Humm.
Since we are in the "gun" age now in fusors here are some thoughts.
There seem to be three ways to go with head to head beam collisions.
1. Positively charged ions....repulsive.... takes high energy to overcome repulsion ... focusing would be difficult at best...the tough route.
2. Neutral atoms....Low speed, high speed
a. low speed atoms AK neutrals... the bain of classic fusors.... not interesting for fusion work.
b. high speed neutrals ... used for heating Tokamak reactor systems... the only part of the Tokamak tech that seems to work... scalable to high amperages...
60 amps - 100 kA..... uses a simple technology and is scalable by simply increasing it's size. Could be adapted to our work easily. What about the neutral part?. Just feed positive ions through a rubidium vapor cloud.... the width of the area of interaction with the rubidium cloud will detemine the charge the ion will take. It would still be IEC because all pointing and focusing before neutralization occurs will be electrically steered and it will still be inertial in nature.
3. Mixed charge ions...one part d+1 and one part d-1
Accellerated at fusion energies could solve the pesky electron problem by using the electron bound to a deuterium nucleus. The attractive reaction would be easier implement...easier to focus... the helium formed would sop up all excess electron to make neutral helium or a neutral tritium atom and a neutral hydrogen atom. The positive ions would be formed in a standard ion gun while the negative ions would be formed by the method used to form a neutral atom but longer reaction time with the rubidium vapor to form negative ions.
Just some thoughts.... will it be efficient? ... haven't a clue.
Sure shakes up the definition of IEC doesn't it?
Fusion is fun!
Larry Leins
Fusion Tech
Accelerator Fusion- Theory- Beam Interactions
Re: Accelerator Fusion- Theory- Beam Interactions
Larry,
Multiple ion beams each one horizontally opposed and the pairs arrange in a sphere could be built by amateurs I believe.
Incidentally, if one thinks laterally your pulsed fusor can be considered just that. (The symmetrical arrangement of grid to case accelerates the ions towards the focus).
The trick is to ensure the ions hit the focus in the same place at the same time.
As for time, 1ns timing should be within the capability of most amateurs.
What we need is an easy way to ensure a small radius of the focus. Very small mechanical and electrical tolerances are needed for this, (probably outside the capability of most amateurs) … unless we can think of a topology that is tolerant to these effects
Paul
Multiple ion beams each one horizontally opposed and the pairs arrange in a sphere could be built by amateurs I believe.
Incidentally, if one thinks laterally your pulsed fusor can be considered just that. (The symmetrical arrangement of grid to case accelerates the ions towards the focus).
The trick is to ensure the ions hit the focus in the same place at the same time.
As for time, 1ns timing should be within the capability of most amateurs.
What we need is an easy way to ensure a small radius of the focus. Very small mechanical and electrical tolerances are needed for this, (probably outside the capability of most amateurs) … unless we can think of a topology that is tolerant to these effects
Paul
Re: Accelerator Fusion- Theory- Beam Interactions
Hi Paul:
I know there are many possible geometric arrangements.
My main goal in the post was to show it didn't have to be positively charged all the time for fusion.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor tech
I know there are many possible geometric arrangements.
My main goal in the post was to show it didn't have to be positively charged all the time for fusion.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor tech
Re: Accelerator Fusion- Theory- Beam Interactions
(I have posted this message twice begause it may be or seems that in those long threads some people may not notice a post)
I was curious if you guys think that relativitsic math is to be considered in any of this. Such as the deBroglie wavelength and the wave nature of electrons. Yes, you intrinsically are aware of this, gathered from your prior language including orginal application from electron microscope technology. But I have not read anything yet in these terms.
With a rough look into calcualtions at say 50keV your electron has a velocity of ~0.41c. And more to the point, in my experience with lasers, specifically materials processing, the limit prior to and not exceeding the diffraction limit for focusing a beam can be realized through circular polarization. So to suggest, that maybe you might find this view and information useful being that the wavelength at this velocity is ~5355 fermi or in the soft gamma ray freq.
On that approach I don't know what other effects there are to be noted at these velcocities, as at 100keV your at ~0.55c and 250keV (say for your LINAC) your at ~0.74c Such that you could use them with notion of local groupings, cohrence or that with interactions of forces on that level.
Respectfully,
Darius
ps. on a side note I think intropsection on this level will help to curb focusing on mechanical tlerances, for possibly the better results obtainable trhough explotation of natural pheonomenon on a quantum level...... I think on Hull and Coopers side on this, how you would beable to control spatial oreintations of a single electrons throughmechanical tolerances or even electrically articulated ones is above me, in as I said a particle by particle basis. I would, personally, be more into articulation on a temporal level such as through dynamic interpolation through adjustments in a multi-gun (>1000) setup....where high mechanical tolerances were there for piece of mind.
I was curious if you guys think that relativitsic math is to be considered in any of this. Such as the deBroglie wavelength and the wave nature of electrons. Yes, you intrinsically are aware of this, gathered from your prior language including orginal application from electron microscope technology. But I have not read anything yet in these terms.
