[mchargue]

I want to thank you for the update. It’s good news, no doubt, and I’ll be waiting for more.

Pat

[mchargue]

Ivy Matt wrote:
21st Century Essential Guide to NIF – National Ignition Facility – Laser Inertial Confinement Nuclear Fusion for Energy Research and National Security, LIFE Power Concept

This is an e-book, published December 17 or 18, 2010. It is described as a synthesis of official government information that is already publicly available. I’m guessing most of it’s taken from the NIF website.

Would you have a link to the e-book mentioned?

Pat

[mchargue]

tensordyne wrote:

Finally, what you are interested in. Since light can always escape any gravitating system no matter how strong it is as long as the system does not create an event horizon (this is proveable too), and the system I have has no event-horizons (or worse, singularities), what does happen when gravity just keeps crushing down on some huge mass? Well, from Particle Physics we know that the probability for the particles to start colliding, creating huge sprays of new particles, becomes much greater. A fair fraction of the possible interactions though involves creating Bosons. The bosons will escape the pull of the gravity due to the hyperbolic nature of even curved space-time and so while nothing halts the collapse what-so-ever (some other force or something) the material itself that allows the collapse fizzles away in the form of massless but highly energetic particles. People talk about BH evaporation and I say BH’s do not exist, so what does happen then? Simple (in a complex sense), you get Fermion evaporation. Matter particles (Fermions) rapidly collide trying to create bosons to releave the stress of gravity and by the laws of physics they are always guaranteed to succeed. So, large masses that are undergoing unrestrained gravitational collapse eventually enter a stage I call Matter Evaporation. It is somewhat similar to evaporation too in the real world. It is at the interface (the current surface of the sphere) that I would expect the “phase-transition” to occur. Matter there would allow light to escape, thus reducing the strain of gravity on the system. Eventually, depending on how the physics works out, you might get a Fermionic Condensate or just have the matter all blow apart, I really can not say for sure, but those two possibilities seem the most logical ending points given what the solid physics is that is currently known about the subject.

The idea that particles in a deep gravity well collide & recombine into other particles – I can understand that. The idea that they recombine to create particles (bosons) that fly off as a means to bleed mass off of the object, that I have a problem with.

If that were true, it should place an upper limit on the density/mass of any high-mass object. Because, as the mass of the object increases, then so should the likelihood of the creation of this boson. Because of this, the mass of the object would then be limited by this mechanism, and that all BH objects would exhibit the same maximum mass.

This doesn’t seem to be supported by observation.

As I understand the math, the creation of a BH occurs at something far less that the observed mass that is at the center of our galaxy. If the mechanism you proposed operated, then this should not have occurred; the mass would have long ago been stopped-out through the production of bosons millions of solar masses ago.

As regards ‘evaporation’ of BH envisioned by Stephen Hawking, the mechanism that creates this evaporation is not the same as mass exiting the BH across the event horizon. Rather, it’s an additive mechanism where anti-matter (anti-mass, if you will) from outside the event horizon of the BH falls into the BH, and cancels out mass inside the BH.

The anti-particle is created as part of a pair of particles; a particle and anti-particle matched set, as it were. When the anti-particle falls into the BH, and its ,matching particle does not, then there is a net loss of matter in the BH behind the event horizon.

As regards the distant observer’s clock, and the idea that time stops as the in-falling object approaches th event horizon of a BH – I’ve got problems with that, too.

Pat

[mchargue]

tensordyne wrote: The problem with Black Holes is that scientists think they exist because they think they are a prediction of general relativity. The purported properties of Black Holes though cause serious problems in showing they exist. You would have to show that particles or other masses entering the BH have the property of infinite clock-maker time to enter the BH horizon. Another problem would be that you would need to show that one could legitimately expect a singularity to exist, but since no observer could report getting to the singularity — since the observer would be supposedly destroyed in the process, and any such observer could not expect to report their findings once past the event horizon of the BH, the theory of BH’s is non-falsifiable.

Sounds a lot like the argument: “I have never been to France, therefore France does not exist. QED”

There is a lot of direct observational evidence that there exist extremely large mass objects in the universe. At the center of our own galaxy, where stars’ orbits have been used to estimate that object’s mass, and its other properties, and closer objects that represent the decaying remnants of stellar explosions.

It doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch to extrapolate that, at some mass, the gravitational pull of the object will yield an event horizon beyond which nothing inside can escape outside.

That the inside of a BH can not be vetted by an observer communicating back to us is not a limitation of the theory, it’s just a limitation imposed by reality.

Pat

[mchargue]

Aeronaut wrote: The only place we want to retain heat is in the plasmoid. Anywhere else in the system, its a liability, slowing the maximum PRF.

True, but from what I read, the heat is maintained inside the magnetic field that contains the plasma. That would be the plasmoid in the case of the DPF, if the technique were applicable to the DPF. As I see it, the largest difference is that the other plasma system uses a (more) static magnetic field, and that may make the technique a non-starter for the DPF – which uses a decidedly non-static field. Still, I thought it worthy of mention so that those who understand the DPF better could evaluate its potential. (if any)

People like you.

