New Fusion Method_What do you think?

Discuss fusion-related developments, personalities, and events. Explore how we got to where we are today.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

New Fusion Method_What do you think?

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:13 am

The Method of Execution of Controlled Nuclear Fusion Reaction
Joseph Chikvashvili

The Description
• It is offered to create two beams of particles of reacting components and to direct them along the same axis and in the same direction but with different arranged moving absolute velocities. So, one beam of particles should transit through another beam and their relative speed (velocity) should be sufficient for that the majority of particles could overcome the Coulomb barrier between the reacting particles. So, in the difference of most of now developing methods to overcome a Coulomb barrier, it is offered to apply the energy of particles arranged moving in beams and not to apply the energy of chaotic (thermal) moving.
• For achievement of sufficient intensity of nuclear fusion the focusing of reacting beams is necessary. For this purpose it is offered to direct the relativistic electrons along the same axis but towards to reacting particles beams. This electronic beam should partially compensate the positive space charge of reacting particles and at the time the magnetic attraction will compress the whole system in radial direction (pinch-effect).
Bennet and Budker have shown that in case of sufficient high relativism of electrons (relativistic factor) such beams should be steady enough against the majority types of instabilities (G.I. Budker, Collection of articles, The Stabilized Electronic Beam, M, Nauka, 1982)
• For compensation of alignment of speeds (velocities) of particles beams of reacting components and also for compensation of energy losses (radiant losses) of focusing electrons it is offered to create the longitudinal electric field.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:48 am


Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:57 am


It is not the same

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:43 pm

From what you wrote it looks very similar to the one I linked to.
Do you have more detailed info or description of your proposal?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: New Fusion Method_What do you think?

Postby chrismb » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:27 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:So, one beam of particles should transit through another beam and their relative speed (velocity) should be sufficient for that the majority of particles could overcome the Coulomb barrier between the reacting particles.


No, sorry, it's rubbish.

Two points to note;
a) do you really think that no-one has ever thought to direct two beams of fusible nucleii together?
b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'. There is no energy to be gained by this process, but if your objective is to get a pile of muclear particles then it does that.
c) At energies below O-P, energy-releasing fusion doesn't occur just because you get two nuclei to a high energy. The nucleii must undergo tunnelling. This is a probabilisitic process. Only one in a million of any such reactions would end in fusion - even if they were spot-on, head-to-head.

So the mission/secret-to-be-found is how to get the energy from those bounced-off particles to come back around for 'another go', without loosing their energy. They need to meet up a million times before they have one chance at fusion. It's all a random game, and thermalisation and energy losses are the big winners [to date, and especially in your scheme].

Wrong forum. Put this in 'theory'. Do you really think you are making history with this???!!!!

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Re: New Fusion Method_What do you think?

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:02 pm

a) do you really think that no-one has ever thought to direct two beams of fusible nucleii together?

Please, note me who
b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy.

Required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for D+T reaction is about 90 kEV in center-of-mass frame when cross section is maximum and equal to 5 barns. For my case when both nucleis moves at the same direction we nee about 300 kEv for pair of nucleis or little more depending what energy will has a slower particle.
At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'. There is no energy to be gained by this process, but if your objective is to get a pile of muclear particles then it does that.

Please note me why Oppenheimer-Phillips and why not convential fusion. May be this is you heap together all of that you ever read?
"pile of muclear" - in which form?
c) At energies below O-P, energy-releasing fusion doesn't occur just because you get two nuclei to a high energy.

What is the energy bellow O-P :)
The nucleii must undergo tunnelling. This is a probabilisitic process. Only one in a million of any such reactions would end in fusion - even if they were spot-on, head-to-head.

Would you like to say that scattering cross section is on order of magnitude higher than fusion section? I know. As you can see there is proposed also focusing with the help of electron beam passing through along the same axis but from the opposite direction for ions. So, we will have a pinch. And if pair of ions will fuse - very well, if no - scattered on a small angle particle will be returned to the axis magnetically.
So the mission/secret-to-be-found is how to get the energy from those bounced-off particles to come back around for 'another go', without loosing their energy. They need to meet up a million times before they have one chance at fusion. It's all a random game, and thermalisation and energy losses are the big winners [to date, and especially in your scheme].

Too many words.
Last edited by Joseph Chikva on Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:12 pm

Giorgio wrote:From what you wrote it looks very similar to the one I linked to.
Do you have more detailed info or description of your proposal?

