Page 1 of 1

Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:01 am
by Royce Jones
Many in the fusion community is just now coming to the conclusion that in order to get higher fusion rates you have to focus on the ions rather than the electrons. This is true of all machines including Fusors, Polywells, Tokamaks, etc. This is called “new theory”, yet fusion has always been about combining nucleons. Electrons play no direct role in nuclear fusion they are only a control mechanism due to their opposite electrical charge, yet they add many instability problems to the mix. Using positive electrostatics you can obtain the same control while removing the problems related to electrons.

It is entirely possible to design a reactor that uses only positively charged ions. Such a reactor would remove all the problems associated with heating, maintaining, recharging and controlling electrons. The positively charged ions can be compressed in a reactor by giving the reactor a high positive charge. Additionally, the ions can be given directional control and compression using electrostatic fields. The proposed reactor design confines the ions, gives them directional movement in only two directions, and compresses the ions together at speeds that overcome the electrostatic repulsive force of the ions. Explained in simple terms, the reactor divides the ions into two groups, and then slams the two groups together at high speed. This process is controlled by relatively low energy electrostatics and is repeated millions of times per second. Since hydrogen ion collisions are critical to reaching higher levels of fusion the density of the ion cloud is very important. A large number of ions in as close proximity to each other as possible will create more opportunities for fusion reactions. This is a perfect scenario for fusion generation. This concept is called the Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor (PEFR).

The Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor plasma reactor is a simple electrostatic fusion device. However, it is substantially different from other electrostatic devices because it only uses positively charged ions. In conventional electrostatic fusion reactors the electrons are used to attract the ions toward the center or area of confinement. Electrons are not used by this reactor as they present substantial energy loss mechanisms, do not cause fusion and more importantly are unnecessary due to the design. The electrons can be removed from the plasma before the plasma enters the reactor.

The Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor uses electrostatic energy in two ways, first as a confinement mechanism and secondly as a pumping mechanism to pump energy and direction into the ions. In the Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor the confinement shell has a large positive electric charge which keeps the ions positioned away from the reactor wall and centered in the reactor chamber. Since the wall has a high positive charge the positively charged ions (protons) will be repelled away from the wall back into the plasma or ion cloud. There are several potential ways to control the ion (proton) pumping action using electrostatics to create fusion, however the simplest solution appears to be a simple cylinder with electrostatic plates at each end. This would be a delicate balancing act between electrostatic forces.

The reactor end plates can attract protons which have a positive charge by having a negative charge then switch to a positive charge to repel the protons back to the center. In this case no electrons are needed. Since using electrons can add to energy losses, this may be the best approach. However, the magnetic energy density required to confine electrons is far smaller than that required to directly confine ions. This is overcome using electrostatic forces. The wall has a positive charge and the plates can switch between positive and negative charges.

In the picture (figure 1) above the basic positive electrostatic fusion process is shown. The ions in the plasma are attracted to the end plates that have a strong negative charge. When the charge is switched to positive the positively charge ions are repelled back to the center at high velocity where they will impact with ions returning from the opposite side. When two D-D or D-T ions collide at sufficient speed fusion will take place.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:17 am
by Dan Tibbets
A positive ion only fusion reactor is a nonstarter. You cannot have a pure positive charged ion plasma in any density that produces more that tiny amounts of fusion.
Read further at your own risk :)

First off, bouncing ions back and forth between two end plate electrodes by timing polarity reversals is a difficult proposition. A ion population with monoenergetic energy distribution would be required, thermalization due to interparticle collisions would result in a mixture of energies. To prevent up scattered ions from reaching the plates, the management of the potentials probably need to far exceed the average kinetic energy of the ions- ie- the potential well would be shallow relative to the applied voltages. Timing would be critical. Some type of resonance might help, but managing losses while providing adequate KE to the ions would be a challenge. Then there are the ions that are scattered sideways, how are they contained? Gauss Law considerations may apply unfavorably also..

