F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

James,

Thanks for the encouraging words. To me it doesn't actually feel as if I am applying any new laws of physics, electrical potential is a relative concept, and transposing ones frame of reference is and always has been allowed. What I have done is simply taking it to the limit, and asked the questions "What if" and "Why not". For some reason these questions are almost discouraged in academic institutions, where the senior staff believe they know everything there is to understand.

So what if, the electron and the proton were at opposite ends of the electric potential scale?

... the next obvious question is

Why wouldn't they be at opposite ends of the electrical potential scale?

....the next question is..

Where are we (the observers) on the electrical potential scale?

...answer

Somewhere in between, the proton and the electrons potential, but how do we know where?

This is where I think the nuclear reactions give us a hint, because some nuclei decay up and some decay down, with Ni62 being the point of lowest potential. This looks to me as the potential closest to what we call ground potential.

Now take the mass of Ni62, and divide it by the number of nucleons, then multiply it with C^2 and that's what we call ground potential. Somewhere in the order of 900 Mev and falling.

I suspect time itself is the slippery path down the potential energy ladder, and that it is the unavoidable decay of the matter we stand on that governs the passage of time. Much like a giant clock spring unwinding.

Humanities greed for energy, only makes the spring unwind faster. What we are trying to do with fusion, is to make it unwind a bit faster, without completely loosing control of it.

We should probably not be doing it, and let nature unwind the spring at it's own pace.

Solar energy and geothermal energy are natural sources of energy that are beyond our control, and if given our full attention, could be exploited to sustain humanity, albeit in a different way than the current lifestyle demands.

Smart architecture and town planning could support a large population with a fraction of the energy we use now.

My five cents worth...

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Chris Bradley »

I find your descriptions of the physical world intriguing, but the element of them that I find it difficult to work with is that you seem to define potentials on an 'absolute' scale, with respect to a ground potential.

Of course, we *can* describe 'ground' as the state of charge neutrality, but beyond that I do not see how your theory connects up fusion probability with 'absolute electrical potential'. Well, OK, I read the words, but it's not clear to me because I can only envisage fusion rates in relation to the 'relative kinetic energies' of the fusing particles.

If it was simply down to the 'electrical potential' alone, then you could go hang a lecture bottle of deuterium on the nearest 500kV transmission line, and call it a fusion reactor!
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan,

Reading your first paragraph, it sounds as if you are referring to STAR instead of FICS.

FICS is what I am working on now, and it differs from STAR in two ways.

1) It is a single ended accelerator

2) I am attempting to ceate the ions in the cathode rather than externally in an ion gun.

(see attached diagram)

Plasma behavior inside hollow cathodes has been well documented, and sheaths form against the cold wall, this in turn creates a build up of charge in the center. The cold wall is permeable to electrons, but not to protons, so the hotter the plasma gets, the more electrons are pushed out of the plasma and through the cold wall, leaving a net positive charge.

The big IF, is weather or not I will be able to keep the plasma hot. If not, plan B might be to try something like Carls RF heating, but to do it at cathode potential.

From my experience with STAR, I suspect the FICS reactor will sustain a plasma at much higher pressures than a regular fusor, rather than 10 micron, I think it will sustain a plasma and burn at 80 to 100 micron pressure. Time will show...

Steven

Image: The diagram is shows the cathode with approximate electrostatic field lines. the tiny hole on top of the cathode is the gas inlet, coming from a gas cylinder which is floating at cathode potential. Floating the fuel is not itself important, what is important is to ionize, ie separate the electron from the proton at cathode potential. But how to get the gas into the cathode, you can't simply run a pipe through a 100 kev potential?
Attachments
STARDRIVE-Fig3.jpg
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Well, that would eliminate some of my confusion.

Concerning a polarized plasma where the electrons accumulate near the hollow cathode surface and ions are left in the center to forma net positive space charge, how are the ions contained. There is no central virtual cathode, only a repulsive central vertual anode. I suppose there would be a zone between where the ions might find a minimal point in the opposing potential wells, but it seems that between the central virtual anode and the periferal virtual(?) and real cathode, that the ions would quickly stream to the solid cathode. Any charge build up would be minimal and such things as the Brillion limit(?) would preclude any useful fusion density. How you would get densities (irregardless of the amount of energy pumped into the system) that could result in 10^14 fusions/ second in such a small volume seems incredable. Of course the Brillion limit is apparently not an absolute limit, there may be workarounds such as the Polywell claims, and other research.

