Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency superior

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:05 am

Hello Frank and Richard,

>I believe you are trying to differentiate between (rendement) yield ( like the nomenclature used in nuclear weapons) and
>efficiency which is a thermodynamic property.

Yes "yield" seems well. I adopt it. Thanks.


>The problem being the thermodynamic summation of all of that. While the yield is huge per productive collision, there are
>statistically near zero productive collisions in comparison to unproductive ones.

The unproductive ones are either the collisions on neutrals and there is a true loss of energy so the pressure of gaz must be extremely low (so in basis I suppose 10 pPa, which is the presseure at about 10000 km from Earth).
But the very big problem is "charge exchange" between an ion and a neutral because the cross section is very high and so the probablity elevated.
The Coulomb collisions are different because it is a thermalization of energy (the average energy is the same, but its distribution varies), a bit as space charge which thermalize energy (moreover this effect is to un-concentrate the ions beam).
The ionisation and dissociation ones are very few is the gas pressure is low.

What I propose is to make loss of energy less that gain of energy, using very high voltage and very low gaz pressure (this, in theory, via a simulator, of course...).


>I doubt that the 21st century will see and fusion energy either.
We have the international ITER in France and its successor has big chance to produce electricity before long (at least it's my hope). However, to rapidly go to Mars this will not be the solution... Reversely an electrostatic confinement is the solution because it is light and if you use aneutronic fusion (H+ <-> B11+) you will be able to use direct conversion system with an efficiency better than 0.9, this because all the fusion products (He4) will have a charge (with no, or almost no neutrons emitted).

Patrick

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:04 pm

P + B11 is a dream that no one is realistically working on. We can't even do the easiest of all fusions T + D and make it go. Not much to say for ITER either. It is a giant money pit headed for failure with plenty of good and viable excuses when it doesn't pan out, but there is always that new thing just around the bend. We just need more money to make it happen.

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: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:41 pm

Hello to all,

For information, after many simulations, you will find my conclusion about the possibility of fusion by frontal collision in a linear device, here:
* in Frenh: http://f6cte.free.fr/Conclusion_sur_fus ... neaire.pdf
* in English: http://f6cte.free.fr/Conclusion_about_f ... device.pdf, reproduced below:

Maisons Alfort the 10th of January 2019 / Rev. 1
Conclusion about the possibility of fusion by frontal collision in a linear device

This short paper explains why under realistic hypothesis, it cannot be hoped, from this fusion method, a system in which it can be generated more power that the one supplied (indeed a system interesting for electricity production).

The two previous papers of the author were not based on realistic hypothesis, this to avoid to be curbed as soon as started.
One of the freedom taken was not to consider limit on the voltages used. If, now, it is considered a realistic voltage taking account of the breakdown between electrodes, one will pass from tens of MV to hundreds of KV (for example, about 240 KV maximum for one cm between electrodes, in a high-vacuum system).

However taking under account a relatively “weak voltage” involves that the confined current is going to be necessarily weak because the radial force exerted by the Einzel lens will be much weaker because dependent on the applied voltage. It can be hoped to confine two 10 mA ions currents but not much higher.

It is reminded that the working principle of the linear device is to generate D2+ (or D+) ions at one extremity, T2+ (or T+) at the other extremity, to accelerate both towards the center and to confine them in the same time. The D2+ and T2+ ions are going to circulate along the device axis and fuse (besides other interactions : collisions, ionizations…). There is no or almost no ions-neutrals (I/N) fusions. Note that it is not possible to imagine a system mainly using I/N fusions because “Charge exchange” interactions type are widely more probable and make I/N fusions anecdotal, with, as well, a deplorable global efficiency.

In addition, to hope to have an interesting fusion power, it is necessary to start from a very fine beam. Indeed, one shows that the fusion power increases with the ionic density. For example, a straight beam of 40 nm of diameter would permit to generate (ideally) several hundreds of W by a small linear device. The problem is that it does not exist ions sources supplying a straight beam of 10 mA on a cross section of 40 nm diameter. The ions trajectories in a beam are always either divergent or convergent (the beam emittance cannot be nil). Even the very bright GFIS ions sources have a beam aperture angle of 1° with a maximum current of about 10 nA (so very far away from the necessary 10 mA).

Even supposing that such ideal ions source be found, it would be necessary to :
• be able to align two 40 nm diameter straight beams,
• have beam aberrations much weaker that the beams section,
• have parts with geometries such that the electric field be almost perfect (coaxial and symmetrical),
which seems very difficult to obtain. Reversely, the required vacuum level (let’s say P<1 mPa) is feasible.

In addition, taking into account the efficiency of the ions sources (< 0.2) and the thermo-dynamical efficiency (about 0.3), it would be necessary to generate, in fusion power, 20 times more the power injected by ions to have an interesting electricity plant.
So, it seems difficult, not to say impossible to imagine a fusion system to generate electricity, based on a linear device.

Patrick Lindecker

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Dennis P Brown » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:29 pm

If you are proposing that tritium is required for the experiment, then you are wasting your time. None is available to run experiments. That puts an end to this discussion since without experimental proof, calculations are as valuable as warp drive proposals. Yes, one can string together calculations that don't violate known physics but the conclusions are utterly useless.

Also, exactly how are you going to get 10 mA of 250 kV ions? That is not easy - micro-amps, maybe. Also, unless you have a near perfect vacuum, your chamber will have a lot of non-ionized and partly ionized molecules (air) that will cause major issues with your beam.

