Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1122
    Joseph Chikva
    Participant

    What do you think?

    #9973
    AaronB
    Participant

    So, the idea is to have one beam of tritium ions, and to shoot another beam of faster-moving deuterium ions at it from the back, and then shoot both beams with an electron beam from the front. Is that right?

    If that’s the case, I think it would be very difficult to make the second beam intersect with the first beam without hitting whatever produced the first beam. However, if that problem was resolved and the two beams were able to interact, because they are going in the same direction, there would be less energy difference between them to take advantage of to make them collide and fuse. Most people try to collide the beams from opposite directions. The electron beam is meant to make the two combined beams pinch. Is this a pulsed device, or are the beams constant? It would probably have to be pulsed, because after you send in the ions, assuming they fused along the way, they would reach the electron source and be attracted to it, which would erode it very quickly, and the eroded material would interfere with the ion beams. Depending on the energies involved, there would be quite an X-ray show! If the fusion reaction produced neutrons, you’d still have to use the steam cycle to capture the energy.

    #9975
    Joseph Chikva
    Participant

    So, the idea is to have one beam of tritium ions, and to shoot another beam of faster-moving deuterium ions at it from the back, and then shoot both beams with an electron beam from the front. Is that right?

    Yes, but not obligatory deuterium beam + tritium beam (D+T reaction) but any other reactions where different kinds ions are used e.g. D+He3.

    If that’s the case, I think it would be very difficult to make the second beam intersect with the first beam without hitting whatever produced the first beam. However, if that problem was resolved and the two beams were able to interact, because they are going in the same direction, there would be less energy difference between them to take advantage of to make them collide and fuse. Most people try to collide the beams from opposite directions.

    You are right about more efficiency of colliding from the opposite directions because in this case collision energies in laboratory frame and center-of-mass frame are the same or close each other. In the case of proposed Method required collision energy is higher in laboratory frame. But colliding the beams from opposite directions would defocus beams magnetically and consequently will not give us enough fusion intensity.

    The electron beam is meant to make the two combined beams pinch.

    Yes, but at the same time relativistic electron beam thanks to radiation dissipating radial motion’s energy gives some immunity against instabilities.

    Is this a pulsed device, or are the beams constant? It would probably have to be pulsed, because after you send in the ions, assuming they fused along the way, they would reach the electron source and be attracted to it, which would erode it very quickly, and the eroded material would interfere with the ion beams. Depending on the energies involved, there would be quite an X-ray show!

    It is constant and I have two ideas (designs) for realization the Method.
    •Linear design
    •Cyclic design
    Both these designs are patentable and should work.
    And in linear design the reaction length should be big enough for near 100% burning-off of fuel.
    Longitudinal electric field will compensate the alignment of ions relative speeds because we use different kinds of ions in different beams. For example if we use deuterium and tritium beams with faster deuterium particles the alignment will be compensated by the higher rate of acceleration of lighter particles.
    But certainly I like an idea to use aneutronic reactions: e.g. De+He3

    If the fusion reaction produced neutrons, you’d still have to use the steam cycle to capture the energy.

    Sure

    #9976
    Joseph Chikva
    Participant

    I’ve just read about space propulsion using e.g. focus fusion.
    And would like to add that in case of aneutronic reaction my idea will effectively give thrust as well.
    As all fusion reaction products (particles) will be focused and directed in a common ion beam.

    #9978
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    This is certainly an exciting approach.
    What would you want to do next with it?
    From your perspective I would probably get a provisional patent, design an experiment and approach some universities for funding or alternatively and try to raise VC for patenting and research.
    Of course you don’t have much time after filing the provisional patent – only 12 months, so you should move quickly.
    It depends on your credentials and connections which way is more approachable.
    I don’t want to discourage you, but dealing with beams seems to require more advanced technologies than the current DPF approach, so definitely you would need a much better funding as well as a larger technical base. That might seem like a disadvantage, but on the other hand the complicated ITER approach has many times the funding than much simpler DPF, so I would believe if you estimate results in more than 50 years, you will get no resistance from fossil fuel think tanks and that means easier access to funding.
    Good luck and keep us posted.
    PS:I would also suggest to visit http://www.talk-polywell.org/ to find more friends.

