Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:36 pm
Is that sarcasm?ladajo wrote:From your posts I take it that you are a Physicist, in an academic role?
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Is that sarcasm?ladajo wrote:From your posts I take it that you are a Physicist, in an academic role?
You are right - I am not physicist. But unlike you I don't mix the immiscible phenomena. "Energy bellow O-P", "pile of particles"chrismb wrote:Is that sarcasm?
So, regardless who I am - physicist or Chinese opera singer you could not explain me why Oppenheimer-Fillips?chrismb wrote:Maybe it is a language issue. But I have provided you with leads, and now it is for you to do work and find out if these are relevant or not to your purposes. I am not the one making claims and asking for recognition.
It is for you to show what you want to, but if you do not know physics basics (and want someone else to spoon feed you) then you are not going to be able to show anything.
Ok.chrismb wrote:You asked for opinions. You got mine. I gave you some things to look up, in case they were relevant for you. It's for you to do the research and read up to see if its relevant.
You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy and I say you need to read up around that subject to be able to ask good questions.
If you have any specific question then go ahead and ask them - in the right forum....
Oppenheimer-Phillips...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'.
You will got pile of particles
In which form?
What should I find in wiki? How does the pile of particles create?Go and read wiki
collision cross section?You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy
In nuclear physics nobody uses the term "collision cross section". Chemists - yes.ladajo wrote:probability of colliding
The only 'nonsense interactions' are claims like;Joseph Chikva wrote:And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.
I pointed you at Gamow quantum tunneling, so go make sure you understand this, then post something intelligible in the THEORY section.Joseph Chikva wrote: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.
I would disagree to the extent of the your thought.Joseph Chikva wrote:In nuclear physics nobody uses the term "collision cross section". Chemists - yes.ladajo wrote:probability of colliding
Also first Reserford calculated "scattering cross section". And that is widely used as well.
In tipical fusion conditions we should consider only fusion event and its cross section and scattering and its cross section.
And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.
From a formality you are certainly right. And of course we can admit a non-zero probability of birth of even hydrogen nucleus (isotope) with three neutrons via O-P reaction. As it claims my immoderately emotional opponent.ladajo wrote: I would disagree to the extent of the your thought.
I was formally trained in nuclear physics with the concept of the probability of an interaction, so to that point, as a matter of clarification, the word "interaction" would be more appropriate. However, that said, and "interaction" does not a fusion or fission make. That is something else.
So I am unsure as to your point in this regard.
From engineering side of view in all nuclear fusion experiments nobody considers quantum tunneling, short action strong forces, etc.chrismb wrote:The only 'nonsense interactions' are claims like;Joseph Chikva wrote:And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.
I pointed you at Gamow quantum tunneling, so go make sure you understand this, then post something intelligible in the THEORY section.Joseph Chikva wrote: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.
As I understand we both are agree to use this paper:chrismb wrote: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'.
These are peak tunneling resonances. They are NOT indicative of the Coulomb barrier.Joseph Chikva wrote:And you was wrong for initially when claimed that to overcome a Coulomb barrier I need many MeV-s of collision energy.We both are agree to use this paper:chrismb wrote: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'.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
In table 1.2 on page 12 is written:
• deuterium+ tritium: cross section 5 barns @ 64 keV
• deuterium + He-3: cross section 0.9 barns @ 250 keV
• proton +B-11: cross section 1.2 barns @ 550 keV
All energies are in center-of-mass frame
In required energy estimation you was wrong on one or two orders of magnitude!
That is all? Do you consider classic mechanics when talk about Coulomb barrier?chrismb wrote:Your discussion suggests a lack of basic understanding of fusion reactions. I have already tried to explain this to you, so will attempt to do so one last time.
These are peak tunneling resonances. They are NOT indicative of the Coulomb barrier.Joseph Chikva wrote:And you was wrong for initially when claimed that to overcome a Coulomb barrier I need many MeV-s of collision energy.We both are agree to use this paper:chrismb wrote: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'.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
In table 1.2 on page 12 is written:
• deuterium+ tritium: cross section 5 barns @ 64 keV
• deuterium + He-3: cross section 0.9 barns @ 250 keV
• proton +B-11: cross section 1.2 barns @ 550 keV
All energies are in center-of-mass frame
In required energy estimation you was wrong on one or two orders of magnitude!
OK, I'll step you through this calculation like a good little seminar tutor, and we'll see how far you get....Joseph Chikva wrote:So, if we would like to approach the particles to proximity sufficient for action of nuclear forces, for this purpose overcoming of Coulomb barrier is required.