[Joeviocoe]

Carbon-11 decays via Positron emissions, which should be just as dangerous as beta emission (high energy electrons)….
C-11 has a half-life of about 20 minutes, but should be below background radiation in 9 hours, right?

Is there any potential to extract energy from the positron emissions? The are charged particles after all (unlike neutrons, neutrinos and gamma photons) so they could maybe be used. Or are the levels so low power they wouldn’t be much use?

[Joeviocoe]

benf wrote:

So Lerner,

The above list of reactions creating neutrons and ionizing radiation is exhaustive?

An the second one (11B + p → 11C + n − 2.8 MeV) is the only one you think can’t be avoided?

I’m focusing on the need for shielding, not byproducts that affect maintenance. To me this is a bigger issue affecting my investment in DPF research.

The subject of radiation has been debated many times in the Forum, which you can easily do a search for. The upshot is that with pb11 the DPF is going to be the cleanest burning fusion generator out there and will be producing prodigious amounts of power. All with a very compact footprint. What more do you need? What more do you think is really possible with any other design?

I think your investment dollars would be well rewarded in DPF research.

I think what opensource may be getting at is this:
Are there any downplayed drawbacks to the DPF shielding requirements that might make DPF a much less attractive solution in the future?

Such as how Nuclear Fission Power was once regarded as silver bullet to energy needs. It produced LOTS of power in a very small reactor (compared to other power plants at the time). And the fuel was VERY abundant too. But dealing with radiation (both in the reactor and the fuel itself) proved to be more problematic than many early claims indicated. Shielding, safety systems, fuel handling, separation of water cycles, waste handling…. were all problems created due to radioactivity. And those problems made Fission power plants MUCH larger and MUCH more expensive. So now, Nuclear power makes up only 20% of the electric power in the U.S.

It is a very pertinent question to ask about the exact requirements for shielding. We have already eliminated most concerns; the fuel (decaborane is toxic but non-radioactive), no radioactive water cycles, and waste is inert helium. The only concerns left are the safety systems of High electrical power (easy) and shielding from possible radiation from side reactions.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote:

Sorry if I am still not seeing the major differences. The “SF” in BSF DOES actually stand for sonofusion. It appears to be a different approach, to the same concept.

No, the accronym BSF stands for Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion, as spelled out in patent appl#: 12/803901, not Bubble SonoFusion. The concepts overlap, but there are major differences. If I changed the name to Matter-confined Laser Fusion (MLF) would that eliminate your objection?

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. If you want to add words using hyphens, be my guest. You can call it, B-c S-l F or MLF or whatever you like. But you only have a patent application, not even a peer-reviewed paper concerning your concept. 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 by splitting hairs with me. Just like there are many different types and APPROACHES to the Tokamak design.. they are still under the same general concept. So even if your idea has a laser doing different things… it is still BSF.

BSFusion wrote:

As I said before, those links are irrelevent. Prosperetti uses a laser to create a vapor pocket inside of a tiny liquid filled tube. The focus of the laser is located a small distance away from the end of the tube, where surface tension creates a concave gas/liquid interface. The laser heats the liquid until a small vapor pocket forms. When the vapor pocket expands, it creates pressure in the surrounding liquid, which causes the concave geometry of the liquid to accelerate inward, similar to the way a “shaped charge” produces a high-speed jet of liquid metal. In summary, the article is about ink jet technology, not fusion.

One of the major advantages that BSF has over, what you are calling Prosperetti’s sonofusion, is that BSF’s laser impinges directly on the fuel, heating it to around 90eV (100,000 K) prior to compressing it. Laser compression, by the method of differential ionization, begins when material that is located at the periphery of the bubble is ionized, causing it to expand into the fuel, compressing and heating the fuel, until pressure (temperature and particle density) equalize. Note – the ideal ignition temperature for BSF is only 1.6 keV, much lower than the 4.3 keV of ICF.

This was all covered, in greater detail, in the patent application…

Yes, I get it. But I am not a lawyer trying to say that your idea is “LEGALLY” impinging on previous work. Your APPROACH is very different from what others have done. I get that just fine. Nobody is going to sue you.

BSFusion wrote:

…
But it is still very much in it’s infancy, and with all the stigma from Taleyarkhan, the physicist that has been found guilty of misconduct… you
have to prove more than the average scientist to gain acceptance for your hypothesis.

I asked you to stop, but you continue to imply that BSF has connections with Taleyarkhan and sonofusion. Why?