In many places and for lot of people was enough the above-stated description

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: New Fusion Method_What do you think?

Postby chrismb » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:37 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:Required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for D+T reaction is about 90 kEV in center-of-mass frame when cross section is maximum and equal to 5 barns.
See www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf, top of page 6.

I also advise; read the rest of it.


Please note me why Oppenheimer-Phillips and why not convential fusion.
Look it up on google or wiki.


As you can see there is proposed also focusing with the help of electron beam passing through along the same axis but from the opposite direction for ions. We will have a pinch. If pair of ions will fuse very well, if no - scattered on small angle particle will be returned to the axis magnetically.
.. so what. Even if that had any truth, then they will collide with your ion guns. But Z-pinch is for thermal plasmas NOT beams. In beams you get emittance growth [look it up, google or wiki!]

Too many words.
Fusion is like buying a lottery ticket NOT like buying a train ticket.

(You buy train ticket, you can always get on the train. You buy lottery ticket, only one in a million has the right ticket.)

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Re: New Fusion Method_What do you think?

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:12 am


Your link on cross section of fusion reactions does not work. Here is a working link: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
See Table 1.2 on page 12

Please note me why Oppenheimer-Phillips and why not convential fusion.
Look it up on google or wiki.

I can use searching engine and also during my life I read a little bit more than wikipedia.
But you did not answer on question: why this effect and why not convential fusion?
I declare that the mentioned effect has no relation to my case.

As you can see there is proposed also focusing with the help of electron beam passing through along the same axis but from the opposite direction for ions. We will have a pinch. If pair of ions will fuse - very well, if no - scattered on small angle particle will be returned to the axis magnetically.

.. so what. Even if that had any truth, then they will collide with your ion guns. But Z-pinch is for thermal plasmas NOT beams. In beams you get emittance growth [look it up, google or wiki!]

I know about z-pinch, theta-pinch, pinch of charged particles beam passing for focusing through background plasma, etc.
In fact pinch will thermalize combined three beams but radiation of electrons in a very strong self-magnetic field will cool beams then.

then they will collide with your ion guns.

I have two ideas (designs) for realization the Method.
•Linear design
•Cyclic design
Both these designs are patentable and should work. And ions/electrons will not collide guns or other components of reactor.

Fusion is like buying a lottery ticket NOT like buying a train ticket.

(You buy train ticket, you can always get on the train. You buy lottery ticket, only one in a million has the right ticket.)

I offer a working idea and not lottery.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:34 am

If it is patentable, then you have not told us all the details.

So we should wait until you file the patent, then we can make more comments. Good luck.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:41 am

chrismb wrote:If it is patentable, then you have not told us all the details.

So we should wait until you file the patent, then we can make more comments. Good luck.

Thank and good luck you too.
But in patent legislation is definited the Method and Useful Device using the Method.
I am discussing on Method in purpose to push interest to it and not discussing on design.
Certainly, knowing the Method everyone can try to make device even better than my design.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:58 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:From what you wrote it looks very similar to the one I linked to.
Do you have more detailed info or description of your proposal?

In many places and for lot of people was enough the above-stated description

Here we are a little bit more technical than "other places".
Unless you give some proper data and detail no one will be interested in discussing it.

As Chris said, when you will file the patent or you will be willing to disclose more info, do advise us and we will comment on it. Good luck.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:15 am

Giorgio wrote:Here we are a little bit more technical than "other places".
Unless you give some proper data and detail no one will be interested in discussing it.

As Chris said, when you will file the patent or you will be willing to disclose more info, do advise us and we will comment on it. Good luck.

Thanks and good luck you too.
I told about other places where my Method discussed. And for its discussion do not required more data initially.
Regarding technical realization (reactor design) this is another matter. But anyway my Method differs from the Method on base of which works the reactor you have shown me.

ladajo
Posts: 6136
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:01 pm

Joseph, This post really does belong in Theory. Most of the physics types will take a look at it there.

How long have you been working on this idea?
From your posts I take it that you are a Physicist, in an academic role?

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:16 pm

ladajo wrote:Joseph, This post really does belong in Theory. Most of the physics types will take a look at it there.

How long have you been working on this idea?
From your posts I take it that you are a Physicist, in an academic role?

Thank you. A few years I am thinking on this idea.
By education I am not physicist but mechanical engineer. But my father was physicist and together we worked on some applied physics problems till he was alive.


Return to “History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests