Sciencemadness Discussion Board - LOWER PRICE FUSION

LOWER PRICE FUSION

FEBA - 17-6-2005 at 18:10

Does Is possible to use the fusor/plasma focus/other device low cost to generate nuclear fusion and finally produces energy in a continuous way? (fuel: pB11).

Scratch- - 17-6-2005 at 18:23

I dont think that currently there is a practical low cost way of making a self sustaining or energy producing fusion reaction.

Now if you mean FISSion, thats a different story.

[Edited on 6/18/2005 by Scratch-]

Pyridinium - 17-6-2005 at 18:33

This question is going to annoy some readers, I can feel it now... but it's actually a good one. Big can o' worms here, though.

If you're talking about the fusor technology of Philo Farnsworth, or even the experiment of Pons and Fleischman, there are a couple things to remember:

1. It might actually work.

2. Things that might actually work don't necessarily get funding or recognition. Sometimes they get buried. With malice.

3. There is a firestorm of bitter controversy over "cold fusion", "warm fusion", and anything that doesn't require mega-amperes of current to keep going. Members will say "cold fusion has been discredited here, here, and here", providing links (ok fair enough) but I have to reply with (1) some of the "debunkings" use fallacious logic, and (2) hard to debunk something unless you've researched it thoroughly with a completely impartial attitude.

4. Very few of us on here have actually performed the experiments on cold fusion or warm fusion. Either we've trash talked the theories into oblivion or we've said "yeah, that's cool, but my madscience budget can't cover it right now".

Scratch- - 17-6-2005 at 18:54

Well thats cool, but my budget cant cover it right now.

If we are going to get in a descussion about it I might as well mention that I heard about some research theyre (One of those well funded groups out there I suppose) doing on cold(ish) fusion.

The idea is based on the pinging sound you get when you boil water (I've never heard it but supposidly its there) in a kettle. The pinging is from bubbles of steam going through a pressure change and collapsing and that concentrates the heat so you have really hot bubble (I guess it then explodes or something, thus the pinging). So now theyre taking sulfuric acid (Concentrated I guess) and heating it and hitting it with ultrasound. This time when the bubbles ping they flash! So they measure the temperature of the surface of the bubbles and it turns out the surface is hotter than the surface of the sun! Thats as far as theyve gotten I think.

I didnt hear it from the source so I dont have alot of details. Its something interesting though.

If you could get the heat up really hot in one of those bubbles, perhaps you could fuse deuterium and tritium. Deuterium-tritium sulfate anyone?

neutrino - 17-6-2005 at 19:46

That doesn’t sound quite so promising to me.

Quote:

So they measure the temperature of the surface of the bubbles and it turns out the surface is hotter than the surface of the sun!

That would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000K, still a far cry from the 3000000K needed for fusion.

[Edited on 18-6-2005 by neutrino]

Cavitation

MadHatter - 17-6-2005 at 22:13

This pdf file may interest you.

www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitationb.pdf

[Edited on 18-6-2005 by MadHatter]

I am a fish - 18-6-2005 at 02:08

The problem with fusors is energy loss due to Braking Radiation (AKA Bremsstrahlung). When two nuclei approach, they are subject to colossal accelerations, due to the electrical repulsion between them. Accelerating charged particles emit electromagnetic radiation, which in the case of the fusor, would mostly be in the form of X-rays. As the particles accelerated by a fusor are not in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings, the energy carried by the X-rays is lost (this is essentially a high energy equivalent of a hot object losing energy due to the emission of infra-red radiation).

In order to gain energy from a fusor, you would need to convert the emitted X-rays into electrical energy, that would then be fed back into the accelerator. However, manipulating X-rays is extremely difficult, and to my knowledge, the required technology does not exist.

neutrino - 18-6-2005 at 04:13

Oh, that thing. I’d read about a similar experiment involving acetone. The conclusion was that although fusion was probably taking place, it couldn’t generate any net energy. I guess they’re still at it…

Marvin - 18-6-2005 at 09:39

There is an important distinction for fusion systems.

Stellarators, pinch devices, fusors, deuteron accelerators, multi caustic pulse systems and a whole load of other weird wonderful and mostly abandoned technology actually does fusion when built correctly, unequivically and at the push of a button. Breakeven may not be possible with any of these but there is no doubt they work.

Cold fusion and sonoluminescience have never been shown to produce excess heat formerly though the latter is getting a lot of research more recently. Whats more with cold fusion the groups that do claim excess heat don't agree with eachother on the amount or other products. Some of them claim to produce tritium, some helium, others state these are not produced. When large well funded groups test an idea and it fails its generally best to bilieve them, anything else is outside science.

