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: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.)
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.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.
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.