[Joeviocoe]

Where can I find the actual Slideshow (PPT or PDF) not the video presentation?

I want to see the details of the new Sankey diagram.

[Joeviocoe]

Where can I find that Sankey diagram @13:13 ??? It is too blurry to read.

[Joeviocoe]

Francisl wrote:

How simple (or difficult) would it be to create the entire Anode/crown assembly out of one solid mass of metal? No metal/metal contact surfaces at all? Could any modern fabrication (3d Printing) or rapid prototyping work to build this?

That will probably happen when the optimum design has been finalized. Flexibility in shape, placement and materials is important now in the experimental phase of development.
Soldering, brazing and welding of the elements would precede making and machining castings in a foundry.

I understand that is the normal process since flexibility to alter the electrode design is crucial during experimentation phase.

However, with the difficulty LPP is facing with Arcing slowing down the entire process… it may be worth it to bit the bullet on money and cast their current design into a single piece. They need to get past this arcing problem so they can start firing more. Trade flexibility for consistency.

[Joeviocoe]

How simple (or difficult) would it be to create the entire Anode/crown assembly out of one solid mass of metal? No metal/metal contact surfaces at all? Could any modern fabrication (3d Printing) or rapid prototyping work to build this?

[Joeviocoe]

DerekShannon wrote: “Over the longer run, we are looking at ways to
have a single-piece cathode made out of tungsten or tungsten-copper in order to eliminate the
rod-plate joint altogether. These steps should get rid of the filament disruption for good, enabling
results to catch up with theory.”

Will this be a departure from the original plan to go with a Beryllium set of electrodes to become transparent to X-Rays (so as not to absorb the usable energy yield) ???

[Joeviocoe]

Lerner wrote: Our plan is to stick with D , which is easy to use, until we have the machine functioning at maximum yield, and then switch to pB11. Not there yet. Patience, friends!

Has anyone every successfully Fused Boron and Hydrogen ions in a device, that was not a linear atom smasher??

[Joeviocoe]

1000 ways NOT to build a lightbulb.

[Joeviocoe]

What would you estimate as the consumption of helium for a large hospital MRI (per year)? And how much, in comparison, should a 5MW DPF consume?

[Joeviocoe]

benf wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn’t want to see the moon with a sad face >:(

The folks on Earth looking up will notice lunar space stations and perhaps lights from the surface installations of lunar cities and not much else.

That could well be, unless they’re using fossil fuels to power the mining. In which case, if there were a problem, people might see a giant smoke ring! :coolcheese:

Question; (because it’s Friday eve.) What would be the better way to mine Jupiter? With humongous light weight blimp(s) filled up at lower pressure? Or a high strength smaller metal/composite tank filled at high pressure (using FoFu-1 to drive the suction pumps, of course). Or some hybrid version?

Fossil Fuels would be the worst to use on the moon for mining operations. No fossils on the moon (that we know of ;)… and so each kilo would need to be launched from Earth to get there.

Even if no Fusion is possible, there are plenty of power options for lunar mining.
Nuclear Fission is scary when anywhere near civilian population, so it will have no problem on the moon. Think of the highly mobile, smaller submarine reactors.
Solar… no atmosphere to interfere, low gravity so an array can be very large without as much of the tough support structures.

[Joeviocoe]

To the Moon!

The upper Lunar soil (regolith) is said to have 28 parts per million Helium-4
Compared to the 156 ppm of deuterium per atom of hydrogen in ocean water,… which we were all set to extract.

[Joeviocoe]

mchargue wrote: All that high-powered laser technography just lying around, and too big to strap to a sharks head…

