Solid state fusion, returns

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hi, I'm a dog lover Japanese. Call me Hiro.

The summary describes again from "Please Introduce Yourself".

In a nutshell, Lightning Thunderbolt emits gamma-ray, which means nuclear fusion occurs by electric pulse energy. It's also the fusion of the Nitrogen atom that requires much more energy from deuterium. Moreover, to efficiency and minimize, use the of solid or liquid fusion fuels, which about 200 million atomic densities are denser from plasma as Tokamak. The breakthrough is to use the electric insulator or high register for fusion fuels, which generate the energy when electron collision to insulator fusion fuels.

[My page of virtual laboratory in the brains.]
(see the automatically Google translated bad broken English from Japanese documents.)
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion

[Initial hint of the theory]
Photonuclear Reactions Triggered by Lightning Discharge (Nature)
The Lightning emits gamma-ray things report was released in Nature 2017.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24630

[Assists new theory]
Artificial lightning to prompt nuclear fusion
C. Kohlfürst, F. Queisser, R. Schützhold: Dynamically assisted tunneling in the impulse regime, in Physical Review Research, 2021
https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pOid=64906

[From classical astrophysics theory]
Yes, the CNO cycle requires terrible massive energy. However, it occurs in the sun, even only 1.7% of fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
> The Sun has a core temperature of around 15.7×10^6 K and only 1.7% of 4 He nuclei produced in the Sun are born in the CNO cycle.

[Electron energy equivalent samples.]
Moreover, the electron has strong energy, that 1eV equivalent as 11604 Kelvin, which means 10KeV is equivalent to 116,045,250 (100 million) Kelvin, that is DT reaction level. If Nitrogen or Oxygen requires more energy, 1,000 KeV is equivalent to 11,604,525,006 (10 billion) Kelvin.
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-co ... lt-kelvin/

[How to choose the fusion fuels.]
However, when we choose fusion fuels, it requires easier to fuse is important. Like the atom included the neutrons more than protons. Almost hydrogen could not induce the fusion, because of lack the of neutrons.

[Plactical equipment and experiment]
1,000 KeV is already operated in power electronics equipment. But it's too large and expensive for me. My concern is how it requires the energy loss for theory to actual fusion. It's only clarified by experimentation. One of the papers said that about 1/8000 electrons could collide with nuclei of atoms. How many coulombs of the electron requires? Therefore, it requires some experimental tests.

Thank you for your consideration.
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Good you are doing research on your topic and posted here; however, do read the papers you cite!

For instance, the Nature paper on gamma rays does not support your claim of thermo-nuclear fusion in thunderstorms. The paper says that the electric field accelerates electrons, and these produce gamma rays of such energy that they (possibly) knock out a neutron from a nitrogen atom. That is a type of 'fission', not fusion. They do say this is speculation for the neutron production (but logical.) And to quote the abstract: "The centre (sic) energy of the prolonged line emission corresponds to electron–positron annihilation, providing conclusive evidence of positrons being produced after the lightning." Exactly as I posted in the previous thread* - so read the papers to understand a subject, not cherry pick words in a title.

As for "Artificial lightning producing fusion", yes, it is certainly possible that some fusion will occur given enough energy for many types of light atomic nuclei but the amount is tiny and of no practical use nor will it ever be by that process. But if you just read the abstract you would have seen that they ONLY used the lightning/thunderstorm and its electric field as a simple way to understand electric fields used in conventual fusion research - hence an analogy. The author never said a thing about fusion being done by lightning; again, you did not read the abstract much less the paper!

Yes, fusion evolving from nitrogen does certainly occur in stellar cores - but did you read that whole paper? Then you would know it has zero to do with lightning or Earth based fusion research. As for your last statement about electrons I frankly can't make any sense out of what you wrote (maybe translation issues.) You might want to read up on some the physics of current fusion research before posting on the subject.

If you cite papers either read them and understand them or else you make a post that completely undermines your statements.

* OK, Mr. Fusion - in the Intro thread I certainly had typo's on lighting ... I mean lightning, on my part ;)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Richard Hull »

I read this entire original and now this current posted extension as laboratory scale lightning blasts into nuclear fuel via insulator breakdown through the fuel which might be doing fusion. However all of this is based on some wrong thinking about terrestrial lightning doing it. There is no real nuclear fuel in lightning's path, so we can forget that for the rest if any future discussion here.

It is possible to create lightning level impulse currents in the lab through fusion fuel impregnated solids or liquids! No problem here at all....

In 1994 when I came into the water arc explosion work with Peter and Neil Graneau, I was told that they had tried 1cc of heavy water in the gun to see if fusion was created during the near megawatt peak energies expended in the 1/2-inch diameter bore of the gun, (which was standardized). They informed me it was negative. At that time, I accepted that result. (What did I know about fusion detection in deuterium at that time??) However knowing what I know now about neutron measurement and how scientists out of their depth, working alone and outside their field can just brush over such issues with both positive and negative claims.(Pons- Fleishmann)

No one seems to attach to such issues expert and fully knowledgeable nuclear and specifically, neutron metrologists! The correct scientific people seem to always be left out of these discoveries and failures. It is very frustrating from my viewpoint. Real results can be missed, while at the same time, claims can be made that are premature.