I suppose you could get such fusion rates if you pump in enough energy to maintain a ion density against heavy losses. Breakeven may not be possible, but it might make an impressive neutron source.

And, of course "heavy electrons" changres things considerably IF they exist and are not just an abstraction to describe what happens in some circuits.

Also, the hollow sphere looks like it might obey Gauss's Law to a fair degree. I think that would preclude the trapping of the electrons before they reached the cathode wall. Using the Elmore Tuck Watson design, the open grid traps electrons by pulling them back inside the grid once they have reached radii outside of the grid. Gauss Law precludes any effect on the electrons (or ions) within the positive grid. Only when the charged particles pass to greater radii or hit the grid is there an effect (acceleration).

After saying all this I admit that there are strange layers and complex relationships and dynamics in Fusor like devices, so your insights may be more applicable than my ... um...understanding. As you say, the experiment will tell.

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Chris,

Well I think we often forget to include ourselves in the equation. We like to calculate numbers around the event itself. We consider the two particles, their mass and their velocity, but pay little or no attention to number one, "the observer". You are the third element in the equation. Einstein paid attention to this and sorted out quite a few problems in his time.

Electrical potential and potential energy might turn out to be the same and it is not an absolute scale, rather it is a scale which is relative to you the observer.

We already know where on that scale we are because mc^2 simply describes the total potential energy. by dividing the mass m by the number of nucleons in the mass, we get the energy for one elementary charge or the proton if you like.

And it turns out that proton has a mass of 0.938 Gev. but when bound inside a heavier atom, the mass of the nucleon is slightly less, this is because it has fallen to a lower potential, by fusing with other protons.

So what we call ground potential is a potential somewhat lower than that of the proton, but nowhere near as low as the electron.

The proton and the electron therefore represent the extreme asymptotes of the potential energy scale with respect to the observer, and when we now compare the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton, we see that the potential of our own body is much closer to that of the proton than that of the electron. This is a good thing, as it means we have some time to go before we hit rock bottom

As for your other question:

"If it was simply down to the 'electrical potential' alone, then you could go hang a lecture bottle of deuterium on the nearest 500kV transmission line, and call it a fusion reactor! "

Not so, because the laws of physics remain the same for any potential, the difference between your suggestion and the FICS reactor is that a) we are providing heat b) we are providing a route for the fusion product to escape.

Once again, there are three elements in your thought experiment, 1) the deuterium cylinder 2) the low voltage potential 3) the observer at ground potential

The coulomb barrier height is a function of relative potential, and were you to hang your deuterium bottle on a low voltage wire that was -0.938 Gev there would effectively be no coulomb barrier, but sadly there would also be no potential energy to extract from the fusing of nuclei.

Let me know if you feel I have suggested any inconsistencies when answering your question.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan,

You raise a few questions and I do not pretend to have all the answers.

The vision I have for FICS, differs from the classical fusor in many ways. We have a hollow cathode at the end of an accelerator tube, and deuterium gas bleeding slowly into the cathode.

At some point it is inevitable that the gas pressure will build up until a plasma forms, I have seen these kinds of plasma on many occasions, it is typically a thermal plasma and it tends to form inside the cathode.

Now we have a thermal plasma happening inside the cathode, into which more gas flows in and becomes ionized, those molecules that loose their electrons inside the cathode have low potential energy, and are therefore trapped in the cathode, inevitably the temperature/pressure of the thermal plasma will rise, and rise ....

Once pressure reaches fusion temperatures there will be a number of ways that feedback can take place.

a) fusion nuclei striking the inner cathode will sputter electrons back into the plasma
b) x rays will reflect in the holraum and heat the plasma in the center
c) fusion nuclei may directly collide with gas molecules.

Keep in mind that FICS will most likely operate at much higher pressures than a regular fusor. The gas density inside the cathode may be in the orders of 100's of microns, making the mean free path much shorter. Another consideration is the size of the cathode, my current design with a 70 mm cathode may be far from optimum, it may be that the cathode interior needs to be in the order of several meters. That would possibly be a outside the practical limits for an amateur, but no challenge at all from an engineering point of view.

Once a continuous fusion reaction is taking place inside the cathode, electrons will due to the heat, be forced out of the plasma, through the cathode, and back up through the electrical circuit.

