Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

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
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with a mechanical gain superior or equal to 18

Hello to all,

In a previous paper, I supposed that beams could avoid thermalization thanks to the "Corkscrew" magnetic device, but it appears that this device can't transform the radial energy in axial energy, in this case.
So in this paper, I leave the beams naturally thermalize. Note that it is only a proposal. The simulation is limited to straights pipes (not loops). So I don't know if this reactor has even a little chance to work in the reality (look at the "Points to deepen about this proposal of D/T fusion machine" in §6.2.5).

The paper can be downloaded here http://f6cte.free.fr/Proposal_of_a_prog ... _Rev_A.pdf.

Abstract: in the standard fusion reactors, mainly tokamaks, the plasma, in thermal equilibrium, is heated up to an energy of about 15 keV with complicated devices. At the present time, the mechanical gain obtained by these reactors is below 1. In the other hand, there are colliding beam fusion reactors, as for example the « Fusor », for which, the particles are initially injected radially. The plasma not being neutral in these reactors, the space charge limits the number of fusions to a very small number. Consequently, for this reason and for others reasons, the mechanical gain is extremely low.
The proposed reactor is also a colliding beam fusion reactor using initial directed beams, but D+/T+ ions are injected in opposition, with electrons, at high speeds, so as to form a neutral beam. All these particles turn in a magnetic loop in form of figure of “0” (“racetrack”). The plasma is initially non-thermal but, as expected, rapidly becomes thermal, so all states between non-thermal and thermal exists in this reactor. The main advantage of this reactor is that this plasma after having been brought up near to the optimum conditions for fusion (around 68 keV), is then maintained in this state, thanks to low energy non-thermal ions (≤15 keV). So the energetic cost is low and the mechanical gain (Q) is elevated (≥18). There is no net plasma current inside this reactor, so no disruptive instabilities and consequently, the working is continuous. Moreover, the main plasma control by the particles injectors (I and U) is relatively simple. This reactor has been partly checked on a simulator.

Patrick Lindecker
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Joe Gayo »

Hello Patrick,

I downloaded your Multiplasma simulator and wondered if you could elaborate on the method you used to simulate particle motion. Did you use a PIC approach?
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Joe,

>I downloaded your Multiplasma simulator and wondered if you could elaborate on the method you used to simulate particle motion. Did you use a PIC approach?
I have not used specific approach or method (I did not know that there were different approaches). My "method" is the following:
I calculate the electrostatic and magnetic fields in each point of the volume, then determine the forces on each point and make evolve each particle over one step, thanks to the 3D elementary force applied on each particle (determined according to its exact position). Interactions between particles (particulary coulombian collisions) are more complicated. In all cases, it is an application of physics laws using calculation methods coming from the digital processing domain (I'm used to these methods).
It's just a lot of (interesting) work.

Patrick
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello to all,

As it seems that the original paper was much too long, I've written a summarized proposal (4 pages instead of 56), available here: http://f6cte.free.fr/Summarized_proposa ... _Rev_A.pdf

Abstract: the main advantage of this fusion reactor is that the plasma after having been brought up near to the optimum conditions for D/T fusion (around 68 keV), is then maintained in this state, low energy non-thermal ions (≤15 keV) being injected as replacement ions. So the energetic cost is low and the mechanical gain (Q) is elevated (≥18), the working being continuous. Moreover, the main plasma control by the particles injectors (I and U) is relatively simple. This reactor has been partly checked on a simulator.

Patrick Lindecker
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello to all,

Below are updates of the two papers mentioned in this thread:

* Article "Progressive thermalization fusion reactor able to produce nuclear fusions at higher mechanical gain" (published in the journal "Energy and Power Engineering" 14,35-100) which can be read here: https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2022.141003

* Article "Summarized proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with a mechanical gain superior or equal to 18" Rev. B, downloadable here: Summarized_proposal_of a_progressive_th ... _Rev_B.pdf

Nice that the forum works again!

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

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Very glad you are continuing your work. Keep posting your new papers/updates as they occur. This is really what a fusion forum should also have available.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Joe Gayo »

Patrick,

Scientific Research Publishing is "predatory", with dubious operations (https://www.nature.com/articles/463148a & https://academia.stackexchange.com/ques ... p-journals). You may want to consider other publishers in the future.