The fact that I like the idea and concept of solid state fusion, means absolutely zip in the grand scheme of things. However, after 23 years playing with neutron detection from several angles, coupled with my electronics background of 40+ years with emphasis on high energy discharges, I consider myself a better than fair neutron measurement capable technician and metrologist. I feel myself capable of critical discernment related to deuterium fusion claims.

To begin to be certain of fusion in and around megawatt impulse blasts within nuclear fuels is not a walk in the park. Such situations, regardless of shielding efforts might seem to obviate any of the standard electronic detection methods. (Fractional millivolt signals inches away from 2 megawatt electrical impulse, microsecond bursts might be a bridge too far for even a good metrologist) A thousand questions, ideas, and possible methodologies swim around just this detection question alone in such an environment.

The calm and electrically dead environmental test for neutrons around a, now quiet, deuterium loaded electrode is a dawdle, of course.

But the question arises, how much fusion do you think is occurring and any such claimed or expected fusion experiment? If you think a tremendous amount of fusion is expected.... well use a piece of rhodium in a small moderator near the experiment. (easy and no noise issues and no need for instrumentation beyond a simple GM counter.)
A moderate amount to just a little?....Use a sensitive BTI bubble detector.
A tiny amount?....Well...Here is where it gets to bringing in real metrologists!

I have gone on and on about this, but it is a serious business if you are out at the edge of fusion research into new proposed methods of achieving same.

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
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hi, Dennis P Brown

Yes, I understand your point of view.
About the Lightning emits the gamma-ray things, the paper did not say about fusion, even the emit the neutron or other particles. 
BTW, some neutron-emitting situations are special environments. What do you think? 
Where does neutron go by? Some of the neutrons will charge to the other atoms, when occurs what? And I began to solve the puzzle...

The German team describes the quantum tunneling effect by the electric pulse. That is a strict study that I could not do. I only hope that the tunnel effect occurs sometimes, I wrote. And their paper had proven it. Moreover, they inform us that boron-11 is a good fusion fuel.

All I read or cite documents are the "hint" of my thought.

However, your comment is correct, I know. 
Thank you for your comments.
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hi, Richard Hull

Thank you for your patience to read them. 
Honestly, before I reach to insulator breakdown voltage idea, I considered many things, like three-phase AC power magnetic fields, electron beams from 32-hedron fullerene that like the early hydrogen bomb, confused helical coil like the circle of wisdom, etc. But insulator breakdown is most simple and efficient, I thought. The other solid-state fusion method will exists in any different way, I think.

I respect you, who is a specialized technician and methodologist. I'm only an amateur Sunday researcher. So, I don't have any connection to industry or academia, even investors. If you know some connections to about regarding things, inform will so helpful.

Now I did not write any new technical things... Would you reference the bad broken English documents on my page? If you have any questions or others, it's my pleasure.

Thank you for your kind suggestions.
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Hiro,

Have you do some calculations about the mean energy of ions in such high density fluid? This because, the number of collisions before one fusion would be enormous and the mean ions energy extremely low, far away from the minimum necessary energy for fusions (lets say 10 keV).
Probably almost all the energy introduced in some way to make move ions will be simply transformed in heat.

Patrick Lindecker
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Again, glad you are reading about thermonuclear fusion and trying to piece together ideas. The fact that 'tunneling" accounts for almost all fusion in the Sun makes it a very important process - this process is a very well known and hardly useful for any relevant research in laboratory based fusion work. Of course it is also well known here and used by us to generate neutrons in our fusors. Being a purely quantum mechanical effect means it has no analogy in the macro-world nor is there any direct mathematical model nor any insightful theoretical bases of that process.

Electric fields are essential to our fusors but isn't a magic method for doing fusion - using really high energy electric and magnetic fields to do fusion energy is for the big boys who have billions of dollars to build massive equipment. As I said, power alone (like lightning) will not create economical fusion.

Neutrons are of no significance for fusion power (only a by-product.) Boron as a possible nuclear fuel is utterly useless for human applications (through a few charlatans are currently pushing that fuel yet again in the real fusion world for money - just proving that fools and their money will soon be parted - lol.) But boron as a possible and (very distant) future fuel in fusion reactors has been well understood for well over half a century.

Neutrons being - well, neutral - easily enter the atomic nucleus and can make these atoms unstable. Neutrons have a half life of fifteen minutes on their own before they decay to a proton, electron and neutrino via the weak nuclear force (not really all that weak.) They have no energy use except in fission reactors using very heavy elements like uranium.

