"Electric Fusion Systems"

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".
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

Between fusion startups, fusion at the billion dollar level and the vastly expanding "Green" business, there is money to be made. Green has infected the military who, in time of war, is expected to lay waste to our enemies. Money and now "image" drives the 21st century world. There is no image without money being spent or earned.

Fusion and Green are mere goals both equally distant even if possible at their full expected implementation. Fusion was green before there was Green.

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
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

As promised, EFS is now ready to reveal much more of our Light Element Electric Fusion (LEEF) technology.

I will start with the fuel, which is the real breakthrough.

The compound, Li(NH3)4(Xe)12, is a complex chemical compound. It consists of one lithium atom, four nitrogen atoms, twelve hydrogen atoms, and twelve xenon atoms.

The molar mass of this compound is approximately 1650.6 g/mol. The elemental composition is as follows:

- Lithium (Li): 3.45% mole percent, 0.420% mass
- Nitrogen (N): 13.8% mole percent, 3.394% mass
- Hydrogen (H): 41.4% mole percent, 0.7328% mass
- Xenon (Xe): 41.4% mole percent, 95.45% mass

EFS has discovered how to synthesize this compound in such a way to create a fuel that is a dense, low-temperature amalgamation of noble gas, lithium, and ammonia. This unique combination forms a heavy Rydberg matter fuel. Rydberg matter is a phase of matter formed by Rydberg atoms, which are atoms in a high-energy state with a large atomic radius or principal quantum number. This heavy Rydberg matter fuel modifies the distribution of electrons and ions, which significantly changes the conditions for proton-lithium fusion.

The heavy Rydberg structure of the fuel condensate substitutes several ammonium ions in place of electrons of the lithium, resulting in internuclear distances of a few angstroms, which places the reactants within the atomic radius of lithium.

The fusion process is initiated by a resonant oscillating electrical flash arc and subsequent electron/charge and photo-flash dissociation of the fusion fuel. This leads to a supercritical reactant state that yields a dense plasma of excited heavy Rydberg ions. The resulting coulomb explosions, shockwaves, and fusion events produce energetic alpha decay particles.

The kinetic energy of these charged particles is harvested through inductive coupling to the extreme dipole moments of the heavy Rydberg ion fuel. This energy is also captured electrically as an active capacitively coupled component in the oscillating electrical circuit.

Is the Lawson Criterion Logical in this Case?

To calculate the Lawson criteria for EFS LEEF HRM Lithium proton fusion, we need to consider the relevant parameters and equations.
The Lawson criteria are typically expressed as the product of plasma density (n), plasma temperature (T), and plasma confinement time (τ).

1. Plasma Density (n):
For liquid density plasma, we can assume a density of 0.6 g/cm^3, which is equivalent to 6 × 10^21 particles/cm^3.
2. Plasma Temperature (T):
Given a temperature of 5000 K, we convert it to electron volts (eV) using the Boltzmann constant:
(k_B):
T (eV) = T (K) * k_B (eV/K) Using k_B = 8.617333262145 × 10^(-5) eV/K, we have:
T (eV) = 5000 * 8.617333262145 × 10^(-5) eV/K ≈ 0.430866631
3. Plasma Confinement Time (τ):
Assuming a confinement time of 1 ms (0.001 seconds).
Now, we can calculate the Lawson criteria:
n * τ * T^3

Substituting the values:
Lawson Criteria = (6 × 10^21 particles/cm^3) * (0.001 seconds) * (0.430866631 eV)^3
Calculating the Lawson Criteria:
Lawson Criteria ≈ 5.247 × 10^7 particles·cm^(-3)·s·eV^3

Comparison with Mainstream D-T Fusion:
The Lawson Criteria for EFS LEEF HRM Lithium & Hydrogen fusion can be compared to the Lawson Criteria for mainstream Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) fusion. In D-T fusion, the plasma conditions are typically different, and the parameters may vary. However, for comparison purposes, let us consider a typical D-T fusion Lawson Criteria. In D-T fusion, a typical Lawson Criteria is around 1 × 10^14 particles·cm^(-3)·s·eV^3.
By comparing the Lawson Criteria of EFS LEEF HRM Lithium & Hydrogen fusion (5.247 × 10^7 particles·cm^(-3)·s·eV^3) with the mainstream D-T fusion Lawson Criteria (1 × 10^14 particles·cm^(-3)·s·eV^3), we can see that the mainstream D-T fusion has a significantly higher Lawson Criteria.

