Proof of plasmoid and lack of investors

[Alburton]

Hi,
long time reading, first time writing, etc etc
I have really been following Eric Lerner and Focus Fusion for about 5 years..
Still, following LPPX on facebook, twitter, etc, does not grant knowledge in plasma physics, so I can only ask you.
Please bear with any inaccuracies you might find in the text.

As of lately I have been re-reading the whole history of Fo-Fu from the beginning, thinking about the plan laid out in that already mythical google talk by Dr.Lerner in 2012, and the quite important delay from that prevision.My objective was to try to find a reason for this lack of world-saving fusion energy. Of course there has been all sorts of delays because of materials controls, contamination, etc.
Still I am raising this point beacuse I think it is absolutely important.

In this activity I re-read Mike B. Hopkins’ article on “Why LPPF results are not even wrong” [1], and his critique of the neutron readings obtained in Lerners experiments. Mr Hopkins argues that these results scale well with an old model of the focus fusion machine, which:
– does not include the formation of a plasmoid, and more importantly
– does not explain the formation of neutrons as a result of fusion

I am sorry to bring up old ghosts which might have already been explained, but I am not too sure that this has been the case. And it is quite a critical point.

So: other than the pictures of filaments joining at the center of the inner electrode, is there any proof that invalidates the old model on this machine, or validates the plasmoid model? If there is not is there an easier experiment than building a full-fledged fusion machine?

Maybe the lack of this proof is a good reason why FoFU has not received substantial funding from some energy-hungry capitalists. (Google, Elon Musk, whatever)

Thank you very much for reading the whole text.

[1] https://mikebhopkins.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/why-lawrenceville-plasma-physics-results-are-not-even-wrong-a-detailed-analysis/

[Breakable]

Copying the reply from the comments below the article:
>Dr. Hopkins’ analysis misses the whole point of our July 2012 paper, which was about our demonstrating record-breaking temperatures in our confined plasma. Hopkins complained that we had not demonstrated record-breaking fusion yields. But yields depend not only on temperature but on densities as well and we were not claiming any superior density or yield. The paper was about the record temperatures. It was demonstrating that this temperature—sufficient to ignite hydrogen-boron fuel, was indeed confined in a small plasmoid that made our paper the most-read one of 2012 in Physics of Plasma, the leading journal in our field. Evidently a lot of our colleagues got the point, even if Dr. Hopkins missed it. As to densities, we expect to greatly improve them and achieve record fusion yields as well in our next series of experiments.”

This video has some slides from their camera documenting plasmoid formation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abvdXZfUHIg&feature=youtu.be

AFAIK they also have tested the fusion yields with without angular magnetic field which is theorised to help with plasmoid formation and saw an improvement.
Not sure if this is this paper (I haven’t read it to be fair)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1770673_Advances_towards_pB11_Fusion_with_the_Dense_Plasma_Focus

Now as far as I am aware LPPFusion is focusing on fusion yield rather than validation of plasmoid existence especially since while they were able to achieve single dimensional simulations, multi-dimensional physical simulations proved to far from reach based on the resources available to them.

I am not sure whether better theoretical evidence would help with attracting more investors or whether they would like greater control of the company than is currently offered.

[Alburton]

Hi, breakable.

Wasn’t temperature measured thanks to the energy of the neutrons arriving at the detector?
I guess a different explanation for neutron yield will have some consequences in this scenario,as you will put the measured numbers in a different set of equations

Just playing devil’s advocate here.
Thanks for following the game.

[Breakable]

Alburton, I am not currently qualified to answer this, but I would not think you would have different formulas to calculate yield – its a function of triple product – density, time and temperature and if you are measuring neutrons, then you are actually measuring yield. If you would like to suggest an alternative theory to explain the yield without having plasmoid, such as for example to say that the in the absence of plasmoid somehow plasma density is low while temperature is up then its possible, but it does not change the outcome of the number of reactions happening and plasma igniting and/or burning for the duration of time and reactor still working as intended and producing an Ion and Electron beam somehow.

[Alburton]

Hi again Breakable,
superfond of you giving me the chance of making my point clearer. Thank you. Just saying that I have this project very close to my heart and would make anything in my hand to make it reach success ASAP.
That is why I am raising this debate… if there is a reasonable doubt about the physics that should maybe be the first point to be cleared in order to attract intelligent investors. After all it is in the physical experiment phase.

Breakable wrote: I would not think you would have different formulas to calculate yield – its a function of triple product – density, time and temperature and if you are measuring neutrons, then you are actually measuring yield.

From the neutrons you can calculate yield, supposing they come from a fusion reaction, but you can also apparently measure the temperature of the reaction that bought the free neutrons into being.
Got me?
Quantity of neutrons -> yield.
Speed of the neutrons -> temp.

I guess that neutrons flying with energy E will tell a different story about a fusion reaction and about mechanism X…
….suppose the neutrons come from incandescent kryptonite wire, for arguments sake.
The temp of the wire will be different from a D=D fusion reaction, beacuse they are different mechanisms altogether.
Even if both produce free flying neutrons. So, according to the explanation you choose, the outcome of the calculations will be a different number, telling a different story.
So, back to the mechanism.

Breakable wrote: If you would like to suggest an alternative theory to explain the yield without having plasmoid, such as for example to say that the in the absence of plasmoid…

Apparently there is such a theory, and it is allegedly the mainstream theory for focus fusion machines.
According to Mike B Hopkins:

“It is generally accepted that the main mechanism producing the neutrons is a beam of fast deuteron ions interacting with the hot dense plasma of the focus pinch column. The origin of the fast ion beam is a diode action in a thin layer close to the anode with deviations from neutrality generating the necessary high voltages. This mechanism has been modelled in detail based on a expression for fusion yield given below;”

Ok, so the plasmoid makes sense, the pictures point to that direction, but there is a reasonable doubt if I am understanding things correctly. Even if the plasmoid were to be a wrong theory, if you get the right temp-density-time triad, you will get fusion. I firmly believe that from my ignorance.
But I am not too confident on that temperature number anymore.

[zapkitty]

Alburton wrote: According to Mike B Hopkins:…

Hopkins conception of DPF neutron sourcing was both
outdated and based on a misunderstanding of the LPP
experimental goals…. apparently aggravated by aggravation
with LPP, but you’d have to ask him about that 🙂

The LPP paper in question, the one describing record DPF
temperatures sufficient for hydrogen-boron fusion,

[em]Fusion reactions from >150keV ions in a dense
plasma focus plasmoid[/em] in Physics of Plasmas
19, 032704 (2012)

… answers the question of ion beams as the sole source for
the neutrons: while some neutrons do come from the beam
the bulk of the neutrons – approximately 60% – come from a
confined plasma.

This is discussed thoroughly in the section titled

III. DATA ANALYSIS

…specifically in parts…

B. Neutron energy isotropy
C. Neutron flux anisotropy
D. Timing of neutron emission and beams

And for some charactization of the plasmoids see part

E. Size and density of confined plasma

As for investors… there are investors, substantial ones and
middling ones and there will be more in the coming year, I
believe 😉

And the vulture capitalists, inequity infirms and
exxonmobilian pseudopods…? They lurk at the threshold,
meeping their gibbering cries for backdoor control. Would
you expect otherwise?

Edit: Huh… Still an Admin? I’ve been ill, and it’s not wise to
leave a superadmin account lying open for months. Should
lower my privileges a bit, I think 🙂

[Author]

Posts