More on solar fusion.

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

More on solar fusion.

Post by Richard Hull »

Check out

http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html

This is the PPPL fusion educational site.

The URL relates to solar fusion. In the table below we note that at the core of the sun a miserable 275 watts of energy per cubic meter is the norm while at 9% of its radius from the core it is down in the 100 watt per meter range.

This is actually pretty damned sad power density performance based on what we need to do for power ready fusion here on earth.

A 6" fusor would only need to do less than a single watt-sec of fusion to surpass that of the core of the sun! A watt second is nothing, of course, in the scheme of power distribution needs.

Interesting fact if the PPPL data is assumed correct.

Simple math would yield the successful power density needed to make a 100 megawatt fusion reactor viable. Say with a 100 cubic meter fusion zone in a doughnut. That would be 1 megawatt per cubic meter.

What chance fusion?

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
tligon
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:58 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by tligon »

Chance of fusion? 100%! Several options are proven viable.

Pile a lot of hydrogen in one place and let gravity do the rest.

Put a little deuterium and tritium around a fission bomb.

Put a little deuterium in a linear accelerator of one form or another and apply a few tens of kV.

Chance of build a working fusor, tokamak, or laser-fired device that burns plain hydrogen? Not too terribly likely. And I'm an optimist.

Chance of making something work with a fusion fuel with a little pep in it? Somewhere in between.
bpaddock
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:39 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by bpaddock »

Richard Hull wrote:

> http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html
> This is the PPPL fusion educational site.
> The URL relates to solar fusion. In the table below we note that at the core of the sun a miserable 275 watts of energy per cubic meter is the norm while at 9% of its radius from the core it is down in the 100 watt per meter range.

Perhaps heretical for Fusor Form but worth a read, the
"Electric Star Model":

See: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf

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

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

The fuel in the sun is not a perfect mix.

How many joule/seconds per cubic meter would the sun achieve, if it was made from pure deuterium, or a mix of D-T ?

I imagine a lot more than 250 watt, so maybe there is still hope.

If not ..., we are as Richard suspects, flogging a dead horse!

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by DaveC »

I suspect we may be trying to compare apples and oranges.

That the Sun is a very gentle, low power density quasi- black body radiator of large mass, ...is necessary for life to exist on earth. Our planet hangs around this thermal and higher energy radiation field, in a nice and regular orbit because of the mass..

This doesn't really have much to do with whether there might be other methods of energy generation involving mass-energy conversion processes that are not so gentle and have neglible mass (at least in an astronomical scale)..

While so far, it is clear that our science has not found a stable, manageable higher power density method. I don't think there is any evidence yet, that such a method is forbidden on physical principles.

If such a conclusion could in fact be reached on sound theoretical basis, then this would be a "good" thing. It would end a huge economic drain on the resources of scientific exploration, and free up minds to think of other things.


Dave Cooper
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by Richard Hull »

My, "chance of fusion?" Query at the end referred solely to the holy grail of distributable fusion power. We all know that fusion is abymally easy to do.

As for a heretical model related to this site noted by Bob........What can I say?...... It is virtually universally accepted as part of church doctrine. To call P-P fusion heretical is to step way outside the bounds of accepted science and pee on a Nobel prize awarded principally for its discovery.

Richard Hull

P.S. I am somewhat of the heretic related to p-p fusion here but quote the party line often to avoid the sheaf of arrows cast at dissenters. I also used the church's data on fusion densities as they seem to have the data boldly displayed and, undoubtedly, the references are very tracable to only the best minds and researches. Thus, it is all we have.

It does show how pitiable the solar fusion is even under the might of the ultimate confiner, gravity....... (thank the Lord for that, at least). This is much more satisfying than Lord Kelvin's burning lump of coal calc's.

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: More on solar fusion.

Post by Chris Bradley »

At the risk of repeating prior thread content, it does appear to be the case that even a goodly fuel like DT is likely only to dribble a power output. 0.5W/cc is the current rate of magnetic confinement systems, which isn't too bad but explains why ITER is a colossal device that still won't be able to put out too much energy relative to its size.

(As far as I understand its status, ITER is going to produce less energy than it actually could because the material properties/designs to resist the thermal fluxes are just not good enough at the moment to take what ITER's plasma core might actually put out.)