With a rough look into calcualtions at say 50keV your electron has a velocity of ~0.41c. And more to the point, in my experience with lasers, specifically materials processing, the limit prior to and not exceeding the diffraction limit for focusing a beam can be realized through circular polarization. So to suggest, that maybe you might find this view and information useful being that the wavelength at this velocity is ~5355 fermi or in the soft gamma ray freq.
On that approach I don't know what other effects there are to be noted at these velcocities, as at 100keV your at ~0.55c and 250keV (say for your LINAC) your at ~0.74c Such that you could use them with notion of local groupings, cohrence or that with interactions of forces on that level.
Respectfully,
Darius
ps. on a side note I think intropsection on this level will help to curb focusing on mechanical tlerances, for possibly the better results obtainable trhough explotation of natural pheonomenon on a quantum level...... I think on Hull and Coopers side on this, how you would beable to control spatial oreintations of a single electrons throughmechanical tolerances or even electrically articulated ones is above me, in as I said a particle by particle basis. I would, personally, be more into articulation on a temporal level such as through dynamic interpolation through adjustments in a multi-gun (>1000) setup....where high mechanical tolerances were there for piece of mind.
What is all this relativity stuff?
At 50kV ions are still much slower than c. (being heavier)
There appears to be two goals in these discussions:
1). lets see how many neutrons / Xrays we can produce.
2). Lets try and get useful energy out of a fusor.
For goal 1 one needs energetic (possibly relativistic)particles, but why use a fusor? A linac, synchrotron or cyclotron give better results??
Goal 2 requires more efficiency of operation and much lower voltages. 10keV can easily produce an equivalent temperature of >100 million degC.
I am interested in what proportion of people are in each category. To start the debate, I am in the energy camp, goal 2.
Regards Paul
There appears to be two goals in these discussions:
1). lets see how many neutrons / Xrays we can produce.
2). Lets try and get useful energy out of a fusor.
For goal 1 one needs energetic (possibly relativistic)particles, but why use a fusor? A linac, synchrotron or cyclotron give better results??
Goal 2 requires more efficiency of operation and much lower voltages. 10keV can easily produce an equivalent temperature of >100 million degC.
I am interested in what proportion of people are in each category. To start the debate, I am in the energy camp, goal 2.
Regards Paul
Tolerances
Controlling tolerances at the atomic level is well outside what amateurs can accomplish (in my humble opinion).
Travelling down an experimental path that increases efficiency and points the way to break even if professional help were available is quite possible.
Imagine the impact if we could achieve 2 or 3 orders of magnitude better efficiency from a fusor than others have achieved. Even if we are then only 1% of break even, we will have led the way.
Mad or sane??
Travelling down an experimental path that increases efficiency and points the way to break even if professional help were available is quite possible.
Imagine the impact if we could achieve 2 or 3 orders of magnitude better efficiency from a fusor than others have achieved. Even if we are then only 1% of break even, we will have led the way.
Mad or sane??
Re: What is all this relativity stuff?
Sorry Paul...you ar correct ...a momentary lapse of reason. I rechecked my calculations for a proton and it comes out to be ~1.5%c at 100keV and they certainly only start reaching respectable relatavistics at around 10MeV but I guess that would depend on what aspect you would be solving for. Such as for momentum in the last, for alpha particles it is 37MeV, drawing bar at an threshold of 1%.
I think I am camp 2 myself, ...it lends more credit from a technolgical standpoint of designing an article with a specific mode of operation dealing with known laws of icorporable effects. The fusor I think will fundamntally operate like a phot-cell or gasoline engine....where everything in the machine and its operation is taylor matched with the properties of a specifc consumable. I would leave the beasts of shear qauntity force to mother nature and her intrinsic and harmonious creations like the 2 x 10^30 kg abashed gravity fusor in the sky.
Darius
ps. I would like to give credit for the calculations to R Nave with one of his many applet calculators at ........
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
I think I am camp 2 myself, ...it lends more credit from a technolgical standpoint of designing an article with a specific mode of operation dealing with known laws of icorporable effects. The fusor I think will fundamntally operate like a phot-cell or gasoline engine....where everything in the machine and its operation is taylor matched with the properties of a specifc consumable. I would leave the beasts of shear qauntity force to mother nature and her intrinsic and harmonious creations like the 2 x 10^30 kg abashed gravity fusor in the sky.
Darius
ps. I would like to give credit for the calculations to R Nave with one of his many applet calculators at ........
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Re: What is all this relativity stuff?
I want to note though, on the second hand that I was not interested in relativistics from a force-ful point of view.....though in opposition it would seem to joing camp "2" as compared to the energies to attain those properites, I only wanted to point out that one might be able to utilize this ability for tightenign of ion gropuing as they met the focus. For instance, and I will be brief: If one wanted to fit a 3ft broom in a 2ft box then well,....you get the rest(apparently the Earth is shorter by a blade of grass, for it's motion through space)
Darius
Darius