Hello Bill Lewis here

Please take a moment to introduce yourself in this forum and tell us about your interest. You must use your full real name. We do not allow the used of "handles" and pseudonyms on this site.
Locked
Bill_lewis
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:07 pm
Real name: Bill Lewis

Hello Bill Lewis here

Post by Bill_lewis »

I have a background in physics, industrial vacuum systems used in Semiconductor manufacturing, controls, high power vacuum tubes (original "electron"ics) used in microwave transmitters, and RADAR.

I've looked at the magnetic confinement fusion, and see several issues.

Like every single other working system in history, I believe a hybrid system has the best chance of success.

With the fusor designs I've seen, the big issue is you spend most of the energy heating the cathode element, and recycling the charged deuterium between anode, and cathode.

These issues were solved in vacuum tubes a century ago.

I'm interested in the ion beam designs.

One downside is amping up a fusor several orders of magnitude using beam focusing technology makes it no longer a basement project,...unless your basement is lead lined.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Hello Bill Lewis here

Post by Richard Hull »

Welcome and nice thoughts on how IECF will not work at our level. So far, all fusion like the the ridiculous search for a "perpetuum mobile" by the uninformed stuff, has forced the same logic of the ignorant. "If I only had the bigger magnet with more strength to chase the force created by others of like type, it would go forever"

It is this mindset that has befallen the fusion questers to tilt at such dreamy windmills for decades. If we just make it bigger with better stuff, which always works out to be bigger stuff, as well, it must surely go on forever....(ignition).

A number of us here suffer under no such illusion as to the fusor or the very concept of IECF. We just do fusion and accept the billion to one net loss in energy needed to do fusion in our homes and small labs.

As always continue to muse within your specialty on how to do fusion 7 orders of magnitude better that we here achieve and still be 2 orders of magnitude below any useful fusion, and yes, at two orders of magnitude below successful, useful fusion, you will need a lead lined lab.

Even at 9 orders of magnitude down, many of us make use of suitable lead shielding.

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
Bill_lewis
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:07 pm
Real name: Bill Lewis

Re: Hello Bill Lewis here

Post by Bill_lewis »

Thanks for the reply.

Successful fusion will likely require a combination approach.

One thing that bothers me.

All fusion attempts are basically brute force, use enough heat, pressure, magnetic or electric field, and fusion occurs.

So I'm sitting in an MRI machine that uses magnetic fields to flip hydrogen atoms to detect the rf emitted when they flip back, and wonder,... how would flipping the deuterium before impact affect the energy required to fuse?

Is there a more elegant solution in chromodynamics?

Using our more advanced knowledge of how atoms, and quarks work to "tunnel", and get fusion at lower energy levels.
Locked

Return to “Please Introduce Yourself”