This indicates that mainstream D-T fusion requires much higher plasma densities, temperatures, and confinement times to achieve self-sustained fusion reactions.

The traditional Lawson criterion is not an adequate measure of the LEEF process due to its unique fuel environment that does not suffer radiative losses like those of hot thermonuclear plasma, which has corresponding loss vectors like electron cyclotron emissions.

The LEEF burn occurs instantaneously, through a Coulomb explosion, and the products kinetically thermalize instead of radiatively losing energy. This thermal energy is transferred into the surrounding dense Rydberg matter fuel and is inductively coupled to the reactor magnetic domain as well as electrically, as an active component. The electromagnetic energy is kept in oscillation and well-conserved.

Therefore, it is necessary to analyze LEEF in terms of cross-sections. For example, the established linear accelerator cross section for hot proton-lithium fusion is lower than for deuterium- tritium fusion. However, the unique properties of heavy Rydberg ions must be considered when evaluating LEEF. These properties are determined by the properties of the constituent(s) as a whole, masked behind one or more electrons in quantum states of the Rydberg ion, as if the core(s) were monatomic. Heavy Rydberg ions have a charge and mass ratio that is modified due to the Rydberg structure of ions and electrons.

EFS's heavy Rydberg ion fuel is a cluster of lithium, hydrogen, and nitrogen, totaling ~24 molecular mass, yet the Rydberg structure of ions and electrons present charge spatial effects resembling that of hydrogen. The atomic radius of the Li(NH3)4 Rydberg ion is on the order of 2-3 Angstroms, on par with lithium, and a mass of ~24 suggests a dramatic reduction in Coulomb repulsion. In fact, we condense the heavy Rydberg ion fuel to a liquid via hydrogen bonds.

The structure of the heavy Rydberg ion fuel surrounds the lithium with a shell of 12 hydrogen, resulting in a complex ion that is uniquely and ideally suited for fusion fuel. Electron and optical pumping of the fuel volume results in an accumulating internal excitation in the fuel ions. The wave functions of the lithium confined to the tight ammonia shell require further research. This combines the fusible elements into a heavy Rydberg matter atom/ion that can be impacted in nearly any vector driving nuclear fusion events.

Electron distribution in high Rydberg wave functions along with electron degeneracy combined with charge masking effects induced by Rydberg states of ion clusters in a dense mixture of EFS's heavy Rydberg matter fuel is a method for increasing the fusion probabilities in a low ignition temperature environment. This makes the power appliance design much easier. This shielding of the nuclear Coulomb repulsion in EFS's heavy Rydberg matter fuel mixture notably improves cross-sections and fusion probabilities.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

Well explained in theory. Locking down xenon atoms in a compound is quite a feat. In what state is this new compound at STP?

Please turn this new super fusion fuel concept into hardware that produces net energy and get back with us as to your results in using it to do fusion with accurately measured input energy numbers versus acceptably measured energy output. Q total.

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
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Great question! Thank you. The basic structure is a tetrahedral molecule. Under ambient conditions it is condensed matter of crystalline liquid.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Sometimes I wish one of these companies would just call itself, "Word Salad, Inc."

--PS
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."
Sean George
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:46 am
Real name: Sean George
Location: USA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Sean George »

What experimental evidence is there for the existence of Li(NH3)4(Xe)12? Have you confirmed by mass spec?

The stoichiometry is very odd, how many Xe-Xe bonds must be in this structure? Xenon is difficult to form bonds with, let alone with other Xe atoms. Here's a rare example of Xe-Xe: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.199702731

If this truly did exist (stable at atmospheric pressure!?), I'd handle with extreme caution...
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
Niels Bohr
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

So, this joins the thousands of crystaline liquids known to man? I suggest putting it to the fusion test in hardware. The xenon will act as a shielding gas against any welding like hydrogenation and associated embrittlement of the walls of the reactor vessel. The waste hydrogen can be bottled and used in the coming hydrogen powered transport vehicles when the electric vehicles fail miserably. As to the future use of the hydrogen xenide or xenon hydride produced as another waste product, perhaps its instability might be used to regenerate the hydrogen and xenon for recycling.

Such a fusion reactor could also be a source of energetic production of special metalo-xenon compounds in the walls of the vessel.

