Kite,
I have now managed to download this document. Odd. It is the same link as I posted, but doesn't work unless accessed through the NASA portal.
Anyhow, I need to disabuse you of the notion that the report NASA CR-54256 is a
decelerator type generator, as being described here.
It is, simply, a single electrode device, thus;
It works by, firstly, allowing alphas to bombard what they [wrongly]** call the 'anode'. The 'anode' is linked to a circuit in which there is a very high impedance load that causes the 'anode' to charge up.
*[An 'anode' is an electrode
to which electrons flow, and a cathode is an electrode
from which electrons flow. Therefore, in batteries and in this device, the +ve'ly charged electrode is the cathode and the emitting electrode is the anode.]
So in the first few moments of operation, all that happens is that alphas freely bombard the 'anode', causing that side of the circuit to charge up.
Once it is charged up to a given potential, the electric field caused by that charged-up electrode then causes the alphas heading towards it to experience a retardation. If you then consider where the particles' energy is going during that retardation, you can see that all that is happening is that the charge on the electrode is being pushed around the circuit a bit, before the alpha hits it.
Therefore, it
relies on alpha bombardment of the outer electrode, so as to maintain the population of charge there, as the charge flows (and is pushed) around the circuit. This isn't my understanding of the way the 'deceleration grids' we are talking about work.
There is a second diagram that might have confused you;
This shows a suppression grid and this
is relevant to consideration of Polywell. An alpha emitter throwing out 5MeV alphas doesn't just have alphas leaving it. The charge also pulls off electrons off of the alpha emitter - because of
ambipolar diffusion. It is to be entirely expected that the same problems would occur with any such configuration of trying to capture the direct emissions of alphas - because there are always electrons knocking around. This grid reduces efficiency and reduces the capacity of the 'anode' to reach a given potential. In the case of the paper, it describes that it hasn't got over 50kV potential on the anode due to 'micro-discharges'.
Welcome to reality!!!...... you think this is easy to fix!?!
So a few point to note;
1) NASA report CR-54256 does NOT describe a multi-grid 'venetian-blind' style deceleration system.
2) I can't find any comment in the NASA report CR-54256 that demonstrates
achieved efficiency, there is only wind-bagging about what is
theoretically possible [for this alternative design of electrode-collisional direct energy system]
3) I can't find any comment in the NASA report CR-54256 that demonstrates
achieved power, there is only wind-bagging about what is
theoretically possible [for this alternative design of electrode-collisional direct energy system]
4) Points 2 and 3 looks like it is because they have made no experimental attempt to apply a real load between 'cathode' and 'anode'. In other words, all that the experimentation has done is put an alpha emitter into a chamber and measured how much charge (voltage) has accumulated on the electrode they wrongly refer to as 'the anode', and they only achieved 50kV. Compared that with where they actually need to reach, which is 5MV. So 1% on their way to demonstrating they can even capture charge, and 0% of their way to demonstrating any electrical power at all.
So.... still no experimental evidence of any such 'venetian-blind' non-collisional energy recovery device being made...
I therefore believe I am right in saying that my comments in the second post of this thread remain, entirely, uncontested.