[Steven Sesselmann]

jamesr wrote: you should watch Feynman http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/47

you cannot understand electrons without appreciating QED.

Always a pleasyre to watch Feynman lecture, might have seen this one before.

This is one way to interprete observations, without doubt successful, but falls short of explaining what mass is, and why the proton has mass.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

opensource wrote: Is there a comparison chart out there that shows all of the working reactors real numbers in terms of how much more energy they need to be producing to break even?

Well, I attempted to start such a list some time ago, but few were willing to report their results.

Find it here…

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_construction&key=1212188288

It is still active, and if anyone wants to report, I will update the list.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

ikanreed wrote: If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

I think we must accept the quantization of charge, experimental evidence is solid. All I can think of is that we postulate that the transfer of potential between one atom and another is quantized and can only be exchanged in 511 kev packets. Single atoms can however fall to a lower energy potential by emitting a photon or gamma.

Why this quantum happens to be 511 Kev. is an interesting puzzle in itself.

The fact that we can synthetically create electron-positron pairs from nothing, supports my idea. No positron needs to be created when potential is transferred from one particle to another, because the electron is a temporary particle.

I often like to compare physics to economics, in my theory, the atom is the equivalent of a bank account with a large positive balance, and the electron is the equivalent of a one dollar coin. There are actually no physical one dollar coins in your bank account, but if you want to transfer money from the account to another account, you need the one dollar coin to do it, and consequently your bank balances must be an integer of the one dollar quantum (assuming one dollar is the smallest coin).

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

asymmertic_implosion wrote: I wouldn’t toss out the old knowledge yet, but I am up for looking at old things in a new light.

I agree, we need to retain our pre-existing knowledge, just suppose a different and hopefully simpler theory to explain the world.

My thoughts at the moment are leaning towards a world that is completely governed by electrostatic potential, where all four forces are explained by a single parameter. Say goodbye to gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force. Further, the whole concept of force is wrong, no object is ever pushed or pulled by another object, stuff simply moves from the past to the future along the arrow of time.

Anyone who comes up with a new theory will face an uphill battle to get it accepted, established thought is thoroughly embedded. People who choose to work in science are often conservative introverts, and people who launch new ideas are often extrovert, which may explain why it takes so long between each new revolution in science. In a funny kind of a way, Einstein was a scientist and also a bit of an extrovert, and managed to sell his ideas to the world.

Step 1 is to find a problem that needs a new theory (easy)
Step 2 is to propose a theory that explains the problem (difficult)
Step 3 is to propose and experiment to prove it (usually very difficult)

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

zapkitty wrote: were you aware that the Focus Fusion goal is an aneutronic device?

Yes, fully aware of the ff goals, just not 100% convinced yet, the p+B11 fusion process needs to be demonstrated first.

You may or may not know that I am working on a new confinement method called F.I.C.S., (Fusion Induced Charge Separation), if it works the way I intend it to, it should convert fusion into electrical current and thrust.

The patent covers two designs, one for production of heat and electricity and the other a thrust engine, can’t say much more, but it is due for publication on January 6th., and then it can be discussed.

It is ideally suited to space travel, as it takes advantage of the vacuum of space.

Prototype in progress..

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

I imagine a fusion powered flying machine would look something like the racing pods that were seen in Star Wars, with the engines suspended far ahead of the passengers, so as to create distance from the neutrons.

Flying would be a bit like waterskiing, you kind of hang on for your life at the end of a rope 🙂

Steven

Attached files

[Steven Sesselmann]

vansig wrote: If everything were imploding, then symmetry-breaking would result in atoms of the same kind having different size. This is not observed.

Exactly, thanks for asking this question, why all protons/electrons are the same size ?

After thinking about this problem, I realized they are not of the same size or the same mass, but exist around us in every variation!

Only when we arm wrestle protons into our laboratory and measure them a ground potential do they have the same mass. Those particles that are not “here” at rest in our laboratory, do not have the same mass with respect to us. Protons in the distance, protons in a gravitational field, protons moving at high velocities all have relativistic mass.

Term rest mass defines the mass when measured at ground potential only, relativistic mass when measured else where.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

This process of decay to a lower potential is what we call Time. The flow of time is the natural decay of elements that is happening around us and inside of us at all times. All we need to do to verify that is to switch on a radiation detector and read off the background count.

The flow of time is simply, you me and everyone else, falling to a lower electrical potential through the consumption of energy, the faster we burn the fuel (nuclear or any other fuel), the faster we decay (albeit a long time).