The imagined processes are endless once the power gets on the grid. A truly double reactor both chemical and nuclear. A true "steam punk" system.

Have you worked out the nuclear ash equation yet? As Lithium is the only fusible component the Li + Li should make a number of possible nuclear ash components. I know you mentioned alpha particle ash as a form of direct energy conversion.

Unfortunately, word salads often generate many questions. I hope the questions do not generate a subsequent word salad reply.


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
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Frank Sanns »

I have to step in here and clarify some points.

1. Using real technical words with false conclusions is the first sign of a bullshit artist.

2. Rydberg matter can change the electron environment of atoms. It does nothing to change the charges on the nuclei.

3. Even if internuclear distances are reduced, the coulomb barrier will not just let positive charged nuclei fuse.

4. The mention of Lawson criteria is laughable. Self sustaining is monumentally more demanding that just doing fusion at any reasonable Q. Talking about Lawson when a Q of 1 is not even achieved or even Q=0.00001, is putting the cart before the horse. It just shows that this is not reasonably feasible by ten orders of magnitude or more.

There is more but I will stop here.

I don't know what is more insulting, posting here such flail or thinking the technical people of the group would not see right through it.
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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

So I'd never heard of a "coulomb explosion" before, so I looked it up on wikipedia.

Turns out, it happens when you take ultrashort, extraordinarily intense laser pulses, and hit molecules with them so that some number of the outer shell electrons get ripped off the molecules. At which point the now ionized atoms in the molecule are mutually repulsive because of their positive charges, so they blow apart. Exactly what PREVENTS fusion from happening.

So how is it that your coulomb explosions are causing fusion? The whole reason there is an explosion, is because the atomic nuclei of the ionized atoms are NOT close enough for the strong nuclear force to take over and fuse them. Furthermore the initial kinetic energies of the atoms of the molecules are low, because they are bound together in the molecule. So when the electrons are removed, initially the nuclei are close together and relatively stationary, at which point their coulombic repulsion blows them apart and they gain kinetic energy as they fly apart. But the amount of energy they gain is not going to be enough to cause fusion to happen. (Which AFAIK only starts to happen with fuels that are the easiest to fuse at several thousand eV. For deuterium it is about 10keV.) I don't know the minimum keV required for proton lithium fusion, but I bet it is more than DT, or D2.

Furthermore, the amount of instantaneous power hitting these molecules when they are hit with a short laser pulse is many orders of magnitude higher than the power you are delivering to your system. So even though coulomb explosions won't cause fusion, I doubt you are creating many, if any at all in your system. Since from your descriptions there are no pico or femto second laser pulses involved at all. Which is generally what are used to create actual real coulomb explosions.

The more you write about your device, the more it just sounds like BS.

IMO you should peddle it elsewhere.

Joe.
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Joe,
I am sorry but you found a bad description of a Coulomb explosion.The fact is that the effect does not require lasers. A Coulomb explosion can be initiated by any process that exposes the mutual repulsion of charged particles.
Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_explosion
While it is true the LLNL (Lasers Lasers and nothing but Lasers) does us lasers... any process that evokes mutual Coulomb repulsion qualifies, beit Lasers, electrons, photons (non-laser) or others.
I *think* you may be thinking in terms of rarified plasma perspective. The LEEF fuel is operated at super-critical density. It is condensed matter *NOT* gas phase.
BS? hmm Easy to say such a statement from a position of ignorance.
Are you not interested in learning?
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Joe,
I am sorry but you found a bad description of a Coulomb explosion.The fact is that the effect does not require lasers. A Coulomb explosion can be initiated by any process that exposes the mutual repulsion of charged particles.
Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_explosion
While it is true the LLNL (Lasers Lasers and nothing but Lasers) does us lasers... any process that evokes mutual Coulomb repulsion qualifies, beit Lasers, electrons, photons (non-laser) or others.
I *think* you may be thinking in terms of rarified plasma perspective. The LEEF fuel is operated at super-critical density. It is condensed matter *NOT* gas phase.
BS? hmm Easy to say such a statement from a position of ignorance.
Are you not interested in learning?
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Damn what an overwhelming amount of hate coming from this group.... where do I start... if this board exists to self validate its members by bashing others then I'm out. If you would like some insight on a new tech just ask a question.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Kenneth Kopp wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:58 am Damn what an overwhelming amount of hate coming from this group.... where do I start... if this board exists to self validate its members by bashing others then I'm out. If you would like some insight on a new tech just ask a question.
Stop right there.