Pat

[mchargue]

Upon reading the article, something that stood out was their theory (apparently empirically proven) that heat & particles contained in the field were not related with one another, and could be treated (confined) separately.

Given that, I wondered if there was some way of employing this understanding to enhance the heat retention in a DPF. For myself, I think not. I think the two reactors work too differently from one another, but I thought I’d bring it up anyway.

And, as you noted, it is an interesting article.

Pat

[mchargue]

vansig wrote:

The idea is that an auxiliary low voltage, high current power source would be connected to the conductors for a few nanoseconds or however long it takes to establish a stable magnetic field. Then the high voltage capacitor discharges before the magnetic field collapses in the conductors. That way the high voltage current isn’t slowed down by having to establish the magnetic field that is the cause of self-inductance.

i understand what you’re saying, but i don’t believe the physics works that way. the magnetic field isn’t the cause of self-inductance, but a consequence of the current flow. there will be no effect on the high-voltage current.

From my understanding, I don’t think that there’s any way to ‘prime the pump’, so to speak, as a way of reducing the inductance (reluctance) of the FF reactor. The use of non-ferrous materials, and short, well shielded/terminated, cable lengths, is probably the best that can be done. A magnetic field is created when charges are moved, and inductance (reluctance) is related to how easily the magnetic field can propagate through space – which is related to the permeability of the material the magnetic field propagates through. Low permeability means low inductance, (copper) while high permeability means high inductance. (iron)

Pat

[mchargue]

vansig wrote: the field generated in the plasmoid will quickly dominate the process. i doubt there is any benefit

As I understood the process, the axial field is used to start the field rotating in order to assist the process, and that it is an important part of the process. So, I think that tuning the action of the axial field has merit – especially if there’s no closed form solution available. A genetic (algorithm) search, or even a drunkards-walk, through the solution space should do to settle what the best setting should be. A fuzzy-logic controller would be more suited to a system that varies shot-to-shot, and has some characteristic that can be monitored by the controller, and used to moderate the axial field.

I’m thinking, though, that a rheostat to tune things would probably work as well – so long as the trigger is stable.

Pat

[mchargue]

ronh1066 wrote: These sites claim that these switches can fire every 10 sec. Do we need to find a different version, can they actually fire much mor often, do we need to look for a different technology or what?

That’s likely due to power-dissipation (heat-dissipation) limitations. Run it too fast, and you get a liquid-switch.

Better thermal characteristics is the fix for that. Bigger, more thermally conductive, electrodes seated in a material that can draw the heat away. Or more switches, or banks of switches operating in sequence.

There are likely few off-the-shelf solutions for high-rate, high-current, high-voltage switches. What seems to be available is you get a trade off between the the first two parameters.

Pat

[mchargue]

Breakable wrote: Laser controlled plasma switches might be more expensive, it would be nice to compare all alternatives and see what is most cost effective.

I would say that the most cost-effective switch is one that works reliably, and repeatably. It seems to me that, as the switch can be engineered separate from the FF reactor, tit should be. This would insulate (so to speak) the FF reactor experiments from the implementation of the switch, and allow research to proceed without the switch impeding progress.

But, the budget is tight, so I’d cast around in the industry, and see if I could find a design partner for that. A company with the requisite experience & expertise, and that’s willing to work toward a design in for the ultimate product. Just as there are (you internet) folks that work toward this for what it would mean for the future, there should be companies that feel the same way.

Can’t hurt to ask!

My $.02

Pat

[mchargue]

MTd2 wrote:
The idea is to build a capacitor that can store an release as fast and with the highest density possible. As for the syncronization problem, I was thinking if it would be possible to cause some kind of cascade effect after reaching a threashold.

“Cascade effect” = Spark across th gap.

[mchargue]

MTd2 wrote: Arrange a conductive toroid coil attached to a battery. Make sure there is a conductive and very thin conductive pin in the center of the z axis. Turn on the battery and the coil will collapse due the pinch. When it is small, it will touch the pin. The pin will work as a cathode and will discharge all the current of the coil in very small instant of time.

What do you think?

Is the z-axis pin connected to the toroidal coil? If not, does this mean that the toroidal coil distorts in order to connect tot he z-axis pin? Can you eplain this further, please?

Pat

[mchargue]

As I understand the current switch, it comprises 12 spark-gaps to decrease the current density through any single conductor, (switch) and already represents a problem with timing between the various switches. Increasing the number would further decrease current density through any one switch, but would likely increase the timing problem.

Unless & until a better mechanism is put in place to resolve timing issues between switches, I’m not sure that you’d want to increase the count of them.

As for lower voltage, I think the plan is to increase the voltage in order to increase the amperage, so lowed voltages probably could not be a goal.

My $.02

Pat

[mchargue]

My expectation is that the gas would recover sufficiently. There’s plenty of prior art on this. You might want to start with this thread, and follow some of the research links,
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/471/

[mchargue]

A good idea. See this thread,
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/471/

[Author]

Posts