As now becomes obvious, the Universe was never expanding, when viewing the stars through his telscope, Hubble could see a redshift, and falsely assumed they were receeding, when in fact it was himself that was imploding.

Such is life, we live and learn……

Steven Sesselmann

PS: If you have read the whole theory, please cast your vote on the poll above, or give your opinion below. Your feedback is most appreciated.

Earlier writings…
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_other&key=1307190918
http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/Bee_Research/cosmology.html

[Steven Sesselmann]

Lerner wrote: output from our detectors, such as our photomultiplier tubes, filter out the noise, detect the real peaks and measure their height, width, area, etc. researchers.

Eric,

For what you want to do, I think you should concider using PRA (Pulse Recorder and Analyser), its a free software and does all those things.

For ease of use with your own detectors (PMT’s), I would gladly donate one of my GS-1100A2 towards your fusion effort.

http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/Bee_Research/gamma_spectacular.html

With this equipment and a standard scintillator detector you can do all of the above.

Steven Sesselmann

[Steven Sesselmann]

Tulse wrote: Presumably the most appropriate metric in the end is (likely) cost per kilowatt/hour of generated electricity.

Yes, but we don’t need to start with megawatt power levels, as long as we can generate power. The first motorized automobil moved along at walking speed, which in itself was an achievement , and enough for investors to get excited.

So far, no fusion reactor has demonstrated that it can even power a reading lamp, so how can we expect investors to come forward.

We need to demonstrate a method by which a simple lightbulb is powered by a self sustaining fusion reaction (the equivalent of a wax candle burning).

Now go to the ITER web site and look at the pictures of the building site, then ask yourself if we are putting the cart before the horse!

It needs it’s own power station to run 🙂

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

Lerner wrote: Right! We sure could have arrived at the perfect design for fast, high current swtiches by now!

Are you still struggling with those switches…?

The requirement of such high currents worry me, what is the Q ratio of input vs. output for your best run?

Do you see light at the end of the tunnel?

I am currently in the process of setting up a new lab at home for my next fusion invention called F.I.C.S. fusion (Fusion Induced Charge Separation), the patent app is due for publication in January. F.I.C.S. if it works as anticipated, will only require a small charge to initiate the fusion reaction, once the reaction starts, it will hopefully run on it’s own, without any input whatsoever, and it might even produce a surplus electric current.

I attach a picture of my lab as it looked a week ago, as you can see it already has first plasma 🙂

Steven

Attached files

[Steven Sesselmann]

I agree totally, and I have suggested this before. Imagine if the 10 bn dollars were invested in 100 different fusion ideas, and trust me, there are at least 100 patented ideas on fusion, some more stupid than others. A lot would be learned and the odds would be better.

Further, if all these different approaches to fusion were done under one roof, a lot of duplication could be avoided. The vacuum systems and the measuring equipment is almost identical in all cases.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Thanks for your opinions…,
I am not suggesting that fusion gets too much funding, clearly energy research should feature much higher on the list of funded projects, I do still believe that some of the big projects are white elephants.
Politicians rely on scientists to advise them on weather or not a project should get funding, and I doubt that too many politicians actually go through the science in detail and try to understand what they are approving money for, and the reason is that no one person is responsible, it’s a group decision and one can get the blame.
LIGO is one of those projects that should never have had funding, the physics was flawed to begin with, and nobody wants to admit it.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

It’s hard to think of any other invention that has had that much money thrown at it, without ever having made a cent. The aeroplane, the automobil, the rocket engine, the computer, the fission reactor all required some R & D, but nothing like fusion. Most of those other inventions were making money long before they were mature.

There are two kinds of phycisists, those who are good at physics and those who are good at getting funding. Look at some of the rediculous projuect that have been funded, such as LIGO and the LHC and soon ITER, where governments have sunk billions into the project, only to be told in a billion page document how the negative outcome of the experiment was a great success, and that not finding gravity waves or Z bosons proves that we had it all wrong.

More funding does not make better physics, instead it requires a journey of the mind, by someone who dares to go where no academic goes, for fear of being rediculed by the pillars of academia.

Fusion will succeed, as a result of new understanding and not by building a bigger tokamak.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

Sorry guys, I have been pretty busy, although I check the site occasionally I must have missed this post.
Sure, I can work out something with those bracelets I designed, will discuss with Rezwan.
On other matters, I have finally got myself a new lab, after almost two years in limbo, so now he race is on to see who will achieve self sustained fusion first.

Steven

[Author]

Posts