The major criticism though is based on the Coulomb repulsion or attraction between charged particles. This Coulomb repulsion/pressure rises exponentially with density. The Brillion Limit would apply (I think). Basically this is a consequence of inter particle repulsion. A density of at most ~ 10^13 unbalanced charges/ cubic centimeter is manageable. Anything more will fly apart and could only be contained by applying rapidly increasing electrostatic fields (millions and then billions of volts). As a rough example, a potential of perhaps 10,000 volts may constrain a pure ion population of perhaps 10^17 per cubic meter. To increase the pure ion density to useful levels so that reasonable amounts of fusions could occur per second, you need somewhere around 10^18 ions per cubic meter or higher . This might give you a few megawatts of power in a ITER sized machine. This would not come close to matching the input power. Even if you could somehow get excess power it would only be enough to power a small village, at a construction cost of billions and billions of dollars. Because of this tremendous Coulomb pressure that grows with UNBALANCED plasmas, you have to have electrons and positively charged ions in the system. Negatively charged ions would add interesting conditions, but I am aware of no claims of maintaining negatively charged ions in more than tiny amounts in a plasma. A plasma does not have to be neutral with equal negative and positive charges, but it cannot vary by much. The Polywell takes advantage of a non neutral plasma with an excess of electrons but the imbalance is only about one part per million. With a particle density of perhaps 10^20 particles per cubic meter, this represents 0.5000001 *10^20 electrons and 0.4999999*10^20 positive ion charges per cubic meter. The difference is not much. Both electrons and ions have to be present in any plasma where useful amounts of fusion can occur. Or with a total charged particle density of 10^20 particles/ cubic meter, the electron excess would be 10^14 electrons per cubic meter, or 10^8 electrons per cc. This imbalance is tolorable and actually useful in the Polywell scheme. It creates the potential well- virtual cathode that contains the ions. The electrons are adequately contained by the magnetic fields (at least that is the goal).

A penning trap with electrostatic electrodes might be built to contain antiprotons or other charged particles, The key here is that the densities are tremendously below the Brillion limit. Possibly only a few million particles per cubic meter.

Some further discourse on unbalanced +/- charges in a plasma is discussed in this thread on the Talk Polywell forum. It is hopefully not too confusing or misleading. It does represent my understanding of the issue of tolerable and desired charge imbalance in a useful fusion plasma.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... f=3&t=5778

Dan Tibbets

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:20 am
by Frank Sanns
Royce,

The image that you posted is corrupted so we cannot see your drawing. Would you mind reposting the image. I have some thoughts on the matter but want to be sure I fully understand what you are proposing.

Thanks.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:01 pm
by Royce Jones
Repulsive charge of the ions in the beam is not a problem because like charges moving in the same direction are actually attractive rather than repulsive. This only becomes a problem when the ions slow down or stop and even this can be used to advantage by allowing the ions to expand without the use of a negative charge so that the next pulse can slam them into each other.

SPACE-CHARGE NEUTRALIZATION
The density of electrons in a broad ion beam is approximately equal to the density of ions. In plasma physics this is called
“space-charge neutralization” or “quasi-neutrality.” As an example, consider a long, cylindrical beam of 500 eV
ions, 10 cm in diameter and with a current density of 1 mA/cm2. If no electrons were present, the potential difference
between the axis and the outside surface of the beam would be over 14,000 V. Adding "space-charge neutralization" would only disrupt the beam so it is something to be avoided not something you are looking to instill into the operation.

The problem is the potential for arching to the chamber wall. This can be controlled by a positive charge on the chamber wall. The charge will also help contain the beam while the pulse instills directional control. Therefore, no magnetic compression is required. Timing would be critical to operation. Not sure what went wrong with the picture, I will create a new one and post it.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm
by Royce Jones
Basic Operation
Basic Operation
New Pic

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:33 pm
by Frank Sanns
I do not think the configuration that you are proposing will work as you propose. Putting high negative potential on parallel plates will not be the same as a high negative potential in the middle.

I ran some experiments to test this with concentric inner grids well inside of the vacuum chamber. I ran a high negative potential on the inner grid and grounded the outer grid. This is the typical fusor configuration and it works. Of course it works or we would not be on this site. Then I ran a high positive potential on the outer grid and grounded the inner grid. Since charge is a relative phenomenon, the situations should have yielded the same result. In both cases, the outer grid was 35kv more positive than the inner grid. In the configuration where the inner grid was grounded and the outer grid was at +35kv potential, there was essentially zero fusion.