At least one of the positively charged particles from every fusion reaction, will find it's way to ground via the accelerator tube, thereby completing the electrical circuit.

For each positive charge climbing through a potential of 100 kev., the electron must fall through the same potential to join it, and this is what I hope we can exploit.

If hypothetically the reactor was running at 10^17 fusions per second and each reaction sent one positive charge to ground via a 10^5 volt potential then we would have the equivalent of 10^22 electron volts per second of electrical energy, which is about 1600 watts, plus of course a whole lot of heat.

Please feel free to point out if you think I have drawn any wrong conclusions.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
JamesC
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 pm
Real name: James Caska

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by JamesC »

>For each positive charge climbing through a potential of 100 kev.,
> the electron must fall through the same potential to join it, and this
> is what I hope we can exploit

Right, so being a first principles kinda guy and without looking into the specific arrangement used a F.I.C.S this seems to be a nice idea as a building block for energy recovery from Fusion in general.

Right now you are assuming directionality but as an overall principle the idea of birthing ions in an energy well and using fusion to climb the potential well leaving their energy behind seems like a really efficient energy transfer mechanism from my naive point of view.

I have often wondered how to handle energy capture from fusion, as it stands you have to capture the neutron in some sort of thermal jacket and extract hot fusion products in some sort of hot gas with all of the energy transfer losses this implies.

I guess the neutron capture doesnt change but at least the hot fusion products could be forced to efficiently impart a good chunk of their energy when exiting the energy well. I guess in the end you would want to ramp up the potential from 100KeV to something closer to the minimum fusor product - whats that - He at .82Mev for DD fusion? and maybe figure out some sort of staged system to handle other products.

Nice.. if thats true as an energy recovery mechanism I might just have to figure a way to incorporate it into my (theoretical) design.

Cheers,
James
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Dan Tibbets »

I don't know why a your ion and electron energy transfer to a third entity, would be equal unless the system was in isolation- mo walls, no radiation . If an electron is accelerated to 100 KeV, it need not transfer this energy to an ion going in the opposite direction. Energy may be discharged as Bremsstrulung radiation, or most importantly the KE would be transferred to a wall and discharged as heat. If you have a very tignly coupled plasma- cold and very dense, the ions and electrons may transfer the energy between them nearly equally. But fusion plasmas are hot and less dense, so they are at most weakly coupled (coupling means that the local attraction between oppositely charged particles dominates over space charge effects).

You mention that as much as 1/2 of the fusion ions will pass through the hole and climb up a potential well and give u[p its energy to the circuit. This direct conversion may work (probably does) though not at 100% efficiency. 90% may be doing good. The major problem though is that the fusion ions are created with KE in an isotropic manner- traveling in random directions from the point of fusion. Most would hit the wall- in proportion to the surface areas of the hollow cathode walls and hole. The Polywell might work with direct conversion, especially with P-B11 or D-He3 fusion where most of the fusion energy may be in the KE of charged particles. But, there are two important points. First the random directions in the Polywell is converted by the cusp magnetic fields into fairly direction flows through cusps (they bounce around inside by being turned by the magnetic fields till they hit a cusp) Thus most of the fusion ions achieve controlled paths that allows for possibly efficient direct conversion. Even if the fusion ions bounce around inside the Polywell for a claimed ~ 1000- 10,000 times, their MFP is so long that they will only rarely collide with a fuel ion and transfer KE to the feul ions. There is insignificant heating by the fusion ions.
In the DPF these flows are also focused by magnetic fields and is also pulsed, so they have the additional option of direct conversion through an inductive (?) effect.
The second issue is that multiple MeV fusion ions have relatively low Coulomb crossections. If the MFP = ~ 1 cm for a 10 KeV fuel ion, then a 3 MeV fusion ion may have a MFP of ~ 100,000 cm. They will exit the system or hit a wall long before they impart significant KE to the fuel ions . These minimally interacting ions cannot heat a plasma unless their residence time / distance traveled is comparable with the confinement times. In Tokamaks, these fusion ions can heat the plasma because they are contained for relatively huge amounts of time (hundreds of seconds). This can be done with cuspless magnetic fields like in Tokamaks (at least in theory) but the confinement of these hot ions are brief in cusp machines (like Polywells, DPF, etc) and is even shorter in Fusors (essentially one pass). That is why Fusors, Polywells are not suitable for ignition efforts like in a Tokamak.
The potential well designed to accelerate and contain a species of charged particle (either an electron or positive ion, but not both) is worthless for a fusion ion because it's KE is several orders of magnitude greater than the Potential well. I should mention that pushing potential wells into the region of fusion ion KE might at first glance solve this issue, but Bremsstrulung issues, other issues, and inefficiencies in energy recovery methods quickly lead to a losing situation from an energy balance perspective.