Your best course of action is to read general science articles on these processes in popular magazines (like Popular Science), and only when you have a firm grasp of these elementary concepts, then read more specialized general books or articles (like Scientific American, maybe Physics Today) on these subjects. Until you have an understanding of at least to the level of a Junior level college physics student, best to avoid standard research level papers in these fields - they will only mislead you.
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hi, Patric Lindecker

In my point of view, applied energy could calculate by the electron collision amount and voltage potential. It is simple that 1 electron energy is defined as 1 eV = 1.602x10^-19 J. The electron amount is calculated as 1(A) = 1/1.602×10^-19=6.24×10^18 (electron amount/sec)
Required energy as joules are determined by the volume of fusion fuels, it may calculate the product of the electric voltage, coulomb of the electric current, and the duration time.

In this method, the energy exchange occurs the only one point that into fusion fuels. Moreover, the heat could be an effort to accelerate the fusion reaction. That means all energy loss will be effective fusion energy.

Thank you for your comments.
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hi, Dennis P Brown.

Let me clarify that my theory is electric power fusion, not thermonuclear fusion. Quantum tunneling is a popular phenomenon in nuclei reactions. German team describes some measurement results, that only could be the actual laboratory, not virtual. 

Basically, I thought of the electron motions, not the electric fields. Of course, the Lightning level equipment is not economical. However, compare to ITER or LLNL, it is so economical and efficient.

About the Neutrons, it's very important for the fusion reaction. Almost fusion reaction emits the Neutrons. If the atom does not have Neutron, the atom could not fusion react like Hydrogen, but also Deuterium can, which includes the Neutron. Almost the atom for fusion requires the same or more Neutrons than protons.

So, I'd the Computer Science degree, but got some physics classes. Perhaps, I could understand as the baseline of physics. :-)

Thank you for your comments.
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Richard Hull »

Yes the study of nuclear physics is very important. As I noted, if solid state fusion is possible in arc explosions within fuel, it would be minimal and at a net loss and would allow 99.9999% of all applied energy to wind up as heat. It would not be a net energy producer....Not even close just like our fusors.

Nature by its laws of physics forces we hunter-gatherers to hunt and gather at huge expenditure of nature's free gifts and human effort to assemble only less than satisfactory fusion systems. At the individual level a hard earned few thousands of the money and at the collective level, billions of national treasure to, in the end, lose the game of 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
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Hiro,

I'm not sure to understand why injecting electrons into a D+/T+ fuel at high energy will produce fusions ? The theory is that the electron energy is going to decrease rapidly through thousands of collisions with atoms, creating some ions.

In a collision of an electron with a an atom, the exchange of energy by collision is weak due to the big difference of weight. So a lot of atoms will be a bit moved. All this will lead to a certain temperature increasing (but not up to 1E8 0K☺), and that's all.

Please, could you explain us why electrons are going to produce fusions and not collisions.

Patrick
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hello Richard Hull

99.9999%? Is it your own intuition? I assume, that for fuels of about 200 million times the atomic density from plasma, a paper described that the electrons will collide with the nucleus with the probability of about 1/8000 = 99.99875% loss.
Therefore, I assume fusion will occur about 200,000,000 / 8,000 = 25,000 times as efficiently from plasma. Although without experiments, the prediction will not be certain.

BTW, Almost the agricultural people grow plants from seeds. If it's fruitful, it will spread to everyone.

--

Hello Lindecker

Good questions. The collision of electrons with atoms causes ionization, which breaks apart the atoms with electrons, which causes breakdown and the atoms are no longer insulators and stop producing energy. That is the problem, I knew. :-(
That is, while instantaneous energy generation is possible, continuous energy generation is difficult in the principle. Like the piston motion of the engine.
However, I assume the may bullet-type fusion fuels set or self-mending equipment would be solved for continuous fusion... also requires the experiment.

Thank you for your comments.
Hiro
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

99.9875% is correct. :-o
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

In addition, the weight difference issue for electrons to nuclei, I assume the massive volume of electrons would be solved I hope.
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Electrons have no measurable cross-section so they exhibit no volume - even the simplest search would have told you this.

I feel it is best that I no longer respond to your continuous incorrect statements nor your extremely unsupported speculation since this does not to appear to be helping you to learn on your own.

I do wish you the best of luck in your future studies.
User avatar
hiroyuki_fukada
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:50 am
Real name: Hiroyuki FUKADA
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion, returns

Post by hiroyuki_fukada »

Hello Dennis P Brown

Sorry for the uncertain words. I'm not an English native speaker, so I don't know the correct word or any things.
Yes, your comments are accurate. Before studying physics, I want to study English again...
In my brain, the electron is countable as 1 eV = 1.602x10^-19 J = 11604 Kelvin, so it looks electron has volume. But it does not have volume, I understand. 

Thank you for your comment.
Hiro
--
Kindly Regards,
Hiroyuki FUKADA
https://www.deepmatrixlab.com/thunderbolt-fusion
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”