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.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote:
No, the accronym BSF stands for Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion, as spelled out in patent appl#: 12/803901, not Bubble SonoFusion. The concepts overlap, but there are major differences. If I changed the name to Matter-confined Laser Fusion (MLF) would that eliminate your objection?

I will address this on your thread. So we can get off his.
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/378/

opensource wrote: Using water and lead shielding will make applications in transportation more difficult. Lerner said the main reaction does not produce any, so do we have a list of the (side) reactions that are producing the neutrons?

11B + α → 14N + n + 157 keV
and
11B + p → 11C + n − 2.8 MeV

Are the two neutron producing side reactions that I am aware of. The first one is by far the most prominent. The second one should produce a neutron with very very low energy.

Thanks James for the clarification. Mobile operations will indeed be difficult if heavy gamma shielding is needed. But submarines and ships can handle it since they already deal with heavy shielding for their fission reactors.

[Joeviocoe]

The X-Ray emissions are not really a waste product to be shielded against and/or discarded, but must be collected in “the onion” for over 40% of the total recoverable energy.

BSFusion wrote:

So, to be clear, would a pB11 FF reactor definitely need shielding to be around humans, or not?

For a p-11B FF reactor, in addition to neutrons, large quantities of hard X-rays will be produced by bremsstrahlung, and 4, 12, and 16 MeV gamma rays will be produced by the fusion reaction. Shielding from gamma rays requires large amounts of mass, in contrast to alpha particles which can be blocked by paper or skin, and beta particles which can be shielded by foil. Gamma rays are better absorbed by materials with high atomic numbers and high density, although neither effect is important compared to the total mass per area in the path of the gamma ray. For this reason, a lead shield is only modestly better (20-30% better) as a gamma shield, than an equal mass of another shielding material such as aluminium, concrete, water or soil; lead’s major advantage is not in lower weight, but rather its compactness due to its higher density. Protective clothing, goggles and respirators can protect from internal contact with or ingestion of alpha or beta particles, but provide no protection from gamma radiation from external sources.

From what I understand, gamma emissions are extremely rare in pB11 reactions in a Dense Plasma Focus. For a gamma to be produced, the intermediate reaction of the Carbon-12 breaking up into three He-4 (alpha particles), never occurs. And the Carbon-12 releases it’s extra energy as an energetic photon (gamma ray).

Lerner wrote: That reaction occurs only at energies above 7Mev and even at 14 Mev, is about a million times less likely than the tri-alpha one is at 600 keV.

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/693/

So, no real shielding is needed for gamma rays either.
Eric, what shielding have you calculated will be needed for a 5MW reactor?

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote: I think you are still confusing BSF with sonofusion; BSF does not use deuterium in heavy water to produce tritium, it uses Li in molten glass (or FLiBe), and BSF uses a high energy laser to ignite the fuel, acoustics play an insignificant role – they are only used to pre-compress the fuel and trigger the initial laser cascade. What scientists are you talking about? I’m the only person working on BSF.

Sorry if I am still not seeing the major differences. The “SF” in BSF DOES actually stand for sonofusion. It appears to be a different approach, to the same concept. And yes, Professor Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins HAS indeed done some work on Laser ignited Sono bubble fusion. He concluded that it would NOT work.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sonoluminescence_-_Mechanism_of_phenomenon/id/2110704
http://www.me.jhu.edu/MENewsletter2012.pdf

I can see that you’ve done a lot of work on BSF here
http://home.centurytel.net/bubbles/bubbles.htm …
But it is still very much in it’s infancy, and with all the stigma from Taleyarkhan, the physicist that has been found guilty of misconduct… you have to prove more than the average scientist to gain acceptance for your hypothesis.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-08-27-purdue-scientist_N.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/19/science/sci-misconduct19

[Joeviocoe]

asymmetric_implosion wrote: FF is probably going to need some neutron shielding. The alpha particles will generate some neutrons and there isn’t much to stop it. I don’t remember the number but I know Zapkitty commented on it a while back. I think the number was something like 0.2% of the energy output. If my memory is even so-so, that is 10 kW of neutrons is a big deal. The neutron yield is enough to be a concern from a regulatory stand point. I’m sure the activation decay is fast depending on the surrounding materials. No energy source is perfect but some are far better than others….if they work.

Once the Alphas are formed, wouldn’t they be very unidirectional since they are charged? And thus, any neutrons that do happen to come from those alpha particles, also be highly directional? If so, a shielded target just beyond the beam collection coils would only need to be fairly small.