Clearly the configuration has and impact on it since it cannot be the potential or the polarity. Indeed it is due to Gauss's law. For a sphere, the charge is on the surface of the sphere and the electric field is zero inside. Two parallel plates are like two portions of a complete sphere. While the maths are slightly different, the result is the same. Two close plates with the same potential put on them will not have an electric field between them. They are at the same potential and the charge will be on the outside faces of the plates.

Of course if the plates are far apart so as to not affect each other, ions could be accelerated towards each other but that is a collider. A compressor from close plates is not going to work for the reasons stated. Not trying to be a pessimist here but the theory says that and so do my own experimental results.

Frank Sanns

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:24 pm
by David Kunkle
That would make one helluva physics test question:
Frank Sanns wrote:I ran a high negative potential on the inner grid and grounded the outer grid. This is the typical fusor configuration and it works. Of course it works or we would not be on this site. Then I ran a high positive potential on the outer grid and grounded the inner grid. Since charge is a relative phenomenon, the situations should have yielded the same result. In both cases, the outer grid was 35kv more positive than the inner grid. In the configuration where the inner grid was grounded and the outer grid was at +35kv potential, there was essentially zero fusion.
Explain for 50 points.

Electrons on the inner grid should see no + charge on the outer grid, and therefore, there should be no amperage and there wouldn't even be plasma let alone fusion in the reversed setup- right?

Not to pile on Royce, but since he plans on using a + charged chamber to keep stray ions away from the walls, Gauss' Law strikes again, doesn't it? The ions wouldn't see any + charge on that cylindrical outer chamber.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:14 pm
by Garrett Young
Frank Sanns wrote:I ran some experiments to test this with concentric inner grids well inside of the vacuum chamber. I ran a high negative potential on the inner grid and grounded the outer grid. This is the typical fusor configuration and it works. Of course it works or we would not be on this site. Then I ran a high positive potential on the outer grid and grounded the inner grid. Since charge is a relative phenomenon, the situations should have yielded the same result. In both cases, the outer grid was 35kv more positive than the inner grid. In the configuration where the inner grid was grounded and the outer grid was at +35kv potential, there was essentially zero fusion.
The question is what was the potential of the vacuum vessel? Take a look at the following electrostatic simulations:

+35KV outer grid with grounded inner grid and vacuum vessel
PosOuterGrid.png
Very low fusion rates in this configuration isn't surprising given that there isn't a central focus for acceleration.



-35KV inner grid with grounded outer grid and vacuum vessel
NegInnerGrid.png
Typical Fusor arrangement



+35KV outer grid, grounded inner grid, and FLOATING vacuum vessel
PosOuterGrid-floatingshell.png
Although this wouldn't be a safe configuration, the electric field vectors are virtually identical to the typical Fusor arrangement and I would bet that similar fusion rates would occur.

Garrett

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:32 pm
by Frank Sanns
The outer chamber was insulated so it effectively out of the equation. Also the distance between my outer grid and the chamber is larger than the distance to the inner grid.

Here are some links to pictures of my fusor and work and the discussions:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7807

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7844

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7843

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:54 pm
by Garrett Young
+35kV outer grid and grounded inner grid inside a pyrex bowl. The chamber is spaced at a larger distance ratio and grounded.
PosOuterGrid-GlassBowl-LargeRatio.png
Frank Sanns wrote:The outer chamber was insulated so it effectively out of the equation.
I would respectfully disagree.

The pyrex bowl is modeled in this simulation and of course it effects the electric field (as any dielectric would) but the field lines still extend radially and diffuse the acceleration focus. I think floating the chamber (and eliminating the glass bowl for ion re-circulation purposes) would have increased the fusion rate.

Garrett

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:17 am
by Rich Feldman
To begin with, I'm concerned about the scaling of arrows which render the computed E-field strength and direction.
In some cases, they falsely suggest a substantial radial field extending inside the inner grid!
The arrow sizes & directions are based on E-field at their tails, which are located in a regular Cartesian array.