Again, after saying all of this I understand that Tri Alphas' FRC efforts may include some electrostatic effects to improve confinement (overcome some of the magnetic instabilities?). There are a lot of variations that may help. The problem is that anything that seems to help one aspect of the system, generally hurts another aspect almost as much or more. Clever workarounds and compromises is the only way forward.

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

James,

Looks like you've got it!

Nice to have you on my side, now let's see if we can make it work

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Chris Bradley »

Hi Steven,

Might I ask a 'test' question about your theory?

What does your theory say about why the fusion cross-section curve is as it is - i.e. why do we see fusion generally fitting a function predicted by quantum tunnelling theory down to quite low kinetic energies (much lower than you might expect if particles were trying to get back to some ground level)? Or put it another way, why will you need 100keV when fusion can be detected in plasmas of just a keV or two?

Also, at the other end, why do deuterons smash each other up at >~2MeV rather than simply have yet more opportunity to take the 'path' back to lowest potential?

I hope thinking about how these are represented in your theory will help evolve it.

best regards,

Chris MB.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

[Chris MB said....What does your theory say about why the fusion cross-section curve is as it is - i.e. why do we see fusion generally fitting a function predicted by quantum tunnelling theory down to quite low kinetic energies (much lower than you might expect if particles were trying to get back to some ground level)?

Or put it another way, why will you need 100keV when fusion can be detected in plasmas of just a keV or two?

Also, at the other end, why do deuterons smash each other up at >~2MeV rather than simply have yet more opportunity to take the 'path' back to lowest potential?]

Chris,

Yesterday my son, who is in year 12 at high school came to me with a homework question. the question was "Why is the gravitational potential energy "Up" written as a negative number?"

I knew immediately that my answer would probably get him into trouble, so I convinced him to find the answer in the text book, and apparently the end point, or zero potential energy was conveniently put at infinity, the argument for this was that it was difficult to establish the zero point for potential energy in the other direction. In classical Newtonian physics, one might have chosen the center of the Earth, but then that point would have potential energy above the center of the sun, and if the center of the Sun was chosen then why not the center of the galaxy, and so on.. where does it end?

So it was decided to call infinity for zero gravitational potential.

Now, if I had done my sons homework, he could have expected a big "F", because I would have turned potential energy on it's head.

Energy is a simple scalar number E and E/c^2 is an objects mass, it matters little what kind of energy it is, potential, kinetic, thermal etc.. just energy does nicely.

So let's break it down even further, let's talk about energy per nucleon. All material objects can after all be broken down into nucleons.

For arguments sake, lets use the following approximations.

Nucleon mass (proton)......... 938Mev/c^2
Nucleon mass (Deuterium)... 936Mev/c^2
Nucleon mass (Helium 3)...... 934Mev/c^2
Nucleon mass (Nickel 62)......930Mev/c^2

Now to find the electrical potential energy of these nucleons, all we need to do is divide them by c^2, so the picture we get is that helium has a higher potential than Nickel and Deuterium has a higher potential than helium etc..

Now conventional physics places the proton on a pedestal and refers to mass defect, and binding energy, to explain the other nuclei, but in my theory there is no such thing.

The energy of an object is it's potential, and there isn't anything complicated about that, the only interesting observation is that we as observers are not at the top of the potential energy scale, we are made from relatively massive nuclei, and we happen to reside in a potential energy well, so where are we?

Well if we could count the number of nucleons in our body and work out the mass per nucleon we could establish our own potential, however i think we already know the answer.

We know that protons have a higher potential than us, because if we let go of a proton it actually falls up, yes...nothing to do with Archimedes, it falls up, because it's potential energy is higher than ours and it doesn't belong here, neither does deuterium, helium and the other light elements. The only way we can keep them here at ground potential is to bottle them up and watch them fly around like crazy hitting the inside of the cylinder walls (we call this pressure, but it's actually potential energy).

There is reason to believe that ground potential and the potential of Ni62 (930Mev) is one and the same thing. this is because the elements either side of this have higher electrical potential per nucleon.

Before answering Chris's question specifically, we might ask, Why do nuclei fuse?

Nuclei fuse in an effort to get back to their natural electrical potential equilibrium. Take for instance free floating Deterium molecules, they will not fuse, because they happily exist in their natural potential (this actually means falling up unless we confine them), but when we confine the molecules and heat them up, we are removing them away from their natural potential, remember heating them increases their potential even more, and we are not letting them go there.

This is where it is obvious that classical physics has got it wrong, smashing particles together faster and faster is not was causes the fusion, rather it is the brief moment when the particles stop moving, that actually causes the fusion event.

Increasing the velocity of a deuteron actually increases it's potential, and at some point you will be making it harder and harder to fuse, which I think answers Chris's third question.

In F.I.C.S. fusion, the objective is to take the molecule as far as possible below ground potential before ionizing it, thereby confining the ions to a potential energy well, before heating them and inviting them to fuse. The ions confined and heated below ground potential, have a lot more to gain by fusing, than ions heated above ground potential, and therefore ought to fuse more readily.

To answer Chris's first question...
As I have explained above, the Deuterons are not fusing in order to get back to ground potential (630Mev), they are fusing because they want to get back to Deuteron potential (936Mev), but to escape confinement and do this they have to trade off some energy (~2Mev) and settle for Helium or Tritium (934Mev).

To answer Chris's second question...
Providing two or more molecules of fusion reactive fuel are confined at a potential other than their natural potential, there is a probability of fusion. This probability as Lawson proposed is a function of temperature * number density * time

The only modification I would make to the Lawson factor is that temperature be defined as the difference in potential between the ion and the confinement.

Once again, by lowering the confinement chamber below ground potential, it should no longer be necessary to heat the plasma as much to achieve the same level of fusion. I need to look up how to convert voltage to temperature for deuterons.

If this post raises more questions than answers, I will as always try my best to answer...

PS: For you guys still at high school and Uni, stick to your text books, but never forget to ask What if? and Why not?

Steven

http://www.beeresearch.com.au
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
JamesC
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 pm
Real name: James Caska

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by JamesC »

>We know that protons have a higher potential than us, because if we
>let go of a proton it actually falls up, yes...nothing to do with Archimedes, it falls up

When you say it goes 'up' do you mean this in a gravitational sense? Do you propose to link gravity to potential in your theory. This is a demonstratable thing though right, I am pretty sure people would have noticed if protons fall up?

Beam me up scotty, just contain a bunch a protons to create an anti-gravity drive?

Since current theories are demonstrably false, ie qantum and gravity dont mesh, if we all just accepted the current theories as absolutes rather than mathematical constructs that just happen to fit our current experimental knowledge we could never move forward. What I like about your efforts steven is you are putting your money and efforts where your theories take you. Right or Wrong we will all learn something from the results.

Cheers,
James
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

James,

Some things do indeed fall up...

A single proton is the stable particle with the highest voltage potential, and if it was allowed to thermalize with our world at ground potential, it does indeed fall up.

ie. obtain sufficient kinetic energy to escape the earths gravitational field.

A change to our way of thinking, not to our laws of physics.

Steven
Attachments
balloon.jpg
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
JamesC
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 pm
Real name: James Caska

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by JamesC »

Right so you mean two objects are equipotential when they have the same total energy, mass+kinetic+electrical. So obviously for the earth to be equipotential to a proton in this view the proton would be traveling at light speed but incredible mass energy. Not so much 'up' as in anti-gravity but as in not bound by earths gravity, actually earth would not like to collide with such a proton..would look like a light speed mini black hole?
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

James,

Not exactly..., two objects are equipotential when the nucleons are at the same energy potential.
A satellite in orbit around a planet is equipotential with the potential of the radius it is orbiting.

The nucleons in the water molecules of a cloud, hanging at 1000 meters are equipotential with the electrical potential at that height, however when they condense into water droplets, they fall to a lower potential and consequently appear as rain.

Gravitational potential and electrical potential actually comes together as one and the same thing, when you measure it from the zero point.

Electrical potential increases with height, which is why we have to add energy to elevate matter.

