hand held fusion reactor

ohiovr · Post by **ohiovr** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:18 pm

http://dvice.com/archives/2009/07/handheld-fusion.php

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:28 pm

Well... it was worth a quick laugh looking, anyways....

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:45 pm

Yeah, the project is already gone too, or so it seems.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07 ... n-reactor/

Kinda crazy idea.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:42 pm

I had the thought that a fusor would work with instead of a negative grid, a ball or other target made of the favored fuel in the center. You'd have to get the ion "bullets" up to fusion power levels in one pass though, but you'd not have to worry about grid erosion.

This isn't too far off from that. The scale makes it hard though.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:30 am

kunkmiester wrote:I had the thought that a fusor would work with instead of a negative grid, a ball or other target made of the favored fuel in the center. You'd have to get the ion "bullets" up to fusion power levels in one pass though, but you'd not have to worry about grid erosion.

This isn't too far off from that. The scale makes it hard though.

Didn't I read somewhere that beam-target fusion, while easy, would never give break-even because the collisional losses will always far exceed the fusion gains?

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:30 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
kunkmiester wrote:I had the thought that a fusor would work with instead of a negative grid, a ball or other target made of the favored fuel in the center. You'd have to get the ion "bullets" up to fusion power levels in one pass though, but you'd not have to worry about grid erosion.

This isn't too far off from that. The scale makes it hard though.
Didn't I read somewhere that beam-target fusion, while easy, would never give break-even because the collisional losses will always far exceed the fusion gains?

That's probably why this "chip-scale" fusion concept was abandoned. Nonetheless, it would still be nice to have at the notes about this concept and whatever research was done in pursuit of it.

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:41 pm

They must have some "trick" to get fre from collisional losses.
If its works it another mater. But there must be someting more than an simple beam-target reaktor.

Can it be some mekanism aim the protons strait to target borons?

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:39 pm

I'd imagine it'd be easier to reduce it on the micro scale than it would be on the macro scale. Alpha particles can penetrate a bit, but finding the right direction to make use of them would be a problem.

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:18 pm

I have an idea about beam-target boron fusion in a “cold fusion” way.
Use electrodes of palladium and boracid H3BO3 in light water solution.
Electrolyse it and load one electrode with protons.
Then reveres the polarity.
The borat ions merge to the surface of the Pd and the protons rush out and collide.
A condition to this to work is that the B atoms in the borat ions fit in to the gap between the Pd atoms but I think they bind direct to the Pd.

Torulf.

tombo · Post by **tombo** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:54 am

I ran some numbers some time back on something like this using carbon nanotubes as guides/barrels to shoot P's at B's.
IIRC It might be possible, but I don't know how.
You have to be a darn good sharp shooter!
And you have to get the target cold enough to stop shivering.
The fusion cross section is several orders of magnitude smaller than the tube diameter but not a huge number of orders. (I think it was 1400:1 IIRC)
The questions are how straight can you make the tube and how badly the irregularities affect the flight path and how accurately can you place the target.
This might not be a bad as you think at first, since the lumpiness is pretty symmetrical and I think the molecular orbitals of the CNT are all merged into one big one.
There is also the question of damage to the structure during each firing and how to reload.
It is going to take someone a lot smarter than me to put all the pieces together to see if it really works.

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:44 pm

I actual have boracid and a little bit of palladium foil at home. A remain from my youths chemistry home lab. I may test it. But I have no good electric sores. May it go with a batery?

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:37 pm

How much current are you going to dump in to get the protons up to fusion velocity?

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:49 pm

I realise this would not work. For shorter distance for acceleration its must be higher voltage. And for this very short acceleration in may be ridicules high voltage.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:13 am

Torulf2 wrote:I realise this would not work. For shorter distance for acceleration its must be higher voltage. And for this very short acceleration in may be ridicules high voltage.

The voltage is the same. It is the volts/cm that is important.