Build a bigger shark 😉

[Joeviocoe]

asymmetric_implosion wrote: Joe,

That is a typical view of the plasma focus. It is also demonstrated to be incorrect. In the last couple years, plenty of measurements support that ions and electrons are traveling in both directions. Work by Roshan et al at Nanyang Technical University showed that ions are indeed traveling toward the anode when they should be moving away. It is about local potentials. The conventional view of a pinch creating fast ions is that magnetic field rapidly evacuates a small region of the pinch due to instabilities. With the magnetic field changing in time, you generate an electric field which accelerates electrons and ions. These ions and electrons move in opposite directions as one might expect so you get two opposite moving particle beams. The problem is the electric field has a radial profile with some electrons and ions accelerated in both directions. None of this requires Gigagauss fields. For the tech savvy, Malcom Haines wrote a review article on the subject of pinches which contains the full argument; just pony up $90 for it. Worth the read in my opinion as it gives the history of pinches back to the 1900’s. Anyway, even if you create pure beams of ions and electrons in opposite directions, you have the send these beam through a dense gas. As the ions fly by they pull electrons from neutral atoms. It is possible that some electrons chase the ions. More likely, the gas in the direction of the generator is partly ionized due to UV so the electrons are already hanging out. They hitch-hike with the ions leading to a reduced current. I know a number of measurements disagree on the impact of these electrons but it is another loss term to consider.

Thank you… again 🙂

[Joeviocoe]

asymmetric_implosion wrote: The charged particle beam to electricity component of the generator is very well tested already when you have a single charged particle species flying through it. I see two real concerns: can the x-rays be converted efficiently with the onion and does the ions produced by the plasma focus travel alone?

The x-ray issue is largely straightforward to test if the onion design exists on paper. The charged particle beam issue is more complex. Firing an accelerator alone isn’t enough. You need an intense ion current of >100 kA passing through something like 100 Torr of gas for tens of centimeters. There is some evidence in published literature that the ions are not traveling alone; they have electron partners. I don’t mean they are neutral in the sense of an atom but rather the heavy ions are pulling electrons along for the ride. If ions and electrons travel together, the net current is zero. With net zero current, you can’t use the transformer based technique proposed by LPP to convert the ion beam to electrical energy. Even if you get a current, what fraction is neutralized before you reach conversion location? If every He ion drags along one electron, you’ve cut the beam current in half. Breakeven suddenly got harder. A test with a conventional particle accelerator is hard because the currents are typically limited to less than 100A and passing ions into a gas cell for the test is challenging.

It was my understanding the the intense magnetic field of the plasmoid, on the order of GigaGauss… will force electrons in the opposite direction (toward the cent of the anode) while sending the positive ions away from the anode. So before they leave the region of the plasmoid, they are already on opposite trajectories.

[Joeviocoe]

This is why the Internet is great. Collaboration to find solutions. I am so glad that this forum can help introduce new ideas that may help Focus Fusion to overcome this arcing snag. I want to hear about burning Boron-11 already! And I still hope that within the next 6 months, announcements can be made regarding the final disposition of feasibility of the Focus Fusion approach.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote:

I agree, patent applications are not held to the same standards as professionally written journal articles, and I pity the unfortunate patent examiner who’s job it is to process mine. I also agree with you that it would be easier for an outsider to scrutinize the key concepts of BSF if a peer reviewed paper were published. But, it would be foolish for me to start writing that paper. There are certain requirements, unknown to me, that must be adhered to if one wishes to write a such a paper. Perhaps if I had had more exposure to reading scientific articles, I might consider attempting to write my own, but my knowledge is limited to a few “Scientific American” magazine articles that I read many years ago at a local public library, before they stopped carrying that subscription. That said, I would still like to continue improving my patent application, filling in missing details and making it easier to read. You could assist with that project, by pointing out the things about BSF that you find questionable. I expect some mistakes will be found in BSF’s patent disclosure, because it is so complex. Perhaps someone with a special expertise or willingness to look at it with fresh eyes can examine it, because an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to them. Please, let me know if any flaws or potential weaknesses are identified.

Thanks

The patents will do nothing for you except waste your money. The is probably no chance that it would be built by someone else and happen to built similarly enough to your patented description. Take LPP for example, their patents are based on things actually built, and are specific enough to real devices within their apparatus… and NOT conceptual design patents that have never been tested in reality.

Like I said, you need to contact the folks who have actually put in the work previously. The approach may be new, but the concept has been experimented with before. They stopped for some reason, and you need to find out why exactly. It could very likely be a fundamental flaw or assumption that is flat out wrong… that makes it an impossible approach.

Right now, BSF is no where near being a contender. It lacks any resemblance to a scientific process.

[Author]

Posts