I agree that this is a three-body problem, not a two-body problem. The outer shell has some potential, whether or not it's an electrical insulator. Its voltage with respect to the inner and outer grids matters a lot. Garrett's pictures show that shell voltage can make the difference between a roughly equipotential surface at outer grid radius, and a potential field that dips to around mid-voltage between the outer grid wires.

Garrett: It looks like your FEA model (mesh) outer boundary corresponds to the fusor vacuum chamber wall.
For the insulating chamber case, what's the boundary condition? How come the whole circumference seems to end up at 0 volts?
If a real, finite insulating shell had no static charge, the radial E-field from a positive outer grid would continue smoothly to infinity. ( See "capacitance of sphere" in an E&M textbook. ) FEA result inside the shell would be accurate if shell potential matched the potential at that radius in the real, infinite world. Can we see what happens if ratio of FEA boundary radius to outer grid radius is 10:1 instead of barely 2:1?

Of course a real insulating shell (or insulated metal shell) could have static charge of arbitrary quantity and polarity. Mightn't they come to equilibria at voltages not much different than that of outer grid? In real fusor lab, a floating metal shell should have its voltage measured; otherwise that voltage would be an important uncontrolled variable.

Oops, almost forgot to ask.
Are the simulations 2 dimensional, as if the grid wires and shell were parallel to each other and perpendicular to the drawing plane?
Are they quasi-3d, where the left edge of drawing is an axis of rotation? Then shell is a sphere. Each grid is made of 1 large circle, 2 smaller circles, and 2 small balls at the poles. That could explain difference between contour shapes at North and East grid regions.
Or are the simulations really 3d, where the drawing omits critical details of the grid geometry?

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:27 am
by Frank Sanns
Ignore the inner grid for a moment to get a better idea of what is going on with the outer grid, the insulator and the chamber wall.

Consider what the outer grid and chamber condition are. Without the outer shell wall, the E field will put charge onto the insulator and continue to fall of past the insulator. The charge will be contained throughout the insulator and fall off beyond that.

When an outer chamber conductor is present, the E field aligns the dielectric molecules of the insulator so the apparent so the voltage on the inside of the insulator climbs to the potential of the outer grid. Simultaneously, the outer surface climbs to the potential of the chamber wall. This is exactly a capacitor. Consider the configuration of a Leyden jar to understand what the outer grid and chamber wall must look like.

In this condition, the voltage on the inside of the insulator is at outer grid potential. It is potential that moves charges. Charge cannot move without a voltage gradient.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:15 am
by Garrett Young
Rich,

Here is an image of the same simulation with the pyrex bowl highlighted (green). The boundary is the outer vessel and is grounded (the floating condition was done in a previous simulation)
PosOuterGrid-GlassBowlHiglighted-LargeRatio.png
This is a quasi-3D simulation so you are correct about the structure of the components. You are also correct about the arrows in that the length is the magnitude and the origin of the tail is the location.



In general, as amateurs experimentation is important, but I think we would all benefit from more theoretical testing to guide and focus our efforts.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:10 am
by Frank Sanns
Garrett,

I totally agree that we need more modeling but there are some problems that I see.

The first is access and competent knowledge of the software. We old timers see software come and go and never really know what to use and how to get good simulations. Garbage in garbage out is always my fear and is well justified from good experiments and bad computer modeling back in the early 1980's. I would be first in line to have software and know how to do it as there are all kinds of configurations I would like to test out. I would also like to see a good explanation of how the star rays make it beyond the outer grid and even beyond the outer shell and into large side ports like I have in my fusor.

The second concern is items where insulators are put in paths. While I totally agree with your images, including the last one, I am still not convinced that the last one is totally accurate for what an ion or an electron will see since it is confined and the surface of the insulator will surely develop a charge due to collection in addition to the electric field. Not sure how to account for that.

