[MTd2]

But if there is not significant energy going out the system, how to achieve the desired result?

[MTd2]

delt0r wrote: If the T produced from DD reactions are confined

Hmm. Makes sense that the Tritium formed is not confined. It comes from the fusion reaction with a temperature of 1MeV. This is higher than what is required to keep confined by the plasmoid magnetic field, since the average temperature is 150KeV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Criteria_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions

[MTd2]

The keyboard here at home suffers from configuration issues, heh. I cannot make it to work properly. I just type what is consistent with what excel uses.

[MTd2]

delt0r wrote: Note we are not talking about the fusion cross section (reaction rate) that’s dominated by tunneling and the electric force, we are talking about the branching ratio “after” a fusion event that’s dominated by the strong force.

Yes, that’s right. I forgot about this, heh… So, I conclude that Lerner is counting the total energy yield, which is diagnosed by the number of neutrons. Given that tritium is completely consumed in the fusion, or otherwise Lerner would have noticed radioactive waste, we have that:

17.6MeV from D-T + neutron ( 14.1 MeV)

7.3 MeV from D-D + neutron ( 2.45MeV)

So, that is 24.9 MeV for every 2 neutrons, which gives 12.45 MeV per Neutron.

This is close to the D-T neutron yield, so for final energy collection, this is almost the same as collecting neutrons from D-T, meaning, within the range of the final objective, around 33KJ.

[MTd2]

I triple the numbers because according to Lerner, by giving angular momentum to the filaments that will form the plasmoid, will increase the mass and density of the plasmoid. Also, the reason why Boron – H will be used is the very reason of why LPPX exists, that is, Lerner expects that it will have compression rates thousand folds higher than other types of fusion. You can find paper about it on LPPX website and this website.

But I really cannot understand. or believe, why the branching ration is a constant if all other cross sections are constant. I cannot find any study about this so, I cannot believe you unless you show me a proof of that.

Anyway. It might be that Lerner is giving 24MeV to each neutron seen, since the objective is counting the total energy given away by the fusion process. The number of neutrons is a diagnostic tool anyway,to study the pinch.

[MTd2]

BTW, I didn`t find any paper about the cross section of the tritium branch when increasing temperature.

[MTd2]

I`ve been using 1*10E11 Neutrons meaning 1J in lots of other posts. No one has corrected me and even Lerner assumed that as right (he kept discussing with me as there was nothing wrong). Let`s see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#D-D_fuel_cycle

A neutron from D-D has 3.93*10E-13 J. So, 3.4*10E13 neutrons yields 13.3J. Tripling that gives 40J. So, the total Boron fusion has 6400J.

But, there is a catch here. Nowadays, LPPX goes above 100KJ, probably the mean temperature nowadays is 150KeV. Weirdly, the results from the updated Sing Lee`s model does not follow D-D curve, but of D-T fit. So, maybe at such temperatures the Tritium branch is preferential and most of the tritium generated goes to generate high energy neutrons.

That means 76 x 160J= 12160J. Which is the scientific demonstration of the technology (10KJ) a planned. The 3X of the axial field makes it achieve 36480J per shot , which is the prototype demonstration expected within a few years. (33KJ).

[MTd2]

With z=14, the yield increased until pressure was about 190Torr and saturated at around 3,5E13 neutrons and remained constant until 250 Torr when it began to decrease until the device stopped working at 350 Torr.

I was playing with z=7. The yield increased until pressure was about 500Torr and saturated at around 10E14 neutrons and remained constant until 800 Torr when it began to decrease until the device stopped working at 1050 Torr.

I reduced the massfr to simulate a smaller drag on the of the mass and massfr, by a quarter, to 0.1 from 0.14 for z=7 and the only important thing that changed was the saturation interval, that went from 500-800 Torr to 800-1000Torr.

I further reduced currf and currfr to 0.5 from 0.7, to simulate a less intense sheath, there was no neutron saturation, just a peak at Torr 350, with 3.310E13 Neutrons.

So, both z=7 and z=14 give similar neutron yields, by optimizing conditions. So, is there space for some optimization between 7<z<14 or is it already optimized with 3.4*10E13 neutrons?

Even with this yield, you have about 50KJ in x-rays when using decaborane. What is the need for the axial field? Does it really triplicate the yield? That means 150KJ in x-rays.

[MTd2]

Oh. I got it! I want to keep playing with the yields. So, how much beyond 45kV can you increase without having to change the machine?

[MTd2]

I asked you about the limit of 200 Torr to the ionization, but you explained me about the relation to the length of the cathode. Why stopping at 200Torr, but not 400Torr, 600 Torr, or any other higher value? But thanks for explain me that relation but I also would like some literature on that.

[MTd2]

But isn`t the limit of 200 Torr arbitrary too? Why not setting a bit higher pressure higher yields? Won`t you try it? Have you estimated a function from when ionization disturbs?

BTW, the z=0.4 (cm) for z is arbitrary. Setting up a lower value up to zero (cannot write 0, but 0.00001, or something, you get the idea), doesn`t change the yield. So, isn`t there an insulator tha can do the same job with just 0.3 cm?

[MTd2]

But you used 200 Torr to achieve your desirable yield! Why not 4500 Torr?

The reason it is that I have to force Lee`s program to run at 200 Torr, it simply refuses to compute. It says pinch cannot form above 20 Torr. So why do I have to stop at 200 Torr?

[MTd2]

Lerner wrote: now he has a calibration that runs through the middle of the historical DPF work, while our results are above the best historical ones, so way above the average ones.

According to the new calibration, are the values for FoFu with the new parametrization still 4.0E11? Or is it that FoFu is going to fit the new parametrization and not below the old value?

[MTd2]

Not, it is not taken into consideration. But there were experiments without the axial field or without induced magnetic field and they were not 30x smaller than observed, so, I don`t think so. Well, maybe someone else can make this point clearer.

[MTd2]

Not being in the lab making the experiment is quite annoying. Now that Lee’s model doesn’t work for FoFu makes me feel angst that I cannot help.

[Author]

Posts