    #9981
    Joseph Chikva
    Participant

    Breakable wrote: This is certainly an exciting approach.
    What would you want to do next with it?
    From your perspective I would probably get a provisional patent, design an experiment and approach some universities for funding or alternatively and try to raise VC for patenting and research.
    Of course you don’t have much time after filing the provisional patent – only 12 months, so you should move quickly.
    It depends on your credentials and connections which way is more approachable.
    I don’t want to discourage you, but dealing with beams seems to require more advanced technologies than the current DPF approach, so definitely you would need a much better funding as well as a larger technical base. That might seem like a disadvantage, but on the other hand the complicated ITER approach has many times the funding than much simpler DPF, so I would believe if you estimate results in more than 50 years, you will get no resistance from fossil fuel think tanks and that means easier access to funding.
    Good luck and keep us posted.
    PS:I would also suggest to visit http://www.talk-polywell.org/ to find more friends.

    Thank you very much for your kindness!
    Yes, the Method is rather expensive in realization. As I know electron accelerator for commercial application with energy 1MEv and power in the beam 100 kW costs 7 millions USD. Method requires a bigger power.
    But it is not impossible. ITER project for injecting of neutrals requires the constant current ion accelerator 1MEv with current 10 A. We need less energy but bigger current. And now is developed the modular multi-aperture concept for this http://epaper.kek.jp/e88/PDF/EPAC1988_0470.PDF
    My publication here has a purpose to push interest to the Method and also to hear opinion of people really interested in fusion problems (especially criticism).

    #9988
    Spiralfield
    Participant

    No electromagnetic confinement? I may have missed something here, but the main problem with “beam fusion” has always been Coulomb collisions.

    If you are using confinement, EM or otherwise, then we are back to talking about instability, especially in long-pulse. My guess is that you’ll see kink instability, especially at high beam densities.

    #9990
    Joseph Chikva
    Participant

    No electromagnetic confinement? I may have missed something here, but the main problem with “beam fusion” has always been Coulomb collisions.

    I offer to use focusing in a very strong self-magnetic field with only partial compensation of ions positive space charge. In this case the particle scattered at a small angle by Coulomb force will return to the axis magnetically. And this will be repeated and repeated before fusion event.

    If you are using confinement, EM or otherwise, then we are back to talking about instability, especially in long-pulse. My guess is that you’ll see kink instability, especially at high beam densities.

    Yes, thanks to the focusing the beam density will be very high. But there are a lot of types instabilities. Why obligatory kink instability?
    In the text you can see:
    Bennet and Budker have shown that in case of sufficient high relativism of electrons (relativistic factor) such beams should be steady enough against the majority types of instabilities (G.I. Budker, Collection of articles, The Stabilized Electronic Beam, M, Nauka, 1982)
    And right now investigations of beams instabilities in case of very strong currents are under way as well.
    And in Heavy Ions Fusion (HIF) program the currents equal to tens thousands amperes are used.
    And then they are focused on a few mm sized target.

    #9992
    Spiralfield
    Participant

    Ah! I did miss something. Thank you for the clarification. If I understand correctly, the deuterium and tritium (or other fuel) is moving at such high velocity that there is no possibility for motion in any other direction, ie: the self-organizing motion of an instability.

    If so, that’s a lot of velocity! How do you intend to impart such energy, what difficulty do you see with maintaining the focus of your beams, and have you been able to estimate a breakeven number?

    #9996
    Joseph Chikva
    Participant

    Joseph Chikva wrote:

    If I understand correctly, the deuterium and tritium (or other fuel) is moving at such high velocity that there is no possibility for motion in any other direction, ie: the self-organizing motion of an instability.

    Radial motion mainly will be created thanks to scattering of faster moving ions on slower ions. (As the first approximation we can neglect the scattering of electrons on ions)
    As it has been mentioned above the self-magnetic field of combined three beams will return then scattered particle to the axis.
    But via collective interaction the radial temperature of whole system will rise.
    Also we will have two other effects:
    • radiation of electrons dissipating that radial motion energy
    • alignment of arrange velocities of ions’ beams
    And in fact we will have something like friction between all three beams. Thank this the equilibrium would occure.

    For compensation of alignment of arrange velocities it is offered to use the longitudinal electric field. So, if in faster moving ion beam we will use the particles having higher rate of acceleration, we easily can select the proper intensity of electric field.
    Examples:
    • deuterium and tritium with faster deuterium beam
    • deuterium and helium-3 with faster helium-3 beam
    • proton and boron-11 with faster proton beam

    Spiralfield wrote: How do you intend to impart such energy, what difficulty do you see with maintaining the focus of your beams, and have you been able to estimate a breakeven number?

    I can not estimate a breakeven number (criteria) yet. Because some theoretical investigations (researches) should be done before. First of all for fixing the stability area and then for fixing the breakeven criteria. And this isn’t a trivial task.
    Regarding difficulties with maintaining the focus of beams, all those are solvable technical challenges.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.