacuum pump or other apparatus
Nuclear forces (haven't completely researched this one, but assume this is only necessary at near distances)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Richard Hull »

All the solutions and predictions will forever fall short of what is really going on in the complex multibody system to be modeled. Too many cross interacting forces and probabilities.

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
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett »

Do you feel the models could come close, though? Even within 25% of reality?

Lots of fluid dynamics simulators, cloth simulators, particle simulators out there. They're at least close enough to be believable, if not the exact combination of chaotic reactions occurring in a real experiment, by using realistic variable in the algorithm. Existing data for inertial confinement reactors should be a good start, that you could then move on with to simulate other designs, energy inputs and reactor sizes.

Blender 3d particle video render
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

The keys to a successful (physically meaningful) model or simulation are, first of all, having a specific problem that is within the domain of validity of the model, and second, furnishing a relevantly-accurate representation of the system being studied.

Often, our discussions about modeling don't begin with a clear statement of any problem. Instead, some powerful computer code or collection of codes are conceived of as virtual "black boxes" inside of which one can, apparently, synthesize reality to suit any and all information needs. And that's a total pipe dream:
You can't begin to talk about "how close" a model would come if a problem isn't defined. You can't meaningfully consider how to represent the system (does one ignore or not ignore gravity, the Uncertainty Principle, and all that other stuff in the list) if a problem isn't defined. And you can't propose what tool to use (SIMION, Poisson Superfish, etc.) if a problem isn't defined.

SIMION and Poisson Superfish are indeed applicable to SOME fusion-related questions. I have never heard of a "cloth simulator," though; Maybe it helps crackpot free-energy inventors pull the proverbial wool over their investors' eyes?

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Me personally I like to watch the pretty simulations and play with the possibilities the software provides :) It gives me ideas. It's fun :) and educational. Better models mean more meaningful results! I'm sure if your looking for magic in the software you wont find it! Because we would have to know the magic to program the software for it. It just a tool SIMION works if your doing beam simulations for sure. The idea is to advance the software for our thing.

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

SIMION works if your doing beam simulations for sure.
Again, it depends entirely on the problem. It's useful for SOME beam transport simulations (often those without significant space charge effects or collisions or transient fields).

A hammer is useful for some repair tasks, but not for repairing fine bone china.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

So there is no possible chance for useful software for a fusor? BS There's plenty that could be done interesting and educational just based on fusor experiments you could make a simulator for various sizes voltages and currents and pressures with various grids ect.. that model what you can and cant do well. Hell you could make a spreadsheet that would help most guys make their first fusor. It doesn't have to be perfect lol just a guide.

Something that could be built upon made useful. It's not quite as easy as a tesla coil but it's not that big a deal you cant model it to help others decide what they want to build in a general way. These other tools like SIMION are far advanced for what I'm talking about anyway.

Why make it a big joke around here to do something useful?

At least make it easy to design a good neutron source. There's nothing hard about that!
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett »

Carl, is there some specific reason for the crackpot joke you'd like to elaborate on? I understand that there's a large number of them out there, and I'll probably come to understand this site is a magnet for them, but there's nothing particularly crack-potish about computer modelling of physical phenomena that I know about.

The problems of ICR are well-defined, I think, and I'd like to simulate all of the major ones, whatever the major ones may be. Finding out what those may be and how to do that is the point of this discussion, right?

I'd like to start by modeling a spherical apparatus with some disturbances to the sphere where there may be a window, gas valves, vacuum pump port, high-voltage feedline for the grid and any other disturbance others may think is necessary to model. I'd then like to introduce, with user-defined controls available, some number of deuterium atoms, some number of unwanted particles (oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, Argon, oil particles, whatever else experts here think would be relevant). I would like to have adjustable software controls on voltage and current on the grid and then set everything loose to interact. Each "step" of the program, the particles each judge the forces on them from each other item in the system, and set a velocity vector. Next step, re-evaluate based on present position and velocity. Probably Heisenberg's uncertainty will have to become involved there, with some randomizer algorithm tweaking the positions and/or velocities to simulate real uncertainty. That's what the purpose of the list is - which interactions are most important, and which don't matter? In my college days when I took Semiconductor Device Physics most all of our calculations showed that gravity was completely irrelevant. So maybe it's irrelevant at a range of 1 mm from another particle but relevant when there's some free space. Or maybe there's never more than a mm of free space. If no one knows, then that's fine, software can be designed to turn these controls on/off as their importance is shown or disproven (but it takes probably some significant computing time to show that).

The significance is that if this is feasible, 3D videos can be produced with open-source software that at least I understand (Blender 3D) and give some visibility to the interactions going on. I feel the most valuable question this would answer that so far it doesn't seem like is known, is where does the fusion occur most? In the transit zone between the shell and grid? Inside the plasma ball? On the grid itself? Answering those questions, which are of particular interest to me right now without having yet studied the problem much, would give me ideas about what changes to the apparatus might be effective to increase fusion.