Has Eric confirmed that 0.2% in any of his documents? Yeah, 10 KW of neutrons would be a big deal… but depending on the energy of the average neutron, that could be mostly thermal, and NOT cause activation with most materials used in FF.

Lots of heat coming from the reaction IS already accounted for and is one of the engineering problems to be solved. Activation may not be a problem if the average neutron is not energetic enough. Heat, even 10 KW of heat, can be dealt with engineering. Too much activation would require shielding since activation poses safety (and regulatory) concerns for people.

All I remember is Eric talking about how quickly the device is ‘cool’ enough to get near after a few seconds of shutdown, and after 9 hours, is ‘cool’ enough for a technician to open the chamber and swap out the electrodes. I don’t think he mentioned shielding being needed when using pB11 fuel. But maybe I’m wrong.

[Joeviocoe]

Focus Fusion will NOT use neutron shields either… the LPP team (and other labs around the world) only get neutrons now because they are experimenting with Deuterium fuel. And they are only fusing Deuterium so they can figure everything out. Later this year, they should be switching to an Aneutronic fuel, Decaborane (14 Hydrogen atoms and 10 Boron atoms in one molecule).

The number of neutrons produced by side reactions will be minuscule and of such low energy that shielding is NOT required. Their will be some activation over time (like after weeks of operating at above 100 shots per second), but this activation will be safe enough for technicians to open the reactor after only 9 hours of being shutdown. Not much of a concern.

———————————-

And Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion (BSF) certainly doesn’t have any issues, since it only exists on paper. Not enough research on a practical device has been done to even confirm how thick this blanket might be since the laser would have to traverse it too. Nor do we know the energy level and penetration power of these neutrons leaving the bubble reaction. Too slow or too fast, and they won’t interact with the heavy water (deuterium) to make Tritium.
Nobody has even confirmed real fusion reactions taking place. So far, some of the scientists working on it, have resigned that the temperatures needed for fusion could not be reached using bubbles.

BSF is still quite hypothetical.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote:

I’m pretty sure BSF is NOT ready to be written-up in a peer reviewed paper. First, I am not ready to do the writing. Second, I don’t want to look foolish if it doesn’t work. Afterall, I have no scientific training and I could easily have overlooked something. No, it is better to scrutinize it here first, then someone here can volunteer to do the write-up.

Nobody is going to write a formal paper for you to be published. You need some of your own experimental data too. Sure, maybe someone will scrutinize it here… but I would not count on it too much. There is not a whole lot that can be collaborated over this forum. There has already been plenty done on BSF, as you mentioned… you either need to prove the concepts that those other labs have failed to prove, or collaborate directly with them to get them to retry.

[Joeviocoe]

Thanks for all the detail. But you don’t have to convince me. Nor do you need confirmation from anybody on this forum.

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) has plenty of accreditation, credibility and experimental data to go on. So you have a long way ahead. Publish your work in a peer-reviewed journal. Collaborate with a University or research team. It is WAY too early to be talking about Patents and being a serious contender for a practical fusion device. I wish you luck.

[Joeviocoe]

Apparently the Next Big Future blog site thinks enough of these 5 steps toward feasibility to repeat what I wrote.

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics makes progress on science and soon should have big experimental improvements

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote: Joeviocoe, its good to be skeptical, but what you are doing is unfair – you are falsely associating BSF with Teleyarkhan, which robs BSF of its credibility before it has had a chance to be properly considered. Also, are you sure lasers were used to ignite the fuel in “Chain Reaction,” and not just for measuring the size of the bubbles? If you are correct, then “Chain Reaction” would qualify as prior art, invalidating my patent.

I’m not too concerned about my website; it was only created to allow easy access to BSF patent documents & diagrams, without requiring the installation of special software that would otherwise be necessary for gaining access through the USPTO. Sorry, the patent application is quite long (100+ pages), poorly written, and contain a lot of “word salad.” Some reasons for that are, time is limited when writing a patent, I have no English training beyond the 7th grade, and this is just a hobby.