Good luck,

Joe
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Joe,

My opinion is that the scientific publication, as a whole, is a big business. Once an article is accepted, prices to be published can be quite enormous (4000 Euros for example but it could be more), with many options. For example, in certain journals you must pay to be visible without paying a subscription.
This problem of price is not important for a researcher because the company or the university will pay, but I'm retired and I was not researcher (just an engineer).

About the EPE (Energy and Power Engineering) journal: it corresponds exactly to my previous branch of activity and I saw that the papers proposed are at a good level and centered on technical applications much more than purely scientific research.

Below, for the ones wishing to publish, here it is my small experience.

With the EPE journal:
* I proposed two papers, they took one and so refused one.
* I paid about 730 Euros to be published without options (ouf!), which is not much (and the paper is "visible").
* The journal imposes a format and several new chapters (as a list of variables...) which is logical but gives you a lot of work.
* The journal checked and proposed corrections of the wording, as my English is not ideal ☺,
* The journal checked possible technical errors by asking you questions. I realized that the initial paper had not really errors (I think...) but ambiguities (for example I did not stated what was scalar product and what was vector product), that I needed to clarify.

It is a big work from both sides (the author and the journal), and 730 Euros was normal.

Note 1: for free, you have Academia, on which you can put all your papers (I use it). However, Academia is not a charity and they tried to sell you services (which is logical).

Note 2: for the ones not being from the research domain, you must take into account that this domain is a sort of "among peers" world rather hermetic. Without a "reputation", in many cases your paper will simply not be read (you will easily see this, by reading the remarks of the person checking your paper). I think it's due to a comprehensive but excessive caution. Prestigious journals are feared to publish a paper which will fade their own reputation, and so they don't accept any risk, which is a pity. So avoid prestigious journals.

Patrick Lindecker
RobertMendelsohn
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:58 pm
Real name: Robert Mendelsohn

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by RobertMendelsohn »

Do you have a link to the full (56-page) PDF? I think the original one posted is broken.
I'd be happy to read it and provide constructive feedback.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Dennis P Brown »

First off, it is critical you show reviewers that you know the literature by footnoting extensively. Certainly cite papers that follow similar work. Next, you need it reviewed by people in the field and not simple English major's editors (I don't know what that journal uses but you need to know that.) Finally, what you post must be supported clearly by your work - so having it pre-read by people before sending it is a good idea to catch minor or even serious issues.

For instance, I am certainly not aware of any colliding beams used for fusion by any significant research facility. You absolutely should never have used a wiki article as a reference. In any case, hope the paper starts you on a useful career related to fusion.
RobertMendelsohn
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:58 pm
Real name: Robert Mendelsohn

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by RobertMendelsohn »

I found a working link.

There are a couple things that need to be addressed in more detail, the most critical of which is how the magnetic fields are treated. You have a dense cloud of moving charges, which will themselves produce meaningful variations in the magnetic field of the device. Jefimenko's equations need to be used, for starters. While the equations themselves are simple, their interaction with the insanely large numbers of particles leads to a really compelx and essentially impossible-to-simulate scenario. Secondarily, the effects of the real coils that produce the magnetic fields need to be accounted for; the imbalances/imperfections in the coil, some of which are intrinsic/geometrical in nature (as in a torus), significantly effect the plasma dynamics and are a major culprit for the instabilities that plague many types of fusion devices.

The other thing would be the way cooling due to radiation is treated; this is a really significant source of cooling and the assumption that the gas is opaque to this is not going to be accurate. I'd recommend more sophisticated models, as well as consulting the difference between those models and experiment, where such values are available, in an update to your paper.

Hopefully this helps! I really respect that you're trying to do mainstream work with publications etc., and making a serious technical effort in this area. I'd be happy to give my 2 cents on future iterations as well. You will make many many mistakes before you get it right; that is part of the process and nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion. Authoring a 56 page paper on fusion is an accomplishment in its own right. Cheers.
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Robert and Dennis,

Thanks for your comments.
I repair the link. However the EPE version is the most updated version.