Take for example our Sun, it is at a much lower potential than the Earth, and I suspect that it has an electrical charge in the order of -1 Mev with respect to us the observers. Not surprising that it resembles a grid less fusor.

It should be possible to calculate the exact conversion between gravitational acceleration g and electrical potential.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
DavidStewartZink
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:22 pm
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by DavidStewartZink »

Thanks for some very interesting ideas! I think you err in suggesting that the experiment has a 50% chance of failure, failure in an experiment means that you didn't learn anything. The fusor may have a 50% chance of failure, but I'm pretty sure if there were a design with 100% chance of success according to common theory, we'd already have them. Don't get focused on one result, the point is incremental progress.

It seems to me that you are achieving charge separation in the cathode through temperature; fusion inside the cathode should certainly improve that situation!

It's asserted somewhere in the comments that fusion is random, of course that's not true. Fusion/fission/beta emission etc. all happen when the nuclei see a chance to fall to a state of lower energy. What's random in a fusor is achieving the conditions.

Two deuterons carry more energy than a threelium nucleus + neutron; it's just that it takes more energy than the savings to get the deuterons close enough to do the transform because of nuclear electrostatic repulsion. I think there's an interesting idea in manipulating the confinement so that the profit of fusing is increased by allowing the products to escape the confinement, but I think this version would take a very microscopic sharp-edged tunneling-scale confinement and I guess the deuteron will always escape better than the threelion. OTOH fusion always allows one nucleon to escape an electrostatic potential completely; perhaps there's a more subtle way to encourage fusion beyond more ions and more temperature?

The major part that seems weak in this design is the chance that a threelion will manage to exit through the decelerator tube. Presumably the nucleus is created with a certain amount of energy and a random velocity vector. Is the assumption that it will eventually leak out the hole, or is there something encouraging it?

I forget how temperature works on mixed gasses, but at the same velocity threelium will certainly have 50% more momentum than deuterium, which means that the decelerator tube could be tuned to allow He3 through but not D. However I'd expect a good portion of the product to thermalize to the point where it cannot escape.

From my point of view the weakness of the design as a fusor (but not as an experiment, I might do the same thing in an experiment) is that you are expending work on the decelerator tube, rather than setting it up to do regenerative braking, letting it do work for you. The moving + charges induce movement in electrons, slowing the plus charges and driving some other apparatus. In one version the escaping He3+ and D+ generate energy which is then used to separate (de-ionized) He from D and force the D back into the chamber (which is less work because it is uncharged); the question then becomes will there be enough He3 to overcome efficiency losses and show a profit? Assuming you don't have a clever way to keep D in the cathode.

anyway, my few cents
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan and David,

Thanks for your thoughts and comments...

Time will show how efficiently FICS can separate charges, I have set up a data logger with LabView in an attempt to measure simultaneous voltage, current and neutron fluctuations during experiments.

No experiment yet, as my power supply has decided to pack up just at the wrong time.

Regarding comments that both of you made about isotropic emissions of charged particles, I have no proof to the contrary, and it may well be the case that particles are emitted isotropically.

What do we know about quantum tunnelling anyway?

I am a strong believer, that water runs down hill......,

....stand in the shower, and watch how every drop of water eventually makes it down the drain, how did that tiny drop, bounce off your nose, hit the wall, slide down the side, across the floor and into the drain?

How does it know, does it have a brain?

No, but for some reason the drop just knows that it's future is down the drain, or at a lower potential if you prefer.

So too, I believe that quantum tunnelling between two deuterons will only take place when and if the opportunity to escape arises. Inside the FICS cathode, the game is rigged, there is really only one direction for the particles to escape confinement, and it is through the hole.

So my guess is that a larger number of the charged particles will find the hole. If so, conservation of momentum dictates that the neutron should go in the opposite direction.

It will be interesting to see if we will be able to measure any anisotropy...

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
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Richard Hull »

The neutron is a result of fusion and has a well known energy of ~2.4 mev. Compared to either deuteron's momentum, the conservation of momentum in the colliding particles really doesn't effectively enter into the equation as related to the direction of neutron emission as the neutron, itself, never had a relationship with the deuteron's momentum. If so, which deuteron's tiny momentum will direct the 2.4mev neutron? Remember D:D fusion is 50:50 event with 4 chunks of debris in the 2 events. This is why in all D-D fusion, at energies we can claim for the deuterons, all neutron emission is observed to average out to be isotropic in nature. This tends to go for all the other particles as well. The charged ones, to be turned or "herded", would need applied steering energies in excess of their own at time of formation.