What you are reading here is NOT "hate."

What you have encountered here is a healthy dose of reasonable, objective skepticism born of extensive experience.

That is NOT "hate."

It's what you get when you toss verbal meat into a lion's den of people who know their sirloin from chopped liver.

None of the contributors to these forums makes any claims beyond what they can empirically achieve and demonstrate in devices they have built and operated.

When you can make a similar statement about your own work, then you will be entitled to hold us in whatever disregard suits you.

Until then, it's just a lot of characters on a screen.

And if that strikes you as "hateful," then please and by all means...all you have to do prove us wrong.

Actual operators are standing by.... 🤣

--PS
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."
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

Kenneth -

The wikipedia article I read about coulomb explosions was exactly the article you linked to.

So I guess I did not get a bad explanation of what coulomb explosions are. What I posted was my understanding and very short summary of what that wikipedia article said.

Most of the article talked about using lasers to initiate coulomb explosions - probably because that is the most used method to do so. There was I believe 1 line at the very end of the wikipedia entry where it said that you could also initiate coulomb explosions using high energy ions.

In any case, whatever is used to initiate a coulomb explosion, does not change the primary point I made in my post which is the fundamental fact that a coulomb explosion happens because the nuclei are not close enough to fuse when their electons are stripped.

Furthermore, it sounds like what your word salad arguments boil down to, is that somehow using large molecules that blow themselves apart overrides the fundamental graphs of the fusion cross sections based on the energy of the particles involved. So your device is then another LENR scheme.

Now that is indeed a HUGE physics claim. Nature paper style claim.

Do the work, bring the evidence, prove it, write it up properly and you will get yourself an on the cover Nature paper.

Good luck with that.

Joe.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

I said it many posts back in this thread. We respect fusion numbers and not fusion advise. We listen to and view theory with long jaundiced and experienced eyes.

Do the work. Do fusion using your fuel and report back with images and verifiable, acceptable instrumented values of your fusion results.

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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

Kenneth -

Per this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion proton lithium 7 fusion has an extremely low cross section, so low in fact that it is not even listed in the 10 or so nuclear fusion reactions that the article discusses.

Are you building your molecules with Lithium 6 and deuterium, or just standard lithium - which is mostly lithium 7 - and hydrogen?

I suspect your fancy molecules have lots of H and lots of Li7, and very little D and Li6.

Which means the probability of fusion is so low, that even wikipedia articles about nuclear fusion, don't list the reaction as viable.

I hope you can measure LOTS of He4 coming out of your device, because otherwise it's not doing what you claim it's doing.

Joe.
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

Oh, and by the way, make sure you SUBTRACT all of the alpha particles you are using to "accelerate" your reaction, from the detected He4 products of your proton lithium "fusion". It blew my mind when I saw on your website that you were using alpha particle radiation to help your reaction along. Why? Was it just so that you could then conveniently detect those same He4 particles as output from your reaction?!

And ignorant moron investors who don't know that alpha particles are nothing more than fully ionized He4 atoms, then think that you are truly doing fusion and producing He4, when in reality you are just bathing the whole experiment in He4 nuclei which will quickly pick up electrons and neutralize into perfect He4 atoms - ready to be detected as output from your "fusion".

Per this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion if you are truly doing proton lithium 7 fusion, you will be producing a few neutrons as well, due to an alternate reaction that makes neutrons.

So I propose that you 1) stop using any alpha particle "acceleration" of your reaction 2) add a sensitive He3 neutron detection setup and see if you are making any neutrons when you run your reaction - due to the neutrons that should be produced if you are doing any actual proton lithium 7 fusion 3) use a mass spectrometer on the output of your reaction to see if you detect any He4 once you stop actually directly injecting it into the reaction.


Per the above linked article:

Fusion reactions involving lithium are well studied due to the use of lithium for breeding tritium in thermonuclear weapons. They are intermediate in ignition difficulty between the reactions involving lower atomic-number species, H and He, and the 11B reaction.