I do not believe it will ever be possible to control a steady fusion plasma better than ~1W/cc because the pressures that come out of a calculation to that effect results in forces that cannot be attained by currently ‘practical’ magnetic pressures, nor can be successfully moderated by electric fields. (To go higher in specific power output, I think someone will have to devise a system which self-generates its own magnetic fields from a seed field.)

I understand Richard's reticence over the pp chain - it is a reaction only seen at extrapolated-ly higher energies, the weak force that mediates it being too unlikely to show much up in lab experiments operating at the sun's actual core temperatures. But the sums do add up 'as advertised', so we are into relying on science to explain what cannot ever be directly observed – which is no less than the function of theoretical science. Finding a flaw in the 'existing physics' of fusion rates from quantum tunneling and Gamow energies, or otherwise coming up with an evidenced alternative explanation, would be the only way to legitimately bring the theory of the proton chain into question, but it has to be admitted to being 'a theory', I think, no matter how strong or weak its case.
mheslep
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:42 am
Real name:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by mheslep »

As before, don't forget other types of stars, 10^24Watts/M^3 will get 'er done, though unfortunately that kind of reactor does not stay intact. We need plan C, something in between our Sun and a super nova.
download_thread.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor ... 1176922177
inflector
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by inflector »

Richard Hull wrote:

> It does show how pitiable the solar fusion is even under the might of the ultimate confiner, gravity......
> Richard Hull

I'm sure we can do better using some stronger force like an electrical charge. Gravity might be the ultimate confiner but it is by far the weakest force we can bring to bear.

- Curtis
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by Richard Hull »

Gravity is indeed among the weakest of forces, but, for all that, it is the only force out there doing continuous, controlled fusion and powering the universe, in effect.

How many years do we get using the 'really strong forces' before we succeed? We have been in the stronger force fusion taxi for 60 years and the meter is still running and billions in fares are already spent and, yet, we ride perpetually around the block.

I wonder what will break first...Public support for fusion research or some miracle hatched out by a lucky donkey. Thus far, the collected efforts of the best and brightest has fallen on its face.

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
inflector
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by inflector »

Well I for one, am of the opinion that science has stagnated in the last 50 years for a reason, too few risks being taken and too much orthodoxy. I also believe there is no Higgs Boson.

I believe that the next advance in physics is far far more likely to come from amateurs than from professionals. The HEAS conference is much more likely to have our next Einstein than all of ITER and LHC.

I say this because I believe that Thomas Huxley was right:

"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. "

Science makes too many assumptions about what MUST be true. They have taken us as far as that perspective can. There is a reason that Einstein stopped believing in Quantum Theory. He knew the right answer would be far more elegant and consistent.

- Curtis
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by Chris Bradley »

Better to be lucky than good.

Third option is just to try everything! I did once make a suggestion directly to those with due inflence that maybe it'd be worth a scatter gun approach and try out all the various 'fusion' methods that have gone through the patent books. I believe this amounts to a few dozen, rather than 100s, so seems a surmountable challenge within the financial schemes of other full-on projects.

The typical vacuum setups, high voltage, convoluted magnetic fields and/or RF sources that are largely elements of most of them could be then efficiently contained in a single lab that goes through them in turn, with a fairly light and not-too judgemental touch as to which ones get tried out at a small prototype level before committing to a large project.

You can guess the response... well, it was just a thought!

I bet the tax-payers of most countries (maybe not France!!) would choose that approach rather than plugging billions into a single scheme, given a real democratic choice.

Clearly, if I may be so bold as to suggest such a thing, Carl would be my nomination to head that project up.

best regards,

Chris MB.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: More on solar fusion.

Post by Richard Hull »

Nice thoughts, and suggestions made with some real cerebration. Unfortunately, truly democratic decisions by the populace on complex scientific issues are never informed decisions. This is because the public is not made of 'informed stuff', but, instead, 'reacting stuff'.

The average joe is just not truly informed on many issues critical to a distant future. A plethora of facts hurts their heads and confuses them. They are not capable of processing hard nosed specific data that is dry. They look to others who are appointed by other appointees who are, themselves, appointed to take on a specific task. The result for fusion is a scientifco- politico conclave of committees and special interests.

The regular guy is just out of the equation until the media chooses to involve him with a salacious story related to the effort, be it success or failure.

The public is characterized by apathy towards fusion between periods of media sound bites related to it.

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
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”