Fusor without inner grid?

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rinze Joustra
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:49 pm
Real name: Rinze Joustra

Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Rinze Joustra » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:49 am

To find this out I've made a computer program to simulate the movement of charged particles in an electric and magnetic field (in vacuum).
Coulomb's law, Biot-Savart formulism and Leapfrog integration is used (non-relativistic).

First I came across a configuration that confines only positive ions (or electrons). But I discovered that this was quite similar to the already existing Penning trap and would not be very effective to produce fusion, because of the nonneutrality of Penning trap plasmas.

Then I changed it a bit and now it's possible to trap both positive deuterium ions and electrons. The design just needs a constant magnetic field of about 1 tesla and a couple of rings and small spheres with a voltage of about +/- 200 kV. Depending of the polarity of the rings & spheres, there are two possible configurations. The ions and electrons are generated in the program with random speeds up to 3E6 m/s in all directions (and still keep confined).

But.., this is only a simulation with very few particles (no more than 500 or 1000), the simulation time is very small and it doesn't prove that any fusion would take place..

If you are interested:

http://www.valgetal.com/physics/Droomid ... g.%206.jpg (1e configuration)
http://www.valgetal.com/physics/Droomid ... 0fig.7.jpg (2e configuration)
http://www.valgetal.com/physics/Droomid ... oom11.html (calculations, screenshots etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvvv1YLbuLY&t=11s (video capture of a simulation)

Thank you for your time and regards

Dan Knapp
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:34 pm
Real name: Dan Knapp

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Dan Knapp » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:46 pm

Interesting results. What you have modeled is a variation on the Malmberg-Penning particle trap. The fly in the ointment would be actually building a device and maintaining 400 kV standoff in the presence of a conductive plasma. If you're interested in pursuing the subject further, you need to do a literature search to learn what has already been done. For example, there is extensive literature on the Penning trap as a fusion reactor, and theory predicts that it could even produce net energy (google D. Barnes and D. Nebel). Practical realization has the same problem with high voltage standoff, and no one has yet actually done fusion in a Penning trap. Your conclusion that it wouldn't work because the plasma is non-neutral is incorrect; that is precisely how it does work in theory. You should also read about the polywell, another gridless fusion device that uses electric and magnetic fields (google Park, and there are entire web sites devoted to the Polywell). Finally, there is one paper in the literature on the planar fusion reactor, a much simpler design of a gridless IEC device that does not use a magnetic field (google D. Knapp). So far this design has also only been modeled. Keep modeling! That's how new designs will be found!

User avatar
Rinze Joustra
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:49 pm
Real name: Rinze Joustra

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Rinze Joustra » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:02 am

Thank you for your constructive reply!

Yes, I will continue, although the coming period I will be very busy to make a living.

By the way, perhaps I gave the particles in the simulation an excessive high initial speed. With an initial speed up to 1E6 m/s they stay confined with “only” +/- 80 kV and with a magnetic field of 0.6 tesla. See the attached picture.

The electrons are a lot easier to trap, because of their small mass. In the shown configuration they stay close to the centre, where they could form a virtual cathode (reading about fusion with Penning traps, I’ve understood that this has already been studied and tried out).

By placing the positive charges on top and down under, the D+ ions are confined by the external B and E-field and will be attracted (I suppose) by the electron cloud in the centre.

Regards
Attachments
Exp 11.20   3.11E-6  s initial speed 1 E6  +- 80 kV reversed polarities klein.jpg

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Dennis P Brown » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:14 pm

I would say a
magnetic field of 0.6 tesla
is one strong field! The trick, of course, is sealing such a "bottle" and this standard mirror design has never worked very well when used in the 60's/70's and were abandoned for that reason. Also, producing 0.6 Tesla field over any standard fusor is a task requiring massive magnets - a 40 cm gap is rather huge for such a field. Maybe super conductors would work in this case but that is a bit over what most amateur's have access to ...I would think. ;)

User avatar
Rinze Joustra
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:49 pm
Real name: Rinze Joustra

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Rinze Joustra » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:00 am

A little late reply...

The "SEM fusor" design is not a standard mirror or magnetic bottle. The rings are charged (no current!) and generate a static electric field which confine the particles ( deuterium ions and electrons) in the vertical direction. The magnetic field is static as well (and uniform) and confine the particles in the sideward direction.

But to try out and test my simulation program I programmed some current rings to simulate such a magnetic bottle. The result was that a part of the deuterium ions stayed more or less confined, but also that a part of them escaped.
So indeed the magnetic mirror does not seem to work very well; the SEM fusor works better, anyway in the computer simulation.
( see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya58Fn9Jq0w )

A magnetic field of about 1,5 tesla is quite strong, but a lot smaller than the one used by, for example, ITER.
Perhaps a MRI scanner of a hospital can be used. They use superconducting magnets cooled by liquid helium, with a field strength of 1,5 till 3 tesla, and according my information, are switched on all the time. At the moment I am initiating contacts (positive so far ..).