The p–7Li reaction, although highly energetic, releases neutrons because of the high cross section for the alternate neutron-producing reaction 1p + 7Li → 7Be + n


There are lots of folks on this board with extensive neutron detection experience (detecting neutrons is after all how we KNOW that we are doing fusion), and we would be happy to help you out with that.

My level of skepticism about your LEEF invention will decrease dramatically if you can detect neutrons from the above reaction, and can further show that said neutrons are of the expected energy for that specific reaction. (Which means you will need to first detect them, and second accurately measure their energy spectrum.)

If you were truly interested in proving to the world that you can do fusion with your invention, you would be doing that already, and would have that data in hand ready for immediate sharing.

Joe.
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

Nice videos, but of what, precisely?

No info on detectors used the various hookups, what is being detected, certainly no Alpha particles from the reaction. No detailed explanation of the apparatus. voltages pressures, etc. All things that are to be well documented and explained here before any belief of anything we see relates to successful fusion. Very critical eyes on this by those who have done fusion and proved it countless times.

We may guess what some of the apparatus is in the video, but what is doing the detecting. The GM pancake probe directly under the glass reactor will count alpha particles which could never penetrate the glass. It will detect all forms of x-radiation. It will not detect neutrons.

Details to the nth degree please.

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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

(Richard posted in the intervening interval when I was writing this, so I didn't see his post before submitting this.)

It is good you are making some measurements of what is happening when you run your device.

If you could explain your setup, and which devices you are using, and what they are measuring, that would be helpful. The videos are very short, and have no explanations of your setup, nor of when you start and stop your reaction. (Although in the first video, that can possibly be inferred by the background clicking that increases and then decreases in frequency - which is likely caused by some high voltage pulsing that you are hitting the contents of the flask with.)

It looks to me that you have 2, maybe 3 different measurement devices next to your experiment. One looks to be a Ludlum 3 meter with a standard handheld 44-9 probe that is used to detect alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, but NOT neutrons. That is what is making the beeps that are completely uncorrelated with anything happening on the computer screen - since that meter does not look to be connected to the computer. That probe is sitting directly underneath your flask on top of the 1 gallon metal paint can. It will tell you absolutely nothing about neutrons. It will also tell you nothing about any alpha particle radiation that may come out of your experiment, because of the intervening glass flask which will block any alpha radiation. It doesn't appear that your experiment generates much gamma or beta radiation, as the beep count coming out of that Ludlum doesn't change much as you ramp up your pulse rate.

It appears that you may also have some kind of scintillation detector that is held horizontally to the left of the flask, and appears to be connected to your PC over a USB cable. It is not clear what kind of a detector that is. If it is a standard NaI crystal, then it is used for gamma spectroscopy, and it looks like you have gamma spectroscopy software running on that PC, but again there are no explanations, or closeup shots of the top of the window that would allow one to determine exactly what software you are using, nor what exactly that device is.

Gamma spectroscopy, will again tell you absolutely nothing about neutrons. (Granted, that detector may not be for gammas, but you haven't identified what it is, who makes it, and what it is supposed to do.)

There is also a paint can sitting under your Ludlum 44-9 probe, with something inserted into it, which might possibly be a neutron detector of some sort, but again, no explanations.

So, please chime in with more info than just those short videos, because by themselves they are insufficient to deduce anything at all, other than a short pulse of possibly gammas, or maybe neutrons, that happened in the first video when you ramped up the pulse rate on your device.

In any case, your total count was 50 on the first run, which is not particularly high for any device that is going to be making power...

Thanks.

Joe.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

As Joe noted, not have seen my post, you will note that the more experienced among us have an identical list of unanswered questions. We, using D-D fusion, know that such fusion in the under $5,000 class is abysmally easy to do. However it is not so easily proved by those not long steeped in the art of neutron detection. Even a store bought neutron detection system can report erroneously, yielding counts that are not neutrons. As any one can "buy-in" to make a fusor and claim fusion, we press them hard on their method of neutron detection which is often poor in the amateur arena.

Unfortunately for the poor fusioneer having spent some significant amount to build their fusor, often never consider the now additional expense of a reliable, yet not bullet proof, neutron detection system and the difficulties in honing it to not deceive them. The world class electro-chemists, Pons and Fleishman, in their cold fusion announcement of 1989, were poor in their D-D neutron detection skills. Subsequent verification work by those trained in neutron detection called their work into question.

