In this space, visitors are invited to post any comments, questions, or skeptical observations about Philo T. Farnsworth's contributions to the field of Nuclear Fusion research.
Date: Apr 08, 7:01 pm
Poster: Richard Hull
On Apr 08, 7:01 pm, Richard Hull wrote:
Based upon the original statistical bombast and the "mea culpa" following on this same date earlier, we can make some interesting observations and conclusions as relates to some hardware concerns.
The first might be that....Wow! All I gotta do is make a huge 4 meter fusor chamber with only one micron of D2 and then half of my ELECTRON power input will go to making deuterons instead of 1/10,000th part as in the pitiable little 6 inch "peanut whistle" fusor. That would be correct, but don't start ordering that monster stainless sphere just yet.
Remember, at 1 micron, the deuterons should be completely swallowed up and stopped by collisions in there own gas in about 8". At 1 micron an 8" chamber would probably be ideal. (4" radius) Over half of the dueterons produced would make the inner grid and your electron/deuteron ratio would be up ever so slightly. Reducing presure would up the deuterons mean free path but also the electron's as well.
This is where some nice fancy multi-variable program which can integrate the major variables might suggest a prime and optimum pressure and fusor size for best efficiency using the simple fusor design.
Bigger chambers, up to a point, should always give larger neutron numbers, but without concern for the parameters shifting under one's feet, it will come at the cost of efficiency.
Any ideas from out there? Are there any computationalists out there who have a good feel for this thing ready to model away?
Scott and I have a good feel for where the power is going, neutron numbers, etc. This has come from the doing! Perhaps the hands-on now needs a little reflection based on hard won data points.
- Re: Ramifications - Jim Lux Apr 23, 5:59 pm