Some frequent misconceptions about BSF:
a) the size of the bubbles used in BSF are larger (~1 cm diameter) than those used in a typical sonoluminescent experiment with oscillating bubbles, which, at maximum dilation, are not much larger than the width of a human hair.
b) BSF is not sonofusion. BSF uses an extremely high energy laser to ignite the fuel. It is true that the bubbles get heated and pre-compressed using acoustical pressure, but this is primarily to trigger a focused laser cascade, not to ignite the fuel.
c) The on-target energy dumping capacity of BSF’s laser is greater than NIF’s. There are two reasons for this. First, BSF’s laser contains a larger volume of amplification material. Second, BSF uses liquid amplifier material that can handle a higher flux than the solid-state optics of NIF, which might warp, fracture, melt, etc.
d) BSF is a new and untested approach to fusion. Currently, no single device incorporates all of the necessary parts, interconnected in one unit. But, all of BSF’s technology (ie. liquid lasers, acoustical transport, piezoelectric harvesting, etc.) has been verified separately in other devices.

I’m not really comparing you two. But he was a PhD holding Nuclear Engineer, had worked at ORNL, several grants and peer reviewed publication, etc. The only thing he did wrong was that he did claim to to have gotten the closest to a real device when the research didn’t support that conclusions, and was found guilty of misconduct for “falsification of the research record” by a Purdue review board in July, 2008..

At your stage of development… Hypothetical (Pre-theoretical)… you should should strive to be compared to Teleyarkhan. Well, his earlier work anyway. He had quite a bit of real research done. And solid, Peer-reviewed stuff… to at least support that he was getting somewhere.

BSF does NOT have Zero credibility because of him… but yes, there is a stigma now. So anybody coming along after him, that has ideas even CLOSE to bubble sono fusion… will need to have at LEAST some credible peer reviewed papers.

The movie does not specify any real science. Mostly graphics with no explanation. So I doubt that the movie itself would bring up problems with your patent application. But… the science consultant for the movie must have seen it, or read about it, in order to base the plot around the idea.

However, Professor Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins HAS indeed done some work on Laser ignited Sono bubble fusion. Concluded to NOT WORK.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sonoluminescence_-_Mechanism_of_phenomenon/id/2110704
http://www.me.jhu.edu/MENewsletter2012.pdf

He may not have a device patented though.
If you’ve never heard of him, or have seen any of his research, then you wouldn’t have based your artwork on his ideas… so there shouldn’t be enough similarities to be a big problem with patents.

————————–

But I think you are going about it all wrong. Since you were not formally trained in science, you may not understand how good science is conducted.

Patents are all good and well, if you have a unique process or apparatus to exactly what you already KNOW can be done. A Patent does NOT equal Scientific Discovery.
You really have to discover a new insight into scientific principle here. Not just invent a machine. The patent will come later, after all the ground work and you get a peer reviewed confirmation that your basic idea is sound. So far, Bubble Fusion is not proven to be feasible. And you will need to write a good paper to propose the idea again.

If you are serious about this… you will need to fully read and understand the research that came before. And understand its shortcomings. You need to contact the professors that have research this, and see where they left off. You need to contact or visit the universities and labs that have done this work, and see if you understand the problem first.

And if you are REALLY serious, get a formal degree. It is not necessary for a garage inventor that simply takes known scientific principles and invents new practical useful applications for them. But for Bubble Fusion, yeah, that is going to require that you get all the prerequisites and join a real research team.

Good luck.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote: Joeviocoe, I really hate being compared to Taleyarkhan.

Taleyarkhan did not invent BSF. In fact, his apparatus does not even use a laser. Check for yourself. I googled “BSF deeth” and got 60,100 results, but when I googled “BSF Taleyarkhan” I only got 28 results, and, in those few cases, the BSF stood for either Bible Scientific Foresight or BioSciences Federation, not Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion. Also, don’t confuse BSF with tabletop tinker toys, its intended as a full-scale power plant.

I have no idea what you’re reffering to, when you mentioned an “original” website, where is that?

Anyway, I should have included the Title & Abstract (see below) with my original post, sorry.

TITLE OF INVENTION
==============
A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER PLANT HAVING A LIQUID REACTOR CORE OF MOLTEN GLASS THAT IS MADE LASERACTIVE AND FUNCTIONS AS A TRITIUM BREEDING BLANKET WHICH IS CAPABLE OF ACOUSTICLY COMPRESSING/CONFINING FUEL SO THAT IT RADIATES AND TRIGGERS OUTGOING LASER CASCADES THAT WILL REFLECT FROM THE BLAST CHAMBER’S SPHERICAL INSIDE WALL AND RETURN LIKE PHOTONIC TSUNAMIS, CRUSHING, HEATING, AND CAUSING THERMONUCLEAR IGNITION OF THE FUEL SO THAT HEAT ENGINES AND PIEZOELECTRIC HARVESTERS CAN CONVERT THE RELEASED ENERGY INTO ELECTRICITY.

