Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:38 pm
[quote="Art Carlson"]You guys are amazing. The theory of this machine is really weak, but the experimental data is non-existent. The only positive data you have is a number of neutrons that I can count on my fingers. A reactor will have to produce around 10^30 neutrons.
I can't resist. At the risk of exposing my ignorance I believe your number of 10^30 neutrons per second for a useful reacter is off by at least a facter of a billion.
Using the calculater from : http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/fus ... ulator.htm
a production of ~ 10^20 neutrons per second produces about 100,000,000 Watt/s of power. By that calculation a reacter that produced 10^30 neutrons per second would be producing about 1,000,000 trillion Watt/s of power.
Or, to illistrate the scale by using moles: a mole of duterium fusing/s would produce ~ 3 x 10^23 neutrons (one half of Avagadro's number). So, 10 ^30 neutrons per second would be consuming over 1,000,000 moles of duterium per second.Each mole of duterium weighs 2 grams so 10^ 30 neutrons /s would be equivalent to fusing over 2 kilograms of deuterium per second. Assuming a power output of ~ 1,000,000 times that of coal, an equivalent coal fired plant would be burning coal at a rate of 2,000,000 Kilograms per second. That plant would go through a trainload of coal (100 cars at 50 KT/car) every 2-3 seconds!
And a few DETECTED neutrons is relitive. Assuming the counts are real, The claimed production is actually close to 10^9 neutrons per second .
And finally, stating that 'the experimental data is non-existent', should be 'the experimental data is non-existent or unaviable'.