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: 2063
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 » Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Dennis P Brown wrote: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.)
Thanks, and yes I am completely aware of the radiation risks, a device like the one I pictured above is made with laminated glass discs and is far more transparent to x-rays than your typical fusor, and as I explained in another post, it will pour out x-rays when gas is fed into the cathode, hence the elaborate zener arrangement for channeling electrons to ground via the cathode.
Dennis P Brown wrote: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.
My best advise is to remove a few words from your vocabulary as if they never existed, I call them "fairies" just like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, they are not real.

Force, invented by newton to explain gravity, it's a fairy, in fact you can group all the forces together here.

Tunneling, not sure who first used the term, but it's a fairy.

In fact when you start looking for fairies, the physics text books are full of them.

In general relativity there is a term called four velocity, all bodies including those at rest have four velocity, and what we generally call "force" is nothing more than the difference between the four velocity of one body and another. What I discovered from GPT (Ground Potential Theory) was a direct linear relation between a bodies four velocity and its surface potential. To use a simple example, and apple has a higher surface potential than the surface potential of the earth (due to it's elevation) hence ∆v is proportional to ∆ø, and the apple appears to fall.

As we live on the surface of the Earth, we can relate velocities to ground potential, so when we ionise an atom, we are messing up it's surface potential by removing one or more electrons, and as a result the ion takes on an instant velocity. In the case of hydrogen or deuterium, this velocity is huge, but not relativistic, it's in the order of 2500 km/s, and when you enclose some of these in a vacuum chamber they bounce around like angry bees in a jar. This shouldn't come as any surprise, we already know that molecules of gas do this, so why not ions?

To make two such ions fuse is therefore not a matter of accelerating the ion to fusion velocities, but rather to slow them down with respect to ground. I already showed in another post how the relative ion velocity of Deuterium becomes zero at around -65 kV.

A good analogy of this scenario would be a truck and two motor bikes heading down the freeway, and a pillion passenger on the outer bike wanting to get onto the truck, before the move can take place, the three vehicles need to align their velocities.

This new understanding is going to help us achieve break even fusion, and we are going to do it here before the big budget guys get their hands and patents on it.

Fusion technology should be open source, don't let anyone monopolise it.

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: 1349
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 10:29 pm

LOL-all good points; yes, force is just a construct as is tunneling to describe, in mathematical terms, a reality that has meaning but not a cause. Like when Einstein said gravity is the curvature of space/time due to 'mass' but if one falls off a building it really is pointless to the person going to impact if said person either calculates the 'force' the Earth pulled with or if one is just following the lowest energy path when it comes to splat ... lol (unless you are the one falling , then not so funny.) Still, referencing -65 kV as ground is one way to view the interaction between two ions but defining tunneling in your terms would be illuminating since there really isn't a very good quantum mechanical model that works on a macro-scale.

Again both like your setup and idea. Look forward to your results (but not x-ray exposure! So, glad you have that one thought out.)

John Futter
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:29 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: How do you want your ions?

Post by John Futter » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:47 am

Dennis
Steven has visited me a couple of times @ work and I am more than aware of what the is doing and his knowledge.
He is using some ideas while visiting me aka the glass discs etc and secondary electron emission
you are preaching to the converted.
If you suppress the secondary electrons the x-ray emission is much reduced
in the case of my recent setup @ work @ 120kv 10mA no suppression 270mSv/hr with suppression (-1000V) 50uSv/hr

go Steven

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2063
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 » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:19 am

John Futter wrote:Dennis
Steven has visited me a couple of times @ work and I am more than aware of what the is doing and his knowledge.
He is using some ideas while visiting me aka the glass discs etc and secondary electron emission
you are preaching to the converted.
If you suppress the secondary electrons the x-ray emission is much reduced
in the case of my recent setup @ work @ 120kv 10mA no suppression 270mSv/hr with suppression (-1000V) 50uSv/hr

go Steven
John, we should have done this experiment before you disassembled the old VDG accelerator, all it required was a little bit of rewiring, it even had the negative ion source mounted on it.

Hindsight...if only.

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: 1349
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 » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:36 pm

The radiation issue does look very non-issue.
A bit confused on your last post. Wouldn't an accelerator be the opposite of what you want? You want slow ions, correct? Or are you aiming for something else?

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2063
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 » Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:13 pm

Dennis P Brown wrote:A bit confused on your last post. Wouldn't an accelerator be the opposite of what you want? You want slow ions, correct? Or are you aiming for something else?
It would be an accelerator if I intended creating ions at ground potential, dropping them into the tube as is normally the case, but realise I intend to flow the gas into the cathode, using the energy from stray ions passing through to ionise the gas at cathode potential, ions created in the cathode have no kinetic energy and are going nowhere.

Think of a ions moving in a fusor as a swinging pendulum, an ion is created at the shell swings through the cathode and back up the other side again to the shell, as there is no friction to speak of the ion swings back and forth indefinitely (until it eventually hits the grid). An ion created inside the grid is different, does not have the kinetic energy to go anywhere, it just sits there, we need more of these and less of those fast ones.

I am almost certain there is no such thing as a Coulomb force preventing these ions from fusing, it's just another "fairy", what prevents deuterons from fusing is high relative velocity.

Abolition of the Coulomb force is a bold claim, so don't take my word for it, think and figure it out for yourself.
Last edited by Steven Sesselmann on Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Minor improvements to my grammar.
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: 1349
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 » Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:39 pm

Obviously, I have doubts on the issue of the Coulomb force having no significant effect in preventing fusion but frankly, not relevant to your primary point here. I agree 100% that more deuterium ions "trapped" inside the cathode potential well is absolutely important and would lead to greater fusion occurring for any fusor. That is a goal well worth pursuing regardless of the previous issue. I think that if you achieve that goal your results will follow and you will achieve greater fusion. Best of luck and look forward to your future posts. Some of us are still struggling just to get a "light show" started within a fusor without electrocuting or radiating one's self (lol.)

Post Reply