Then only is needed a vacuum chamber, with a little bit deuterium gas, a couple of rings and spheres and a power supply (although the required voltage is a bit high, but possible I assume). Everything of course of non-magnetic material: glass and aluminium perhaps, otherwise the experimental device would be damaged when introduced inside the scanner... And of course a neutron detector.

I do not pretend to have invented THE fusion device. What I have is a simulation program and with relative simple calculations with Coulomb's law , Biot-Savart formulism, a good integration method and "reasonable" values for the magnetic field and the voltages it confines both deterium ions and electrons up to speeds of 3,5 E6 m/s, which is higher than the mean speed needed for fusion (= 2 E6 m/s according my information).

A shortcoming of the simulation program is that it can only simulate a couple of 100 particles. What would happen with millions and millions of them, in a real experiment?

Recordings of my simulation experiments are available in the internet, as well as my calculations.

Best regards
:)

David Kunkle
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:43 pm
Real name: David Kunkle

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by David Kunkle » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:51 am

I hope you can get access to an MRI. Would certainly be cool to try it out, but I will be surprised if anyone allows your experiment. Did you actually talk to anyone that has direct authority over the scanners? Because...

"Everything of course of non-magnetic material: glass and aluminium perhaps, otherwise the experimental device would be damaged when introduced inside the scanner... And of course a neutron detector."
That is probably only the start of your problems. They will not allow anything ferromagnetic in the entire scanner room. Not so much as a paper clip. That would probably leave out most HVPS's, bottles of deuterium, neutron detectors (except bubble detectors), and vacuum gauges and pumps (especially roughing pumps).
MRI gone wrong.jpg
These two guys were badly injured when the doctor asked for an oxygen "mask", but one of these guys thought the doctor said oxygen "tank". When the emergency shut down/venting failed, they tied a rope around the cylinder, and 20 people couldn't pull it off the magnet.

This is pretty interesting- especially if you read all the way to the bottom about what can go wrong when you bring ferromagnetic materials into the room. It's also very expensive to re-start an MRI when someone screws up by bringing the wrong kind of metal into the room. http://www.bic.ucsb.edu/forms/MRIroomSafety.pdf
Like I said, I'd be surprised if anyone in charge allows this. At the very least, you'd need some very long wires, cables and tubing to keep most of your equipment outside the scanner room.

"What would happen with millions and millions of them, in a real experiment?"
Probably more like at least billions and trillions vs. a few hundred in simulation. The containment wouldn't be anywhere as neat and tidy as in the simulation.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10512
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Richard Hull » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:51 am

Of course, this being the theory section, lots of "modeling", yet, no one will do anything about anything. No experiment will be done and nothing will come of the idea. As always, armchair exellence shines as brightly as ever. Interesting ideas, no physical embodiment, no experimentation.

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

John Fenley
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 9:01 pm
Real name: John Fenley

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by John Fenley » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:46 am

This is very similar to what I am working on, and it does seem very similar to a Penning trap. I've done some simulations, and gotten some promising results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT6nvmN7GB0

I've looked at buying a cheap MRI machine that will supply the magnetic field. The one I've been looking at is the Airis II with a .35T permanent magnetic field. They cost from $30k-$120k. Without that, very few tests are able to be done. I haven't been working in a "vacuum" though, I've worked with several others that have made IEC fusors, and worked on high vacuum, and high voltage systems. At least for now, the limiting factor is access to the magnetic field.

I have more information on http://www.DDproFusion.com, including our published patent application. When we get some money, we'll actually start building :)

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Dennis P Brown » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:42 am

Your overwhelming mistake like everyone who desire to produce net energy with fusors is you believe the issue for getting net energy from these devices is something that can be fixed. It simply is not possible due to the nature of how fusion occurs in fusors. Like the Sun, the process solely depends on tunneling - you can't increase tunneling (if you could, then we have something that might be possible.) You can waste your money and build a virtual grid (Like the Pollywell - which also is useless for net energy) but if you depend on tunneling, you can never get net energy.

A fusor will never generate more energy than you put in under any methodology available here on Earth (short of using 'free' gravitational pressure like the Sun does.) You can't over rule reality - a fusor with no grid, or a virtual grid, or a real grid simply does not matter - tunneling is not a viable energy source and never will be using magnetic fields or electric fields for confinement.

Your simplistic simulations on a home computer are just very rough approximations (and extremely poor ones) to the reality of a plasma. Believing any such results is not a sound idea. You are not actually modeling the complex interactions of real ions and electrons in an electric field except in a very rough manner. Even super computers run by many PhD physicist that have devoted their entire careers in such modeling even consider that their efforts are just approximations and fail to capture all the critical information of reality and would never believe their results are so good that any device so designed will then work as modeled.

You are, maybe, confusing the process used in the big machines of physics with fusors - these monster devices use shear kinetic energy to force deuterium/tritium through the Coulomb barrier; these machines (Stellarators, Tokamak's, mirror machines, etc) do not use tunneling; in theory, KE methods could produce net energy but to date, that method has not been successful (and we all know, net energy still has not been achieved (but they are, at least, close to that trivial goal.)) Also, increasing the magnetic field, even for KE devices, fails. The issue is stability in the plasma for KE devices (again, which a fusor definitely is not.)

Post Reply