It is difficult , let's see impossible, to discuss technics with scientists. The sole remarks that I received were comments of form or about the fact that my simulation program had not be approved, about Wikipedia links, etc...
Note that Wikipedia links are used for a general information, not for a precise technical piece of information.

I know that colliding particles are not used for magnetic fusion. It's why I wrote this paper, because I think that it could be the solution, as it is a relatively easy way to reach high level of particles energy and in a way much more simple than the different actual heavy methods to reach only 15 keV.

I don't know the Jefimenko's equations. However the simulation needs to be done in a reasonable time (i.e. one day of calculation with a familial PC). For this reason of simulation duration, certain physical phenomenas are not done in the way it could be done. For example, the diamagnetism is not done using Biot and Savard formula, because the simulation time would be quite enormous. I developped a simplified method to take into account the diamagnetism, etc...
Yes you are right about real coils. The effect of real coils is not taken into account. It s a specified limit of the simulation:
"The toroidal magnetic field is supposed perfect (for example, no modulation of this one due to discrete toroidal coils). ".

About the opacity of the plasma, I take the data given by my reference book about fusion, which is based on Tokamaks. I took a pessimistic hypothesis (i.e. not completely opaque), but it is certainly very complicated.

I don't think to update my article as I reached my incompetence level ☺ Moreover, improving the simulation would need big minds and big machines.
Note that I proposed a first machine based on a figure of "8" using a very weak plasma density. It would be interesting to test this idea with D+ and electrons beams to see what happens.

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

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Again, glad you are taking your work seriously by 'putting it out there' to be discussed. You certainly tried to approch the topic in a more serious manner then most with their ideas.

Now, counter colliding beams is an area of fusion research that has not been discussed or explored in the fusion community since few would expect ions to interact very often. I am not aware of published papers on this topic relative to energy production for fusion - people likely calculated this but determined it was not feasible so did not publish such. And yes, you are adding a twist by suggesting that the device - via a magnetic field like the first stellarator device be used to attempt repeated interactions.

The issue for me with your approach is the problem of cross-section interaction probability; it would appear to be extremely small and to make matters worse, a strong repulsive force exists between approaching ions over distance causing ions - even high KE ions - to miss one another and worse, cause severe scattering issues degrading the confinement. Still, I feel that the magnetic confinement design problems is of secondary importance compared to this issue of interaction prob and scattering of the D & T ions.

So the first step isn't confinement/circulation design but determining the average interaction (successful fusion events) between your known number of ions (best case) per pass including repulsion issues (scattering effects of the interacting ions) for the area/density of the plasma you feel is possible. This value of fusion event probability and ion scattering (for non-interacting ions) is of paramount importance to determining if this approach is viable. Are these two calculations addressed in your paper?
John Fenley
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 5:01 pm
Real name: John Fenley

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by John Fenley »

I think I see where you are going with this, but correct me if I'm wrong.

You're injecting neutral beams at high speed into the racetrack in different directions. The electrons will thermalize faster than the d+ and t+ ions, so these ions will tend to stay in the middle of the track and go around a few times before they too thermalize.

My gut is telling me that, because of the low cross section, ions will have to collide hundreds of times before they fuse. That means they'll almost always thermalize, and instead of having counter rotating colliding beams, you'll just have a stretched tokamak with all the attendant problems associated with them.

The neutral beams will add energy, but many tokamaks use neutral beam injection to add energy.

I guess I'm just not sure where the real differences are.
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Dennis and John,

About calculation of particles interactions (Coulomb ones), these ones are taking into account mainly in the Appendix A and D. Ions Coulomb collisions are also simulated, and the results of the simulation correspond to the calculations (even if the calculations seem a bit optimistic). Now it is not possible to simulate ions and electrons in the same time, due to the very high speed of electrons compared to ions speed. It would take months for one simulation...So electrons behaviour is not simulated but given by equations in the simulation.

The problem is the possible decoupling of particles energies (as noted in "Points to deepen"):
"The determination of the real ability of electrons to exchange energy with ions, because as indicated in the Appendix A part 2, the rate of energy exchange between ions (+ Alpha particles) and electrons decreases rapidly as the electrons energy increases. So the equilibrium between ions (+Alphas) and electrons could be long to establish, and perhaps too long to achieve (it has supposed to be instantaneous in the simulations), with a risk of unwanted “Runaway” electrons in case of appearance of an electric field and, at worst, a decoupling between energies of ions, electrons and Alphas."