Note: I am not a computer programmer, nor do I have personal experience with particle simulation, but I have read about it a lot and do understand math/physics/programming. Specialization is for insects. :)

EDIT:
I'm doing some investigating to see what the viability of this sort of model is with modern computers. This is not meant to be accurate, but a general, quick back of the envelope study.

At 10e-4 Torr, a 12" spherical chamber completely filled with deuterium following the ideal gas law has 9.6368727e16 deuterium atoms. We'll round that to 100 peta-particles, or if calculating for every particle on every step, 100 petacalculations per step. The Intel I7 4-core processor is available in a 3.9 GHz package with 187 GFLOPS of power. I'm going to make an assumption that floating point precision is useful for the model - it may require double floats. Who knows how many operations are required per particle-step without setting up an actual model, so I'm going to use a large number and assume 1000 operations. That reduces the number of particle-step calculations that can be done in a second to 187 million. That's 17 years to model one step of the entire system on a particle-by-particle basis on a crazy good home PC. The IBM roadrunner in Los Alamos would take around 28 hours per step.

That's a significant enough roadblock that I see significant modelling and simplification of a specific problem would need to take place, and free-particle simulation is not really viable. Maybe if we reduce to the scale of Iron Man's fusion power cell, it's something that could more easily be simulated. :)

I also found what may be a useful book to help model the problem.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

It seems to me that to be meaningful, all these modeling discussions ought to start with:

What do I want to know, and how accurate or precise is good enough?


Instead, we invariably get into talking about tools. Sometimes very specific ones.

My point remains that you can't select (or build) the right tool without knowing what the job is.

Russ, toward the end of your own tool discussion, you hinted briefly at a real question: "where does the fusion occur most?" Let me focus on that as an example. The specifics of the question are of huge importance to the tractability of answering it with existing models or having a reasonable chance at a meaningful result from a custom approach. If one happens to know as an input specification the steady-state angular (w), energy-dependent (E), reactant particle flux F(r, w, E) at all locations r within the assumed system, then computing a spatial reaction rate at all r from the well-developed nuclear cross-section databases is likely to give predictions that are accurate enough for most practical information needs. But usually one does not know F(r, w, E) and implicitly wants to model this, too. In some apparatus, e.g. high-vacuum colliders with ion sources, the particle sources are well-defined; one can predict the fluxes using various techniques or can directly compute spatial reaction rates with a Monte Carlo approach. But what if you are interested in the "simple" Hirsch-type fusor that almost all hobbyists build? Holy shit, do you have a difficult problem to deal with! Fusors are often characterized by only a few macroscopic measured attributes, like voltage, total current, and pressure of a background gas. The flux of reactant particles is being generated throughout the reaction volume by a self-sustaining glow discharge, a complex soup of atomic physics processes. Predicting F(r, w, E) and somehow benchmarking that prediction against reality are massive challenges. Under certain favorable conditions, particle-in-cell codes can provide useful information in such a problem, but the capability is not generally well-developed. In fact, the cross-section measurements needed to support the atomic process simulations often don't even exist!

The question one asks and the input information one can provide about the physical reality of interest are central to any modeling exercise. Without specifics, there is nothing to talk about, no meat on the bone.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Why not simulate the observed and forget about the physics that are so difficult then. I'm talking about a tool to help new folks build a fusor so they can make the observations themselves? Something that will advance what IS known. Something open source something that can be built upon. Rather than waste everyone's time with vagueness about generalities something quick to get to the point. If you make it so and put in X energy you can expect operation to be so.
I would hope it would get developed as computers advance and simulators advance to the point where they can simulate the harder physics. As I am sure without a doubt that will occur at some point maybe sooner rather than later. You have to start somewhere and starting with observed operation is better than nothing.
Right now the hardest thing to accomplish to launch big high powered rockets is 3 sigma dispersion analysis the FAA requires for launches. The software that does a mediocre monte carlo 3 sigma cost a grand. If your connected to DOD you can obtain TAOS (which the FAA uses) for free.

I'd rather get something started now to avoid similar things in the future here. Some of these young guy's are pretty sharp and they might pick up the ball on the harder programming if they have a place to start. The 3 Sigma dispersion analysis you can buy has been developed from a simple program called Rocksim and the original 3 Sigma was a free program called Splash.

All I know is nothing from nothing leaves nothing. I'd rather encourage someone to try the hard thing rather than say Oh it's too hard and Oh it's just not worth the effort. Because I think it is always better to try the hard thing even if you fail. You tried at some point someone will succeed! Standing on the shoulders of those before him. Give em something to stand on or all the research is for nothing! Today you need programs to teach because that's what the young use rather than books today like it or not. It needs to be fun to learn! Doesn't make it right it's just the way it is. You have to work with what you've got.