Lastly, how does this apply to the original poster's comments about confinement within a cylinder and the fusion that might or might not occur.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:13 pm
by Royce Jones
Sorry for the delay. An alternative to getting a positive charge around the chamber would be to use permanent magnets. If the goal is to control strays this should work.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:32 pm
by Royce Jones
The Plates: I seems that the plate would work, however the charge would be on both side of the plates so the electrical input would have to be doubled to account for this.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:22 pm
by Royce Jones
A few points. The proposed design has a greater concentration of focused ions.
These ions should move in only two directions resulting in more fusion reactions.
Charged ions are "attractive", so little confinement should be necessary.
An "floating positive grid" as discussed by would be an interesting addition to the concept. Since it only needs to control strays the positive grid should not need much charge. Alternatively, small permanent magnets might also do the job.

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:43 pm
by Dan Tibbets
I recomend that you have a good understanding of Gauss law. Basically, in a conductive sphere or wire mesh with a given radius will not effect charged particles inside of it (at a lesser radius). Only charged particles outside of the sphere are effected. That is why discussion often mention accelerating charged particles past a grid towards the center, once inside the grid only thei inertia and local coulomb collisions between particles have effect. The grids do not play a role again untill the particle passes outside of it or hits it. The chamber walls by definition are always outside of the charged particles, till they hit it, so it does not have any contribution to the properties of the charged particles inside of it, just like a grid at a greater radius than the particle. The grid does not need to be spherical or continuous (solid surface for Gauss law to be dominate. Eventually, things start to break down once the openings in the grid grow large enough, but for the most part this is only a miner consideration in fusors, and ideally in Polywells, though there are qualifiers and gotches.

For what I think is a good introduction to Gauss Law, watch this video by an MIT professor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxasQBBlWmk

Concerning a beam of positive ions (like charged mobile charged particles) when one dimension is considered the charges can only be located ahead or behind each other and I could see this as having a cancelling effect. But with two or more dimensions, the beam will also have repulsion away from the axis of the beam- the beam will spread/ defocus and will do so exponentially with increased density. I think this is what you are saying when you mention the 14,000 volts at the surface of a 1 cm diameter beam. This is a lateral acceleration voltage or force and leads to beam spreading. It is not like a beam of light where there is no mutual photon repulsion. The charged particle beam will only maintain collimation with magnetic and/ or electrostatic continous external application of focusing forces. With the Polywell and other quasi spherical designs there are some consequences that may be interesting, but I do not see how they would apply when considering two parallel plates. Neutral beams, or near neutral beam where space charge spreading is under some minimum is not a free ride either. Because ions and electrons have different masses, they have different speeds at the same energy. The electrons leave the ions behind and space charge builds up leading to beam spreading. I think this is the basis of the two stream instability.

An equal mixture of positive and negative ions would be interesting, but
I don't know how complicated things could get, because the orbital electrons need not be well behaved and stick to single ions. There could be charge exchange, and a certain percentage of free electrons always being decoupled from the ions at any given time, especially when you are at energies well above the ionization potential of the ions (like thousands of eV)...

Dan Tibbets

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:56 pm
by Dan Tibbets
PS: Using a positive charge on a grid will accelerate opposite charges past it (or hit it), so long as Gauss Law considerations are accounted for. This is the idea for the Elmore Tuck and Watson variation on the fusors. Electrons are introduced outside of the positive grid and accelerated towards the center of the spherical space. With a spherical space, as the center is approached the volume decreases so that there is a concentrating effect of the electrons. This creates a virtual cathode near the center. If ions are introduced inside the positive grid (so they are not immediately accelerated towards the walls and lost) they will be attracted to this virtual cathode located at a smaller radius. They will eccelerate to fusion speeds, and fuse in the center or pass outward till they are stoped by the virtual cathode again and reaccelerate towards the center. Ideally, the ions would ossilate back and forth in this manner till they fused. There is no cathode wire for them to hit. But, the electrons can hit the peripheral positive anode wire because they will not be slowed and reversed till they are beyond it (at a greater radius. Nothing is gained over having the negative wire grid. If the grid, positive or negatively charge is magnetically shielded, though, this transparancy problem is avoided. At least that is the idea. It doesn't work very well because of all of the problems with magnetic shielding/ containment. The Polywell and other approaches have tried to get around this through clever manipulations. The problem though is that for every cleaver manipulation several confounding complications crop up.
These complications are often harmful, but some may actually benefit other aspects so the quest goes on...