Any aneutronic fusion as in P-B11 with only alphas being produced would be very difficult to detect, even more so than neutrons from D-D 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
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Based on the provided discussion thread, several questions, objections, and points have been raised about Electric Fusion Systems Inc's Light Element Electric Fusion (LEEF) technology. Let's address each of these with detailed technical responses to educate and defend the technical soundness and scientific basis of the EFS LEEF technology:

1. Question on Proprietary Nature and Lack of Data:
- Response: While EFS's technology is indeed proprietary, this does not negate its scientific validity. The proprietary nature is common in early-stage technologies, especially in a competitive field like fusion energy. The lack of public data is often due to intellectual property protection and ongoing research and development. EFS is committed to rigorous scientific methods and will release data as it becomes appropriate and validated.

2. Skepticism About Fusion Startups:
- Response: Skepticism in the fusion field is understandable given the history of challenges and unmet promises. However, it's important to differentiate between unproven claims and innovative approaches with a scientific basis. EFS LEEF technology is grounded in established principles of nuclear physics and materials science and is being developed through methodical scientific research.

3. Technical Doubts About Feasibility and Fusion Claims:
- Response: EFS's approach to fusion, involving HRM and a novel fusion and energy extraction cycle, is based on sound scientific principles. The use of heavy Rydberg matter to reduce the Coulomb barrier and the method of energy extraction through magnetic adiabatic expansion and Alfven wave coupling are rooted in established physics. While it pushes the boundaries of current fusion research, it does so within the realm of known science.

4. Critique of Fusion Fuel and Rydberg Matter:
- Response: The skepticism around the fusion fuel composition and the application of Rydberg matter is noted. However, EFS's unique fuel formulation is designed to create an optimal environment for fusion reactions. The Rydberg state allows for reduced electron density near the nucleus, facilitating the reduction of the Coulomb barrier. The choice of fuel components is the result of extensive research into optimizing the conditions for fusion reactions.

5. Request for Evidence and Demonstrations:
- Response: EFS understands the importance of empirical evidence and is working towards providing demonstrable results. The complexity of fusion technology development means that significant experimentation and refinement are necessary before public demonstrations. EFS is committed to scientific integrity and transparency and will provide evidence as it meets rigorous internal standards for validation.

6. Concerns Over Energy Production and Q Values:
- Response: The concerns about net energy production (Q values) are valid. EFS is focused on achieving a positive Q value, where the energy output exceeds the energy input. This is a central goal of the LEEF technology, and ongoing research is dedicated to optimizing the reactor design, fuel composition, and operational parameters to achieve this.

7. Comparison with Other Fusion Efforts:
- Response: EFS's LEEF technology differs fundamentally from other approaches like tokamaks or inertial confinement fusion. The unique approach of using HRM and specific fuel compositions sets it apart from conventional methods. Comparisons with other fusion efforts should consider these fundamental differences in technology and approach.

8. Request for Clarification on Compound Structure and Physical Properties:
- Response: The inquiry about the compound structure of the fusion fuel is appreciated. The fuel, comprising a complex amalgamation of lithium, ammonia, and noble gases, forms a crystalline liquid under ambient conditions. Its unique physical and chemical properties are tailored to facilitate fusion reactions efficiently in the LEEF reactor.

In conclusion, EFS acknowledges the challenges and skepticism inherent in pioneering a new fusion technology. The LEEF technology is being developed with a commitment to scientific rigor and thorough validation. While it represents a departure from traditional fusion approaches, it is grounded in sound physical principles and holds the promise of a transformative energy source.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Your statement "use of heavy Rydberg matter to reduce the Coulomb barrier " is neither sound nor supported relative to real world fusion attempting to produce net energy. As such, the rest of your post is rather irrelevant and certainly does not prove this process.

Your list of counter's reads more like a lawyer without evidence who then cherry picks arguments to create a case. That is how your post reads to me.

Bottom-line: great claims require great data (i.e. proof) - or in this case, any real data! Sadly, of that, I see none what-so-ever.

Aside: trying to do research and presenting it has value but ONLY if you address people's questions. That you have not done. So, what are you trying to achieve here? Arguments are not used in science as proof but in Q-anon posts or claiming magnets fail in water. No serious person will address such issues here. I am posting in order to convince you to apply scientific method to your posts here. Or at least if you are serious; otherwise, you will not be taken seriously and not just here but in any science forum.
Locked

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