Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12152
    AvatarBSFusion
    Member

    @Joeviocoe,

    Sorry, but YOUR OWN patent application does not dictate the conventions of common acronyms in science or engineering. The BSF acronym stands as a general concept to be Bubble SonoFusion.

    Contrary to what you just said about common usage, the combination of letters “BSF” is not currently in wide use. In fact, if you Google “BSF” cross-referenced with “Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion,” you’ll only get a few dozen hits, which is a lot more than the zero hits you get when you cross-reference it with “SonoFusion.” In this situation, the strongest logical argument is an appeal to the highest authority, ultimately: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” In summary, therefore, contrary to your *minority* opinion, the *majority* opinion of my patent application dictates, by default, how the BSF acronym gets used.

    As far as I can tell right now… you have a unique “APPROACH” to an old idea. And you are the only one trying to call it something completely different.

    BSF is not sonofusion, it is a hybrid of ICF that combines directed energy (laser) fusion with material confinement. It is important to realize that lasers are capable of generating much higher temperatures and pressures than chemical reactions, which, even for high-explosives, are only on the order of 0.5 eV (5500 K) and 500kBar. In comparison, the flux inside a BSF reactor, at the bubble’s surface, is expected to be at least a thousand times less intense than NIF’s laser, yet, even at this relatively low intensity, when BSF’s laser fires, the material near the bubble’s periphery is expected to obtain a temperature of around 90 eV (1,000,000 K) and a pressure of around 4 Mbar. In summary, BSF’s laser produces over 30 times the heat and pressure of TNT (~3000 C and ~50,000 atm.), way more intense than anything achievable by simple acoustical methods.

    I did not imply there are “connections” between you and Taleyarkhan. I implied that the general concept of attaining fusion through Bubble Sonoluminescence has been tried before, and failed. I understand that your approach to this is very different. But you do have an uphill battle since much of the science has not been proven yet.

    You seem to be WAY more worried about your patent being distinct, than the science being valid. All I am saying is that you need a lot more work and you NEED to get published. Until then, it is the same general concept that has been discredited.

    I’m not worried about my patent being distinct – I know it is distinct. What troubles me is that you keep claiming (a false claim) that BSF is sonofusion. I think you might be confusing sonoluminescence with sonofusion. I mentioned several times that BSF relies on sonoluminescence, which is a valid scientific phenomena, distinct from sonofusion. In BSF, sonoluminescence (the blackbody radiation that is emitted from a hot, compressed gas) triggers an outgoing laser cascade, which, after returning with amplification, heats and compresses the fuel until, ultimately, it ignites. In summary, BSF is laser fusion, not sonofusion.

    It is very likely that, although your approach is somewhat different, any device based on this would suffer the same problems as conventional bubble sonofusion that Professor Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins had encountered.

    This is another red herring, since BSF is not sonofusion (SF). Some of the problems associated with SF that currently prevent ignition might be eliminated by increasing the scale, but scaling alone cannot overcome all deficiencies. SF experiments typically use bubbles that are around a million times smaller than what a fusion power plant would require. Personally, I think it is impractical to scale SF to the size necessary for successful ignition, but, to be fair, it is also reasonable to upgrade ones confidence about achieving ignition, burning and energy gain as the scale increases because the size of the hot-spark and surrounding fuel is larger (meaning slower heat loss) and the implosion would proceed with increased energy. In addition, the thickness of the mixed region and loss of the hot-spark region will become less serious, and once ignition occurs… In “crum.pdf,” Nigmatulin explained that while chemical reactions can be important limitations in SBSL experiments, they are overcome in Acoustic ICF experiments due to the significant additional energy available for compression. But why dwell on SF, which is a dubious approach, when a surefire approach, like BSF, holds so much more promise?

    #12153
    AvatarBSFusion
    Member

    @Joeviocoe,

    Laser ICF projects like NIF have at least achieved fusion on some level… although it is doubtful they will ever get a complete and symmetrical burn of the fuel pellet.

    That problem has already been solved, by BSF, using matter confinement, which is an extrapolation of the “exploding pusher” concept, as explained in Phys. Plasmas, Vol. 2, No. 11, November 1995:

    “Higher implosion velocities are possible in certain types of high-entropy implosions, in which the high-density shell is heated rapidly to high temperature and then explodes. In a so-called “exploding pusher target,” the center of mass of the shell or “pusher” is almost stationary as it explodes. The radius of the boundary between the inner edge of the shell and the fuel typically converges only a factor of 3 or 4. Such targets are quite insensitive to asymmetry. The direct-drive, electron-conduction-driven exploding pusher target was the most common early ICF target and was the first type of target to produce thermonuclear neutrons. However, it does not scale to high gain, because all of the mass of the target is on a high isentrope, which precludes high compression.”

    Note, the scaling problem mentioned above only applies to orthodox ICF, where the highly compressed, high-pressure pellets instantly disassemble into the vacuum of the chamber. It does not apply to BSF, which is expected to scale to higher gains because of its superior confinement, which prevents dispersion and allows for extended periods of compression and self-heating.

    #12154
    AvatarJoeviocoe
    Member

    BSFusion wrote: @Joeviocoe,

    Laser ICF projects like NIF have at least achieved fusion on some level… although it is doubtful they will ever get a complete and symmetrical burn of the fuel pellet.

    That problem has already been solved, by BSF, using matter confinement, which is an extrapolation of the “exploding pusher” concept, as explained in Phys. Plasmas, Vol. 2, No. 11, November 1995:

    No.

    The inherent problems with NIF’s ICF confinement is now understood mainly because of the level of research, development and testing assumptions. They have actually done all the prior research papers, had them peer reviewed, developed models and simulations, got funding, built devices to test individual components, built a full scale device, etc.

    BSF has not “Solved” anything. The BSF problems and limitations are not known because nobody in the scientific community has even looked at it yet. So to claim that a problem is “solved” is way too premature. A patent application cannot identify the shortcomings in the design or theory. You MUST write the paper. If not you, then you must find someone (not here) who has experience with other approaches to Bubble SonoLuminescence. Ask them to continue the research using your new approach. Have you done this yet?

Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.