Fusion is within the reach of anyone, breakeven is currently out of reach of everyone.

I am a fish - 18-6-2005 at 09:48

Quote:

Fusion is within the reach of anyone, breakeven is currently out of reach of everyone.

...except those with access to fission bombs.

FEBA - 18-6-2005 at 12:17

I'm reading the US Patent 6,894,446 Title: " controlled fusion in a field reversed configuration and direct energy conversion". What you think about low price fusion?

Break even

MadHatter - 18-6-2005 at 13:56

When break even has been exceeded without significant damage to the apparatus,
then low cost fusion may be possible. Until then, it's all money going into research.

Pyridinium - 18-6-2005 at 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Marvin
There is an important distinction for fusion systems.

Stellarators, pinch devices, fusors, deuteron accelerators, multi caustic pulse systems and a whole load of other weird wonderful and mostly abandoned technology actually does fusion when built correctly, unequivically and at the push of a button. Breakeven may not be possible with any of these but there is no doubt they work.

Actually, that's what I figured after thinking about it some more... but just the idea that you might be fusing a few nuclei here and there, now that is madscience!

It does has a high 'evil laugh' factor, but not as high as if you could get the thing to runaway and melt a hole down into the earth...

Marvin - 19-6-2005 at 04:06

Mr Fish,

You do get a lot more energy out than you put in, but I would define breakeven as more electrical energy out. Some tokamac experiments have annouced they have reached breakeven for a few seconds also. I think they define breakeven differently too, exceeding of a certain ratio of energy out to in. If the requirement is simply more energy in any form then all fusion is over unity but if its a question of 1 watt per electrical watt, or 1.00000001 watts per electrical watt there isnt much point. When someone runs some solar panels off a hydrogen bomb blast I guess I'll have to relent but hopefully a power reactor will be a reality before the next world war.....

FEBA,

The problem with fusion is not how to collect the energy, its how to contain a plasma dense enough to fuse, ie making the fusion actually happen. The difference between a fusion design thats worth a billion dollers and one thats worth nothing cannot be determined from a set of drawings.

sparkgap - 19-6-2005 at 04:21

I wager that if ever a material be discovered/made that can withstand fusion temperatures, it's going to be a ceramic or something similar.

sparky (~_~)

12AX7 - 19-6-2005 at 13:11

No doubt about that. And something very simple, like metallic tungsten, graphite/diamond or a binary with carbon (i.e. carbide). Coincidentially, you can search the periodic table for borides, nitrides, carbides and oxides and find the highest melting point in hafnium carbide, IIRC (3900°C). That's nearly a low plasma temperature, but nowhere near fusion. Without duranium or tritanium available, it'll have to be water cooled, at a great loss of radiative heat.

Tim

FEBA - 1-7-2005 at 08:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Marvin

FEBA,

The problem with fusion is not how to collect the energy, its how to contain a plasma dense enough to fuse, ie making the fusion actually happen. The difference between a fusion design thats worth a billion dollers and one thats worth nothing cannot be determined from a set of drawings.

Please talking more about "how to contain a plasma dense enough to fuse"

sparkgap - 1-7-2005 at 22:14

You missed the point, Señor Baez.

The problem is that the temperatures needed to make plasma dense enough to fuse will melt all known materials usually used for containment.

My wager still stands...

maybe you can find that material?

sparky (~_~)

Chris The Great - 2-7-2005 at 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by sparkgap
I wager that if ever a material be discovered/made that can withstand fusion temperatures, it's going to be a ceramic or something similar.

sparky (~_~)

Unfortunately most things (such as atoms) tend to have all their electrons blown clean off leaving only the nucleus at fusion temperatures. The exception being really heavy atoms such as uranium, which only lose half IIRC.

12AX7 - 2-7-2005 at 20:57

So let's see here, think you could get Th(-50) Uranide(-49)?

Tim

franklyn - 2-12-2010 at 02:39

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385853
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/new.york.nuclear.hobby/inde...

Practical applied atomic research also originated in New York at Columbia
in much the same way.

http://www.wikicu.com/Manhattan_Project
http://www.wikicu.com/Pupin_Physics_Laboratories
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/pdf-files/manhattanprojec...

.

crazedguy - 2-12-2010 at 15:56

was it necessary to post on something 5 years old?

woelen - 3-12-2010 at 02:21

Its not necessary, but in this case it also is not an issue. Reviving old threads is perfectly legal if you add something new to it.