If you were stripping, (Deuterons with greater energy than 3mev), then that might be another matter, causing some anisotropic emission of the neutrons as this would be a momentum event and not a normal fusion event. For this to significantly manifest itself, you would be forced into a beam-target scenario.

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Chris Bradley »

David Stewart Zink wrote:
> It's asserted somewhere in the comments that fusion is random, of course that's not true.
Yet more guesswork of yours on the established facts of science?

Fusion is by well-understood [well, at least well-modelled] random tunnelling processes. There is no longer any scientific debate on that.

All scientifically rigorous experiments have a 50/50 outcome: Either you disprove the null-hypothesis, or you don't. One or other....
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Another well established fact is that no amount of hand waving and speculating will settle the debate, and only well executed experiment will put the baby to rest.

I have two newly acquired sensitive bubble detectors that I intend placing at 90˚ angles above and beside the cathode. The experiment can be repeated several times by switching the bubble detectors around. By this method it should be possible to establish weather or not there is anisotropy in the emission of neutrons.

Richard, my earlier reference to conservation of momentum had nothing to do with the collision of the particles, I agree 50 keV vs 2.4 Mev is negligible, my point is that the fusion products He3 + n or T + P must be ejected diametrically. It is simply unthinkable that a lone particle would take off in a random direction at 2.4 MeV from a standing start.

Now onto quantum tunnelling..., a particle will not tunnel through a potential barrier unless it can gain something by doing so, just as a prisoner will tunnel out of jail to gain his freedom (people on the outside hardly ever tunnel into a prison), so my hypothesis is, because the FICS cathode offers only one route of escape, the reactions that take place, are those that will have a dimetric axis aligned with the aperture.

I doubt that any prisoner would bother tunnelling if the warden left the gate open...

Thats my hypothesis, and may the experiment settle the debate.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S. Fusion a new concept in fusion

Post by Chris Bradley »

Steven Sesselmann wrote:
> my point is that the fusion products He3 + n or T + P must be ejected diametrically. It is simply unthinkable that a lone particle would take off in a random direction at 2.4 MeV from a standing start.
> Now onto quantum tunnelling..., a particle will not tunnel through a potential barrier unless it can gain something by doing so, just as a prisoner will tunnel out of jail to gain his freedom (people on the outside hardly ever tunnel into a prison), so my hypothesis is, because the FICS cathode offers only one route of escape, the reactions that take place, are those that will have a dimetric axis aligned with the aperture.


I find that to be your most engaging hypothesis yet, Steven!

I'd like to make a couple of points, though:

Firstly, I don't see any reason to presume that tunnelling might not have taken place even if the outcome is 'null'. To use your anthropological examples, a shopper might well tunnel their way into the shop through queues in the sales, but find there is nothing there worth exchanging money with, and leave the shop in an unchanged state. Once tunnelled, it would seem evident that however the nucleii rearrange themselves into a 'fused product' that they may not always rearrange quick enough to 'take advantage' of the situation in an optimum way because we know that DD rarely ends up as 4He+hv, yet this is the lowest energy state outcome. (I'm not arguing for this point, only that I don't see a counter-argument for it.)

Secondly, there is one classic experiment in physics for which we are still scratching around for a proper answer, and what you have described I think is, actually, very similar and may even provide an extra 'data point' for. This is the classic 'single-photon-through-a-double-slit'. As you may know, you get an interference pattern if you pass monochromatic light through a slit. But if you turn down the light until individual photons are passing through the slits, they still preferentially deflect into the same diffraction pattern, even though there are no other photons in the space around the slits to interfere with.

Taking those two points together may be revealing. You are claiming that a freshly fused atom will have some form of interaction *dependent on* what will happen to its optimum energy state *in the future*. That is not a classic interpretation, but it is one that I have also hypothesised. This would be one hypothesis for the outcome of the double-slit experiment; that the photons are interfering with the other photons, but past-and-future, rather than to-left-and-right. It is a temporal interference, rather than a spatial one.

Your hypothesis appears to be that the quantum tunnelling and nuclear fusion process may behave selectively according to future, temporal, influences rather than just spatial ones. I think that is an interesting hypothesis, and would not be excluded if you see anisotropic neutrons.
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”