Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reactors

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
Jerry Russell
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:29 pm
Real name: Jerry Russell

Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reactors

Post by Jerry Russell »

Hi everybody,

I've joined the forum in hopes of discussing this really interesting US patent application 20080008286 (link below.) This patent application describes three methods for achieving pure fusion reactions "which have a relatively low cost and compact size." The application is by Dr. Joseph Jacobson of MIT's media lab nanotechnology group, but no institutional affiliation is listed on the patent application. So far I haven't had any luck contacting Dr. Jacobson.

The first method is related to beam-target fusion, which is said to be a well-known method of achieving D-T fusion, provided that the particles are accelerated to an energy above 0.1 MeV per particle. However, the reaction rate is low, and energy break-even cannot be achieved, because of the extremely small effective collision cross-section of the nuclei. The patent proposes using an interferometer similar to a Mach-Zehner interferometer, to aim a beam of nuclear reactants with very high (sub-nanometer) precision. Each reactant atom within the beam is aimed to strike a target atom at its exact location, overcoming the problem of the extremely small effective cross-section of the nuclei of the atoms.

The second method is related to muon-catalyzed fusion, another well-known method. A muon is a charged particle similar in some ways to an electron, but much more massive. Deuterium or tritium atoms with muons in place of electrons have much smaller radius, so that fusion can occur at room temperature by quantum tunneling across the coulomb barrier. Each muon can catalyze many such reactions, but unfortunately the muon sticks to an alpha particle from time to time. Muons are expensive to make, so this "alpha sticking" problem limits the energy return of the process. The patent application suggests that the alpha-sticking problem can be resolved by adding x-ray photons to the reaction.

The third method is most intriguing to me. The patent suggests that in an ensemble of atoms, an electromagnetic field can be used to align the electrons so that they form a coupled set, or a superposition of their quantum states which could be described by a single effective Hamiltonian. As such, the deBroglie wavelength of the electrons would be reduced, and similarly the effective Bohr radius would also be reduced, and fusion could proceed in a manner similar to muon-catalyzed fusion. The phenomenon of reduced deBroglie wavelength in coupled systems is well known for atomic nuclei (clusters of protons and neutrons) and has recently been demonstrated experimentally for clusters of photons.

Here is the patent application:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20080008286
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Chris Bradley »

Jerry Russell wrote:Hi everybody,

I've joined the forum in hopes of discussing this really interesting US patent application 20080008286 (link below.)
Well, as a patent application, it's a flop because you can't patent multiple ideas in one application. And besides, patent applications are really for people who have already done what they claim and know it is viable. It is not for speculations requiring an enormous amount of further research. This guy's route should have been through peer-reviewed publications, maybe by a 'letter', if he had something useful to publish.

Maybe he should have focussed on the last idea. The first two are generally well-known [and known to be unsuccessful]. No idea about the last one. Way to speculative. This site aims to promote do-able, amateur physics and shys away from purely speculative ideas that would never be turned into reality by the idea's proponent.
John Futter
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by John Futter »

Chris has said it all
patent applications are free ( well not really you have to pay a patent attorney )
I would be very surprised if this went further in the patent process
It probably is a hook to get money from lay dragons or people wanting to be separated from their money
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Richard Hull »

As John noted, many patents of this type are a "hook" or a supposed set of bona fides used to separate possible funds from low information, hopeful investors.

I, personally, would not give this a second read, much less attach any credibility to it.

There is a whole community of "new age - new energy freaks" out there and for every one of them there are 10 other crafty folks ready to take them to the cleaners and 4 others who just want to be a guru with a following.

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
Jerry Russell
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:29 pm
Real name: Jerry Russell

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Jerry Russell »

I was reading through the rest of this board, and ran across a post about Lief Holmlid of the University of Gothenberg. He's doing successful fusion experiments with what he calls "ultra-dense deuterium" or "Rydberg matter." That sounds like exactly the same thing that this Jacobson patent is talking about, in his third method: causing the effective Bohr radius of the atoms to shrink to a tiny fraction of its normal value. So this is a real, experimentally verified property of matter. The only difference is, Jacobson is recommending to induce an ultra-dense state of deuterium using an electromagnetic field, rather than a metallic substrate.