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett »

Carl, you're absolutely right, as I was able to discern from my back-of-the-envelope calculations. I need to read up on fusion modelling to decide for myself whether any sort of simulation at all is worthwhile to pursue for my purposes. Do you know of any particularly good books?
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

http://www.efda.org/fusion/focus-on-jet ... n-plasmas/ Here's a nice basic look at fusion modeling.

Monroe

What has happened here is I was talking about some basic modeling for fusor design and it got turned into a discussion about what someone else wanted. Indeed complete modeling of plasma physics is difficult. What I meant was something much simpler. However I would also like a complete model indeed and the more the better and eventually so.
Adding some of the effects from SIMION and such was just an idea I did not intend the model to be based on such advanced work, but I did get caught up in the idea. I guess I'll just have to write my own modeling software.

Sorry I even brought it up
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

some basic modeling for fusor design
What do you mean by this? If you can communicate clearly what you want out of this "basic modeling," then it will be infinitely easier for people in the community to point you in a viable direction (or tell you what the challenges are).

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

I don't think the obvious needs an explanation! What the hell where they thinking? I wanted something that would require an army to develop? Nothing I'm into requires more than some collaboration between 3 or 4 guy's. I'm starting to rethink my participation here. What would I want to model everything we can within reason! DUH!

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
jelopez777
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:39 pm
Real name: Jose Lopez

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by jelopez777 »

You have to start off with something, I would recommend modeling just one ion within an internal chamber and see what happens. You will find with one ion is a challenge already. Simulate a few random collisions along its path and see if you can achieve confinement. This will allow you to investigate basic variables such as chamber voltage, chamber shape and size. It will also allow you to understand what the problem is, a mandatory path towards the solution.
Jose Lopez
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Chris Bradley »

Monroe Lee King Jr wrote:I don't think the obvious needs an explanation!
OK ... what do you say is the obvious mechanism by which fusible collisions occur?

Modelling is the process by which a model is reduced down to a mathematical form to make it tractable. You have to have a model you think, or want to test, before you can create a mathematical simulation.

In your case, I do feel you are now suffering from a problem that confronts the, let's say, 'more capable' and experienced person who contemplates building a fusor, which is that there are so many opportunities to do 'mini-projects' within the main project (that on the face of it looks quite simple) that you risk becoming continually distracted by 'other projects'.

You might find it is a whole lot easier to actually build a working fusor first, which will give you a visceral insight into the behaviour and operation of the device which pictures and words cannot relay. Most folks who run one, or similar device, get a 'feeling' about what is going on in it. If you get to that stage, then you can begin turning what you think is going on, your 'model', into a mathematical form. Without that step, it would be a hopeless venture to simply try to predict every particle and interaction in the operating space (which you would otherwise need to do if you cannot rationalise the significant mechanisms in your model).

Once you have a working fusor, you can then look at these other projects, trying to build a diffusion pump, etc.. If you try to do everything in one single project, I am fairly confident it will never get finished. Set your objective, set a plan to achieve it along the path of least resistance, then focus on that. If you let yourself get distracted in an uncontrolled manner, you'll not get anything done. Seems to me that you've set too many hares running now and are over-stretching yourself.
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Naa I can do it- watch me. I'm not happy without too many things to do. It will take longer but it's fun watching a critical mass develop. Round robin style :) little here little there it gets done. I'm still running a rocket and balloon program too! http://www.photostospace.com/launch-par ... rometheus/ And running a review of the VR Brain at DIY Drones. http://diydrones.com/group/ardupilot-space-program
working on a cold gas thruster system at Foxteam UAV Clan
http://www.virtualrobotix.com/group/team-prometheus
And a optical tracker with GPS back-up with optictracker
http://www.optictracker.com/Home.html
And perhaps a few other projects when people from those projects contact me I help them out too!
Team Prometheus is all I do 24/7 sometimes around the clock!
I do this all in my head without a notebook! I started a notebook for the fusor project! Because it's off my beaten path. Over the last 5 almost 6 years.


Monroe

I've been involved in several successful Kickstarters that went over $100,000 Like:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/575 ... t-in-space
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mic ... a-tethered
and we just won the DIY ROCKET contest with Team Sol-X @ http://www.openspaceuniversity.org/#!ro ... enge/c22xk
Oh yeah and I'm working on the gravity development board with Sol-X http://www.solarsystemexpress.com/gravi ... board.html

I'm busy on SKYPE! lol
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Richard Hull »

Models are only as good as the data fed to them and the parameters covered within them. Intimacy with all the processes and parameters are things only a hands-on guy can begin to explain to the sit-at-desk modeler. This is the weak link in the modeling chain.

Models can be very predictive when the variables are few and independent of each other. (not mutually interacting on or altering each other) variables changing other variables in a non-linear fashion is a crazy business. I think Bussard understood this at a core level.

The Tokamak boys and plasma physics guys, in general, have spent many years on models using some of the best computers available and the best minds working on those models. They have spent more time modeling than on hardware run time and we see how far they are along the road to fusion.

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