ABSTRACT
=======
A nuclear fusion power plant having a spherical blast-chamber filled with a liquid coolant that breeds tritium, absorbs neutrons, and functions as both an acoustical and laser medium. Fuel bubbles up through the sphere’s base and is positioned using computer guided piezoelectric transducers that are located outside the blast-chamber. These generate phase-shifted standing-waves that tractor the bubble to the center. Once there, powerful acoustic compression waves are launched. Shortly before these reach the fuel, an intense burst of light is pumped into the sphere, making the liquid laser-active. When the shockwaves arrive, the fuel temperature skyrockets and it radiates brightly. This, photon-burst, seeds outgoing laser cascades that return, greatly amplified, from the sphere’s polished innards. Trapped within a reflecting sphere, squeezed on all sides by high-density matter, the fuel cannot cool or disassemble before thorough combustion. The blasts kinetic energy is absorbed piezoelectrically.

I would not rely on number of google hits to indicate anything. Especially if you were to type in an acronym.

Has anybody actually created a device and begun getting confirmed fusion reactions using this approach? Or is this all still on paper? Even Farnsworth-Hirsh Fusors get confirmed fusion reactions.
Has anything written on this new approach been published in a peer reviewed journal?

It seems that the http://home.centurytel.net/bubbles/bubbles.htm (Mike Deeth’s website) is served on a free domain and is not very professional at all.
Judging from the website given, it I don’t think there has ever been a device with a confirmed reaction, nor any preliminary experiments to verify underlying principles.

According to Mike Deeth himself, ” I should also mention that I’m neither a physicist nor a high school graduate”. He has also filed a patent application… which indicates nothing since the patent office does not verify claims.
Not to say that great inventors must be formally educated…. but fusion research is not just ‘invention’ using already established science… it is new science which will require education, use of the scientific method, and experimentation to the level that exceeds a typical garage or basement.

That all being said…. I don’t see how any of this is really impressive. It seems that whoever this Mike Deeth is, he took a fusion idea that once had some merit (before being discredited), and saw the movie “Chain Reaction” (1996) with Keanu Reaves, Morgan Freeman, and Rachel Weisz… which portrayed a type of Laser induced sonoluminescence device… and thought it all seemed plausible. The website is quite detailed.. but even the basic claims are largely unverified.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote: Its been two years, since this Comparison of Contenders has been proposed, has someone been updating the information?
I’de like to add another contender to the list, but before it gets consideration, I think it should be thouroughly scrutinized.
Please point out any potential flaws in the following approach to fusion (below). Thanks

====

Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion (BSF), is one of the newest approaches to generating thermonuclear fusion power. It combines ideas from laser Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF), sonofusion, and peizoelectric energy harvesting. In respect to other approaches, BSF is expected to have the following benefits: a higher power generating capacity, more efficent energy conversion, a higher tritium breeding ratio, and no activation issues. In addition, BSF’s fuel targets are inexpensive, because they are fabrication-free (bubbles), and, being emersed directly in the coolant, the fuel cannot disperse as quickly as fuel in an ICF target that is situated inside of a vacuum chamber. This extended containment time leads to higher gains, because self-heating can begin at a lower ignition temperature and a larger fraction of the fuel can be burnt.

For more info see: http://home.centurytel.net/bubbles/bubbles.htm

It HAS been thoroughly scrutinized!

Taleyarkhan, the physicist that started BSF, has been found guilty of misconduct.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-08-27-purdue-scientist_N.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/19/science/sci-misconduct19

It’s one of those table-top fusion hoaxes that nobody can replicate the claimed results. That website you linked is even more remedial than the original. Sorry, but this is NOT a contender.

[Joeviocoe]

Lerner wrote: Not to be mysterious, but there was a lot of arcing between metal parts in the last round of shots. Arcing vaproizes metal and unevenly adds lots of heavy metals to the plasma, so we could not test the new idea. Putting the tungsten and copper together so there is no arcing is not easy, and we have to wait in line at the machinists, who are pretty busy in our neck of the woods. So the test is yet to be done. When we get to the head of the line and get our parts back, we will be able to do it–next month,we hope.

Even the fictional Fusion/Sonoluminescence team had a dedicated Keanu Reaves machinist on staff. Maybe if you hired a bad actor to be a full time machinist, he/she could also find magic frequencies that would increase the yield beyond Q>1.

Anyway, good luck with solving the arcing problem, and getting your parts. I know it must be frustrating to have progress slowed by elements outside of your control.

[Author]

Posts