That all said, sending two beams of ions (non-relativistic) head on will not work - the space charge problem is far too significant for 40 nm. I'm not sure what diameter is possible but seriously doubt that 40 nm is feasible regardless of other issues. Also, the ion density compared to cross-section for interaction rate is terrible. These are nuclei, not atoms. Show me the probability of collisions and you will start to approach this issue in a logical methodology rather than speculation. As such, I suggest you do that calculation before further speculations on what can and cannot be achieved using this procedure. A first order calculation requires no calculus and also, just ignore space charge effects. The numbers will show you what is wrong with your approach.

Your thermodynamic efficiency values for generating the ions were obtained how?

Can ion fusion work in a cost effective manner? To date that is a question that has not been seriously addressed to my knowledge. So, this might be worth looking into but do start by doing the elementary calculations. Then if you are determined, build the equipment and do the experiment.

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:57 am

Hello Dennis,

I'm not sure you understand the paper, or perhaps it is due to my poor English.

The goal is to show that it is not reasonably possible to produce electricity with a fusion system based on a linear device, this based on many simulations done with my particle simulator (Multiplasma). That's all. It's just an information to abstract my tests.

>Also, exactly how are you going to get 10 mA of 250 kV ions?
If you read entirely, you will see that producing a beam in the required conditions is not possible (in the up-to-date technology).

>the space charge problem is far too significant for 40 nm.
Multiplasma takes into account the space charge and many more interactions. However, I recognize that there is surely a certain uncertainty on results and all possible interactions are not simulated, but only the most important.

>Your thermodynamic efficiency values for generating the ions were obtained how?
I supposed the same type of efficiency as our fission nuclear plants (about 0.34 / 0.35, for a secondary water at about 330° if I remember well).

>As such, I suggest you do that calculation before further speculations
A particular simulator is based on local physical equations applied to each "particle". You don't need to do a global calculation. That's the interest.

>Can ion fusion work in a cost effective manner? To date that is a question that has not been seriously addressed to my knowledge.
So you might think of it.

>So, this might be >worth looking into but do start by doing the elementary calculations. Then if you are determined, build the equipment and do the
>experiment.
With a simulator you don't need to do build an equipment for each test, as you can test thousands of possibilities, up to find what you desire and there, there is an interest to envisage a real machine for test.

Patrick

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:53 pm

Mathematical models, no matter how intricate and well made, will not generate one watt of energy nor will they do fission or fusion. Only hardware stands a chance of doing this. Engineering will take the mathematical model and, if possible, work out all the unseens and unknowns waiting to pounce in the math.

The classic example is fission reactor poisoning. This was not understood in the early reactor design and thanks to a bunch of engineers over designing and building one of the first reactors, (making it a good deal larger than the math suggested), was this problem discovered and solved without a complete rebuild. I forget whether this was Kellogg or DuPont's contract during WWII.

If you do not know something is hiding in the mechanics of something "real world" you can't include it in any design math.

The fusion world has been living with highly complex models for years and continue to refine them all to complete non-functionality. This or that new model has been the progenitor of many new multi-million dollar devices that have fallen on their faces.

Unfortunately, there is no nascent energy in hydrogen. Only the universal potential energy force of gravitation can get hydrogen to fuse successfully 24-7-365. U235 and plutonium are much different for they are a cocked, nuclear, potential energy gun waiting to have real stored internal energy released rather easily... just push a couple of pieces close together. This is akin to the stored chemical energy in Nitroglycerin. Only externally supplied energy can fuse hydrogen for continuous fusion. What pitiful fusion has been done has been done at huge net loses at huge relative costs in money and energy and complex infrastructure.

Where did the stored potential energy come from in U238/U235? It came from the crushing force of the blast of nuclear forces working against gravity in a long past super nova fusion. This resultant product was left to drift for eons through space only to accrete into rocky-metallic planets.

The mathematical fusion models have all failed when hardware is made using them as models of what just has to work...this time..


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: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:21 pm

Hello Richard,

I understand your point of view. However, having worked in nuclear plant 35 years, I know that we used a lot of models, and I'm quite sure that Westinghouse used also a lot of models. It's just normal, natural and without any ethic or philosophical problem.

Fusion is like fission (just a bit more complicated) and needs surely more powerful modelization. But, I don't see any reason that it would be different in nature, it's just an exciting technical problem.

Patrick

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proposal of a new type of electrostatic confinement reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with an efficiency super

Post by Richard Hull » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:46 am

Yes, an exciting technical problem that has taken over 65 years in the noodling, (since the 1954 fusion monstrous energy release in the H bomb). A few scientists started thinking about usable, controlled fusion energy before then, of course. (Lyman Spitzer).

Fission was discovered and performed to a proof in 1939. A nuclear reactor was producing excess energy continuously in 1943. (5 years) Fission based electrical energy was first produced in 1951 (12 years). Fission based, distributed electricity flowed to a small town and powered a nuclear submarine before 1955. To go from not even knowing an energy source existed to distributed electrical power in 16 years is quite something.

Fusion was discovered in 1932. Used in a megaton bomb in 1954. In the intervening 65 years, not one watt of usable electrical energy has been produced by fusion. Not one real watt of fusion electrical energy output is even contemplated until "Demo" supposedly, if ITER is totally successful and on time, until well after 2050. If Demo is totally successful and the energy output versus costs allow, ( a big combined if), Ideally we might have fusion energy in the 2080's! However a lot of fusion dreams must come through and on schedule.

A world wide crisis, war, unstable economic systems etc. could easily take a crap all over the fusion plans which demand interest, stability and capital all working in concert in a steady and successful manner.

Fusion dreams, time frames, hopes, etc. have fallen far short of the mark in the past. Perhaps in 180 years after fusion's discovery we might expect the power companies to be distributing fusion electricity. No child born today will live so long as to see it happen.

All of the above is due to no real nascent potential energy being extant in the hydrogen atom as compared to the super nova stored energy in U-235.

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.

Post Reply