Fusor without inner grid?

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Dennis P Brown » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:58 am

Well, trapping ions so that they do not lose energy is not unlike holding water in a ball of rubber bands - gonna leak badly. This ignores Bremsstrahlung loses, which for any significantly energetic electron is extremely severe and robs the plasma of energy no matter how perfect your magnetic/electro-static bottle because, you trapped them! The very goal you desire robs your plasma of energy.

OK, lets assume that your plasma 'leakage' is low (zero) and other loses are minimized (again, zero) so your containment energy cost is near zero and few ions lose energy by Bremsstrahlug (again, zero - all impossible but use this as the best case since it is); now, calculate how many ions achieve fusion via tunneling per sec in your 10 -100 micron gas; then calculate the energy so obtained from these fusion events (hint - many orders of magnitude lower than the 250 watts that a cubic meter of the Sun's ultra dense and super hot core releases every second) - in other words, if you were 100% perfect you're gonna get maybe 10^-3 watts per second for a cubic meter of plasma! Think this out - that assumes essentially zero losses and near 100% conversion of all possible tunneling captures per sec resulting in less energy production than a flashlight bulb yields in radiated energy/sec.

I could point out your claim that you get sufficiently low leakage out the ends that your net energy loss is less than fusion produces because you say so is not proof - as to why it will leak terribly and not trap your ions as you think can be shown by reading some of the vast scientific literature on mirror machines in fusion and their issues.

By the way, that is why tokamaks and stellarators were built - the ends are connected allowing the trapped ions to circulate as long as the plasma is stable (why that is not true for times past a few seconds isn't the point. Energy produced per sec tells us all we need to know.) In these devices, fusion via tunneling is essentially nil. So, why would yours produce more energy?

Dan Knapp
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:34 pm
Real name: Dan Knapp

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Dan Knapp » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:48 pm

In the area of fusion, like many areas of science, there is not much really new under the sun. It is unfortunate that so many of the people with a “new” idea are unemcumbered by prior work. The “Fenley fusor” looks a lot like the “periodically oscillating plasma sphere (POPS)” that was studied extensively by the Los Alamos group twenty years ago. One can no longer claim lack of access to the scientific literature as an excuse. A little time googling can save one the embarrassment of reinventing the wheel.

John Fenley
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 9:01 pm
Real name: John Fenley

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by John Fenley » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:32 pm

I have looked at POPs, and I've also looked at "Beyond the Brillouin limit with the Penning Fusion Experiment" also by the same group.
Pops tried to oscillate a sphere, my device oscillates a cylinder. The cyclotron is a very well known, cylindrical, periodic system capable of reaching the desired energies. Each ion in my device follows a cyclotron trajectory but is excited by an ion beam, not Ds, forcing each trajectory to pass through the same point at the same time, rather than circle the same point at the same time.

Here is small excerpt from the PFX paper: "It was suggested recently that the local density might exceed n in a strongly nonequilibrium plasma. This local concentration may occur either in space or time."

So, it is like POPS, but the symmetry is different.

Honestly, I think it should behave a lot like beam on beam fusion with the big difference that non-fusion collisions, even at steep angles, keep ions on a desirable trajectory. It's something like the MIGMA but with a thermal distribution. Todd Rider(Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium) should have nothing to complain about.

Indeed my biggest worry is that, though it appears from my thought experiments and simulations that it MIGHT work, when I did the numerical calculations to determine energy output, I was sorely disappointed. My "giant" reactor in an MRI machine might put out 100 Watts of fusion power, though I did find that this number could be tweaked greatly by the precision of the timing of the ions entering the focus. Synchronization is easier when the device is smaller, so a smaller device might actually make more energy, and "there's plenty of room at the bottom".

User avatar
Richard Hull
Posts: 11246
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:42 pm

Once again, we await the spending and loss of treasure and hope that always accompanies "its gotta' work" ideas related to the fusion quest.

ITER is certainly the biggest throw away in fusion science yet funded. The Fenley idea is but a tiny expenditure. I say let that tiny amount of money flow provided, when it fails, the people living off the initial funding don't say, "if we just could have enough to make it 50 times larger, we know she would kick in and go like a bandit."

How big and costly does something have to be before we get that first kilowatt of usable electricity that is over unity?

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker

Re: Fusor without inner grid?

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:55 pm

Hello John,

With some delay..., I read, with great interest, your patent. I noted that more or less the principle is the same as the SEM-fusor:
* radial electromagnetic confinement,
* axial electrostatic confinement.
However, the trick is, rather to inject ions (as with the SEM-fusor) to ionize molecules with an energetic beam, so that the created ions are going to rotate, all passing (theoritically) regularly at their birth point (so along the beam axis), the Larmor radius depending on the initial radial speed, this to increase the probability of collision (fusion or not). As this radial speed is, a priori, slow, this Larmor radius with be very short (let's say less than one cm).

However as it is aimed to electricity production, I have several questions, as I'm not sure to understand all.

To get fusion interaction, particles need kinetic energy (ideally 80 KeV for D-T fuel and more for others fuels). Is this one given by the two electrodes, supposed at a big positive voltage (not indicated on the patent), the axial periodic movement of the ions being the source of kinetic energy?

What about:
* the elastic collisions with neutrals, which are going to rapidly absorb the ions kinetic energy,
* the coulombian collisions which are going to thermalize the ions energy,
* the space charge which is going to spread radially the ions?
This because the very most probable are non-fusion collisions and also because the cyclotronic rotation period of the ions is going to rapidly change due to these interactions.

About the fusions production and yield, I have a doubt because the ions density will be weak and so will be the fusion production, this with a yield surely close to the standard (i.e about 1E-6 to 1E-9).
Note I suppose that you are not in the case of a full plasma (i.e no neutrals as on tokamaks), but with only a very small percentage of ions in the plasma.
Have you tested or simulated (with a particles simulation) your idea?

Patrick Lindecker

Post Reply