Dan Tibbets

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:41 pm
by Jason C Wells
Royce Jones wrote:Since the wall has a high positive charge the positively charged ions (protons) will be repelled away from the wall back into the plasma or ion cloud.
This is not true. Any configuration of charge will re-arrange itself to achieve the state of lowest energy, the state with zero field. When you put a single ion inside your vessel, then you won't have zero field. That ion will find a place to stick itself to the inside of your vessel. That is called sputtering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem

Your device isn't purely electrostatic though. It has magnets. In fact, your device looks like a pair of Penning traps. Your end grids would need to be within the magnets completely. The curved part of the mag field will happily carry ions directly to the wall if they can get to the gap between the endplates and the magnet. If that happens, your trap will fail to operate. (btdt)

If my assumptions about a Penning trap are correct, your device is not a linear accelerator. A Penning trap is like a little mini cyclotron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap

The Penning trap part of your devices will make ions all by itself. You don't need to inject ions at the ends. Wikipedia says Los Alamos has done fusion with Penning traps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_ ... onfinement

I think you mean that your center grid is -50kV in the picture.

I use a modified Penning trap to create protons. Or... at least I think that's what I'm doing.

Regards,
Jason C. Wells

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:32 pm
by Dan Tibbets
Jason C Wells wrote:
Royce Jones wrote:Since the wall has a high positive charge the positively charged ions (protons) will be repelled away from the wall back into the plasma or ion cloud.
This is not true. Any configuration of charge will re-arrange itself to achieve the state of lowest energy, the state with zero field. When you put a single ion inside your vessel, then you won't have zero field. That ion will find a place to stick itself to the inside of your vessel. That is called sputtering.
......
Here I think you are wrong. A single ion inside a conductive metal sphere ( a perfect Gauss Law setup) sees all of the charges on the sphere surface. The charge in front of it is cancelled/ nullified by the same charge behind it. When you consider the profuse charges on the sphere surrounding the test particle the charges always cancel out. The ion is in its own small universe where it effectively has no walls or interaction (electrostatically) with anything from the sphere surface outward. It doesn't matter what the charge is on the sphere- Earth ground, minus 100 Volts, or positive 100,000 volts. The NET effect on the test particle is nill. What ever inertia the test charged particle has will not be changed until it actually touches the sphere. If it has zero inertia relative to the sphere it will happily stay in one place for ever- provided you ignore external forces that can penitrate the sphere. This would include gravity , moving the sphere, but not electrostatic forces that are not destructive to the sphere. You can get picky and ask what happens if a cosmic ray hits one side of the sphere. A local temporary charge imbalance balance could occur and this would effect the floating internal charged particle until the charge spread evenly across the sphere (not instantanious). This could nudge the particle towards one wall, but this can be ignored from a theoretical perspective.

Sputtering is the impact of a particle on a surface that has sufficient energy to knoc off one or more particles from the surface. The KE of the impacting particle is transferred to surface particles- electrons, ions, atoms, globs... or even free quarks if the energy is high enough. The energy of the impacting particle is relavent, not the method that gave the particle it's KE. This could be from electrostatic acceleration, gravity, gun powder, photon pressure, gas pressure, baseball bat, etc. or any kinetic energy the particle had when it was introduced to the system.

If you do not like to think in terms of Gauss Law, instead use the implications of Faraday cages.

Dan Tibbets

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:26 pm
by Jason C Wells
I think Earnshaw's theorem applies. It will be interesting to see if it works out.

Regards,
Jason

Re: Positive Electrostatic Fusion Reactor

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:48 pm
by Dan Knapp
It should be mentioned in this discussion that the idea of "pumping" an ion cloud by alternate electrostatic expansion and compression in a fusion reactor is not a new idea; it was pursued by the Los Alamos group back in the nineties as the "periodically oscillating plasma sphere" or "POPS." For details, Google Barnes and Nebel, POPS.
Also, the diagram of the linear device looks a lot like a linear electrostatic ion trap. Google Zaijfmann for a series of papers on this type of trap. Google Alex Klein and "MARBLE" for its application as a fusion device.