Electrons and ions are injected in the axial direction (the radial speed supposed to be very low) and in the center zone.There will be a certain length where the particles will be separated and where electrostatic forces will act, before obtaining the neutrality. It is a point to deepen (I made some simulations and it is not quite obvious): "The industrial ability to inject particles at the required conditions, with a good efficiency taking into account radial and axial space charge (cf. §5.4.6)."

Now once the neutrality obtained, yes the electrons will thermalize very fast and ions not so fast (about 50 times slower than electrons).
Due to diamagnetism (and ambipolar diffusion) there is a tendancy to escape from high density plasma, so to escape from the center.

Yes there are thousands of Coulomb collisions before one fusion. Fusions are obtained relatively quicker when they are injected (frontal collisions) but this phase is short (<<1 s) but helpful to "heat" the plasma at the very beginning. Now the normal way to fuse is inside a thermalized plasma as in tokamaks. There is no difference with tokamaks about this aspect except that the thermalized plasma will not be at 10 or 15 keV (with small fusion cross-section) but around 68 keV or more (with the best fusion cross-section).

Compared to tokamaks, there are no disruptive instabilities, as it is basically a Stellarator. So the working is continouous.

Yes neutral beams are used to heat the plasma and generate a toroidal current, in tokamaks.

The big difference is that in tokamaks they use different ways to carry the plasma from about 0 eV to 10 or 15 keV, while the proposal is to directly inject particles with beams at a relatively small energy (let's say 20 keV). Then due to frontal collisions (having a relative high fusion cross section), on a dense plasma at the center, the finally thermalized plasma will heat up to 68 keV or more, before stabilization.

Patrick Lindecker
RobertMendelsohn
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:58 pm
Real name: Robert Mendelsohn

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by RobertMendelsohn »

Patrick, I agree with you re: experience with the scientific community, that many of them will focus on fairly surface-level things, noting the difference in formatting, tone, etc. rather than more substantive things. It is a silly thing that Wikipedia is a no-go, but the papers cited in the Wikipedia article are fine... there is a fair bit of dilettantes/gatekeepers in the scientific community, but if you'd like to be accepted amongst them you will need to copy their norms. Possibly including a PhD.

You would be well-served to learn more about the area of electrodynamics; Griffith's book is a really good introduction. If you're going to be publishing, you don't want an undergraduate physics student to know more about the technicalities of your project than you, although admittedly their experimental experience in this domain will probably be nil. In order to make a convincing paper and prove you've got a better method, I think you either need to produce a paper that is technically on the level of the top papers in this area OR produce an experimental apparatus with good instrumentation that proves some aspect of what insight you are trying to communicate.

As another note, plasma simulation is extremely extremely notoriously difficult. The case of two ions/electrons etc. is trivial but when you try to extend this to 10^10+ particles direct simulation becomes computationally impossible. Trying to deal with things in bulk often makes assumptions or produces results not in alignment with experiment. I'd say this is one of the greatest challenges in this area presently.
John Fenley
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 5:01 pm
Real name: John Fenley

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by John Fenley »

Patrick Lindecker wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:39 am
Yes there are thousands of Coulomb collisions before one fusion. Fusions are obtained relatively quicker when they are injected (frontal collisions) but this phase is short (<<1 s) but helpful to "heat" the plasma at the very beginning. Now the normal way to fuse is inside a thermalized plasma as in tokamaks. There is no difference with tokamaks about this aspect except that the thermalized plasma will not be at 10 or 15 keV (with small fusion cross-section) but around 68 keV or more (with the best fusion cross-section).
My gut is telling me that because the scattering cross section is so much larger than the fusion cross section, that you're not going to get much fusion happening before the beams thermalize. At that point you're left with just another hot, neutral, magnetically confined cloud.
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello to all,

For information, I updated this paper in version A1:
http://f6cte.free.fr/Proposal_of_a_prog ... Rev_A1.pdf

The modification concerns the control of the electrons/ions densitIes, i.e. §5.4.2, §5.8, Appendix E.

Patrick Lindecker
Post Reply

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