Jacobson is no charlatan. He's a tenured MIT professor and has founded several companies including E-ink, which Wikipedia says was sold for $215 million in 2009. Why would he risk his reputation if this is nothing but a lark?

But you guys are right about one thing: the patent went nowhere with the examiner. Thanks to a post about an Edmund Storms patent here at this board, I was inspired to go search at the uspto web site and find the office actions. I didn't even know that information was publicly available. So right off the bat, the examiner said it was three inventions and insisted that Jacobson pick one for prosecution. Jacobson went with the second one, about muon-catalyzed fusion augmented with x-ray photons. Then the examiner turned that down saying that the idea was unverified, requiring undue experimentation to implement, as well as being obvious based on prior art.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Richard Hull »

Good man! You are following up on this stuff.

We have many old posts related to muon catalyized fusion here. All went no where as no amateur can possibly experiment with this method. The needed 100 mev+ muons require multi-million dollar plus gear to create them in aggregates that allow for useful experimentation.

The recent admission of NIF, (National Ignition Facility), that its recently completed multi-billion dollar laser facility will effectively drop its secondary commitment to the study of fusion energy research and proceed fully with its main mission of "stockpile stewardship" is very telling. Even billions of the money resulted in an admisison that fusion energy via this costly method is a dead end.

Useful fusion energy is now constantly being pushed farther down the road. So far its only practical and proven use is in effectively destroying large urban populations. That part of fusion is doing just great and NIF is improving and refining that technology. It is finally working on that part of its original mission. They are making thermo-nuclear devices smaller, more powerful and more easy and cheaper to deliver on target.

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
Jerry Russell
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:29 pm
Real name: Jerry Russell

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Jerry Russell »

Hi Richard,

I agree that muon-catalyzed fusion is not for high school students. But Jacobson's third idea sounds like something you could do in your kitchen with the microwave oven.

Now that you mention explosives: did you know that Chris Busby thinks the US military is using a new type of nuclear weapon that's pure fusion with no fission trigger? Reading about that is what got me started thinking along this pathway.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Richard Hull »

I do not regard Busby as a credible source on this matter. He is controversial and not a main stream authority on nuclear fusion. His opinions are his own.

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
Jerry Russell
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:29 pm
Real name: Jerry Russell

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Jerry Russell »

Yes, Busby is not everyone's cup of tea. He doesn't have the non-controversial respectability & stature that someone like (for example) Jacobson commands. More like an amateur, I suppose, although he did get his PhD.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Richard Hull »

Rydberg deuterium atoms and perhaps even Rydberg matter may exist in a fusor environment which is both continuously stirred and stimulated by the applied electric field. Ions, electrons, fast neutrals and possibly rydberg atoms are contained in a malestrom of activity. What this means to fusion in the fusor is not easily quantifiable.

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

Re: Three methods for building low cost, compact fusion reac

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Just some speculations.

If there is exotic physics possible in a fusor, the practical demonstration has not occurred as fusion rates are consistent with well established physics. But, there are some results not well explained by straight forward modeling. The results of Hirsch has required some imposition of uncertain condition s in terms of plasma waves and potential well structure. But, I have not seen any exotic physics invoked to match the experiment. I think Hirsch's results are interesting . The University of Wisconsin tried unsuccessfully to replicate his work, but it seams to me they diverged from his design considerably, so comparison is uncertain.

PS: Without invoking exotic physics there are 3-4 relative cheap fusion schemes being pursued. The Polywell, (including a possible variant by Lockheed Skunk Works), several versions of the FRC, the Dense Plasma Focus, and the Canadian hammer approach.
I am a fan boy of the Polywell, but details are hard to come by. I like the Dense Plasma Focus efforts, in part because they have forced some grudging backtracking by critics. The FRC efforts by Tri Alpha are also tightly held, though it is intriguing that funding has possibly reached hundreds of millions of dollars.

Dan Tibbets
Post Reply

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