How do you want your ions?

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

How do you want your ions?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:10 pm

Hi guys,

Long time no talk, I look in from time to time but have not been reading every post so forgive me if this has been discussed before.

It seems like the basic fusor design hasn't changed, most of you build spherical chambers with a grid and simply feed the deuterium into the chamber through a hole in the flange. My best guess is that a large part of the ionisation takes place along the inside of the shell at ground potential. The deuterium atom gives up an electron to the shell and allows the positive ion to be accelerated through the grid.

If you believe ion velocity is the key to fusion, keep doing it and pray that fusion numbers are going to increase, personally I no longer believe this model.

According to my understanding, fusion is a decay process (just like fission), ions fuse at negative KV because they want to get back to ground potential, so ionising the gas at ground potential is not optimal. Where the ion is created makes a difference to the ion velocity in a fusor. This has been demonstrated by experiments using a grounded grid and positive shell, it produces little or no fusion.

Contrary to popular belief, the probability of fusing is inversely proportional to the velocity, it is the relative velocity of the ions which prevent them from fusing, try to imagine two magnets passing each other at a million miles an hour, how are they going to stick together? Slow them down and ....bang!

Apart from my own efforts I haven't seen any posts describing low potential gas feeds. Sure it's a bit of an engineering challenge, but not beyond most of you. All one needs is a hollow feedthrough and a small floating gas cylinder, through which the gas is admitted, venting in or near the grid. I see no reason why the gas feed and electrical feedthrough can't be one and the same.

Watch out for x-rays, because all the electrons now travel the full potential, so if you let in 1cc of gas get a lot of electrons.

The ions created at the grid don't have much velocity, so the only way they can reach ground potential is by fusing, and they will.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10510
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:08 am

Ions are not magnets which have some natural attractive nature. Ions, (positive), can't fuse by going slower due to the electrostatic repulsion which is overwhelmingly dominent at slow speeds. Only quantum tunneling can have a probability of fusing and this is clearly seen to only happen at high ion velocities. There is no thought process that can have slow, near approaches or impacting of slow ions fuse other than the cold fusion argument.

Let someone build this slow ion idea in a 6 inch machine and do 2 million fusions a second. My older method that supposedly is not that good is doing this amount of fusion now.

New ideas and thoughts are great, but making them work via a definitive proof is another matter all together.

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.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:30 am

Richard Hull wrote:Let someone build this slow ion idea in a 6 inch machine and do 2 million fusions a second. My older method that supposedly is not that good is doing this amount of fusion now.
New ideas and thoughts are great, but making them work via a definitive proof is another matter all together.

Richard Hull
Sure I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it, one must either make the effort to understand it or sit around and wait for someone else to review it and prove it. This is why scientists only trust peer reviewed papers, because it means you don't have to understand it or check the maths, someone else has already done it. Fusioneers work at the cutting edge, and we don't always know what the outcome of an experiment is going to be until we actually do it, and I do.

As it happens I am working on a new variant of the FICS double ended collider, it's still early days, but this one fixes some of the problems associated with earlier FICS reactors.

I am using the same successful construction method as I used for the single ended FICS-1 with laminated glass and aluminium discs. In line with my ideas above, this reactor will have a floating gas cylinder with a feed going directly into the cathode reaction chamber in the middle. To prevent the flood of electrons flying up the tube (as happened in FICS-1), the last dynode will be negatively biased with respect to the cathode, and a 50kV array of zener diodes will carry any excess current to ground.

The objective of this planned experiment is not to beat Richards fusion record, but to show that a small electrical current can be generated directly by separating protons and electrons using kinetic fusion energy.

Never ever give up...

Steven
fics.jpg
FICS-IV © Bee Research Pty Ltd
cathode.jpg
Half the reaction chamber © Bee Research Pty Ltd
glass.jpg
Class insulating discs © Bee Research Pty Ltd
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10510
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:41 pm

That is the spirit that gets things and tests of ideas done! All the very best from me.

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.

User avatar
Jason C Wells
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:11 pm
Real name: Jason C Wells

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Jason C Wells » Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:40 pm

S_Sesselmann wrote:
The objective of this planned experiment is not to beat Richards fusion record, but to show that a small electrical current can be generated directly by separating protons and electrons using kinetic fusion energy.

Never ever give up...
The secret that I mostly keep to myself is that one day I hope to extract energy from the product alphas of proton-boron. Please note that I did not say that I hope to get more energy out than I put in. That would be double extra secret. People already think I'm crazy.

I'm excited to see that someone farther down the rabbit hole than me has a mind to do that same.

Regards,
Jason C. Wells

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:35 am

Jason,

Well said..., my fusion journey has taken me so far down the rabbit hole you have no idea.

I believe I already know how to make fusion break even, it's not even a secret any more, I just have to physically do it one more time to convince Richard, yea he's a tough one :)

Once you understand how fusion is not about smashing ions together with more energy to overcome the Coulomb force, you are on a home run.

I want to see any one of the fusor guys achieve Q+1 before ITER, JET or NIF, I hope it will be me, but I would be just as happy to support you guys.

Realistically it will take me at least another year to get my lab fusion ready.

Steven
fics1.jpg
No it is not a Delorian :)
fics2.jpg
It's the current state of my lab.
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Jason C Wells
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:11 pm
Real name: Jason C Wells

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Jason C Wells » Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:53 am

A rack and a cart are on my list.

Good luck!

prestonbarrows
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:27 am
Real name:

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by prestonbarrows » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:06 am

Fusion cross sections in the center of mass frame
fig38_t.jpg
courtesy of the National Physical Laboratory.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:51 am

Preston,

Most of us are familiar with that chart showing cross sections vs energy, I just happen to think that it's a velocity problem, not a coulomb force problem.

Interesting things happen when you try to fuse ions of different mass.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by Dennis P Brown » Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:54 pm

Like your "double" accelerator; really look forward to your results. As I warn everyone, error on the side of caution with radiation; trust but verify (lol.)

Relative to tunneling, not aware of any experiments relative to ion "speed/energy" affecting tunneling (as in lower ion energy = higher tunneling rate.) So, while quantum has no real say (except the uncertainty relation) relative to tunneling, why not do this? The basic "closest ion approach" calculations will show that tunneling will fall off rapidly with lower energy (of course, coulomb repulsion is lower for greater ion separation - i.e. lower ion energy) but unless tunneling gets better, the result will be significantly lower yield but since I know of no experiments that have tested this point (tunneling - unless one believes cold fusion) should be interesting and real science.

Post Reply