Focus Fusion at Google Tech Talk

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Focus Fusion at Google Tech Talk

Post by jlumartinez »

Just for those interested in Eric Lerner research as other way to get fusion

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... pr=goog-sl

At 46th minute they make a reference to Polywell and FRC-Colliding Beams (Tri-Alpha Inc.) as other ways to fuse p+B11. They make a comparison between their device and those others. I don´t know if Polywell parameter compared in their table are those from WB-6 or from WB-5. Does anyone knows which results they are using in this presentation?

Without going into opinions it is healthy for science to have a branch of possible alternatives to get cheap nuclear fusion.

PS. They have done a reference to Dr. Bussard passing into their website: http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/si ... 1928_2007/
A great and gentleman´s detail
Last edited by jlumartinez on Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The Focus Fusion guys are up against the fundamental Tokamak problem. Their plasma is Maxwellian.

I will say this. It would be a lot cheaper to give an experimental yea or nay than ITER is costing.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

In their presentation they state that their experimental results are closer to breakeven than those from Polywell or FRC-Colliding Beams. Is it true? Are they using for that comparison the WB-5 results or those obtained with WB-6?

For Polywell they use as latest experimental results:
n =10^14 (1/cc)
tau = 2.3·10^(-7) s.
T = 10^5 eV
n·tau = 2.3·10^7
n·tau·T= 2.3·10^12
Neutrons = 10^5 --> this data seem to be from WB-5 because the WB-6 reactor produced 10^9 neutrons/sec. for a potential well of 10 KeV

Are these taken from WB-5 or WB-6 experiments?

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The fact that they are close to break even is a red herring.

The question is: does it scale? What are the scaling laws?

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Fokus plasma is in parts non Maxwellian.

Post by Torulf2 »

Focus fusion may be an “accelerator type device” in same way as the IEC. In the centre of the focus a tiny plasmoid forms. It has incredible high temperature and strong magnetic field. Then this breaks down the energy in the magnetic field turns to an electric field. The ions and electrons in the plasmoid accelerate in opposite direction. Plasma focus experiments with DD have given large amount of fusion neutrons. The fusion energy is of two types. A thermonuclear part and beam, target part.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Uh

Post by scareduck »

There's something really creepy about focus fusion... their website is crawling with "please feed us" signs, none of the principals really seem to have a background in getting projects going commercially or have hardcore physics/math backgrounds ... Lerner represents himself as a "researcher"

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article/115

yet he lacks bona fides (he claims to have published in several journals but mentions no specific papers published in the Astrophysical Journal, Astrophysics, no advanced degrees from any name university, etc.). Further, there's the annoyingly-named "Lawrenceville Plasma Physics" lab, which sounds as if it were intended to fool the gullible into thinking it's the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. It reminds me of those just-below-mentally-stable guys who buy used police motorcycles, put on clothes designed to look like local police uniforms, and cruise around town.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

IIRC Lawrenceville is a town near Princeton NJ.
Lerner @ Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
Lerner was born in 1947 in Brookline, Massachusetts. He received a BA in physics from Columbia University[3] and did graduate work in physics at the University of Maryland, College Park without completing a degree.[4] He has studied cosmic plasma phenomena and laboratory fusion devices, especially the dense plasma focus,
Lerner is a critic of the Big Bang theory and advocates an infinitely old Universe. Lerner has proposed non-mainstream alternative mechanisms to explain quasars, structure formation,[11] the microwave background,[12] and the origin of light elements[13], all based on his plasma cosmology approach. He claims that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow filaments.[14][15][16] He has suggested that data on the surface brightness of galaxies contradicts the predictions of expanding-universe models.[17]

Lerner postulated that quasars are not related to black holes but are rather produced by a magnetic self-compression process similar to that occurring in the plasma focus.[18] Lerner has done experimental work on the plasma focus funded by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in collaboration with the University of Illinois in 1994,[19] and with Texas A&M University in 2001.[20] In addition, he developed an original model of the role of the strong magnetic field effect on plasma functioning, which he believes could make the production of useful energy from aneutronic fusion more feasible.[21]
Elerner has been banned from editing @ wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Lerner
Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.
The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Nanos
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

Some people don't realise that your not allowed to edit your own details, and others I can imagine don't like it if others say incorrect things about them and feel compelled to change it.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Post by dch24 »

I didn't see a response to the question. Bump.
jlumartinez wrote:Are they using for that comparison the WB-5 results or those obtained with WB-6?

For Polywell they use as latest experimental results:
n =10^14 (1/cc)
tau = 2.3·10^(-7) s.
T = 10^5 eV
n·tau = 2.3·10^7
n·tau·T= 2.3·10^12
Neutrons = 10^5 --> this data seem to be from WB-5 because the WB-6 reactor produced 10^9 neutrons/sec. for a potential well of 10 KeV

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Is T=10^5 eV right?

With D-D at +2 a 10 KV accelerator should produce a T of 2 X 10^4 eV.

A collision energy of 4 X 10^4 eV.

reaction rate is proportional to (n/v * n/v)/2 where v is volume.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Lerner's Wikipedia talk page

Post by scareduck »

Interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Lerner

A lot of it is the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" sorts of arguments: Is Lerner a plasma physicist or a plasma cosmologist? Is he rejected by mainstream physicists? And who is a physicist, anyway? What are the credentials of that title, and are they necessary to doing good science?

Lerner's posts there don't generally make him come off as a crank, but his rejection of the big bang does, sort of, with the caveat that there are a number of cosmologists who have trod the same path; they just aren't really considered mainstream anymore. Scroll down to the section labeled "Sole Reliable Supporter of Eric's Book" and read the first couple of paragraphs for the unvarnished version:

http://tinyurl.com/2jjdum

One useful point that does come out of the very heated discussion there is that Lerner's papers are rarely if ever cited by others. That says to me that other scientists in the field find his arguments unpersuasive. Moreover, the fact that he clearly spent a lot of time polishing his resume at Wikipedia tells me that the quality of his actual scientific output is questionable; either his work stands on its own or it does not.

(Aside: one of the problems I had with sonofusion researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan was his reaction to investigations of his lab work, calling it a "smear campaign":

http://tinyurl.com/332z4b

Again, either work stands on its own or it does not. Turning criticism into a "personal attack" when the recipient can't defend their work and their methods is a sure sign of bad science.)

Looking at the hybrid Google map

http://tinyurl.com/2uwzym

two things are plain:

1) "Lawrenceville Plasma Physics" is in fact in Orange, NJ, something you can verify for yourself by the address on his home page:

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

2) It looks like it's his garage (the neighborhood is residential).

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Orange is a couple of miles south of me. A bit Urban.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Here is a look at the technology with pretty pictures:

http://affairsoftheglobaleconomicunion. ... green.html

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

Looks pretty, but how are those electrodes NOT going to out-gass and contaminate things ? The article mentioned he got funding from google. WHAT THE ???


cheers for the link Simon.
Purity is Power

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

I'm sure Google isn't giving them a dime

Post by scareduck »

This guy is just assuming that because Lerner is presenting at Google Tech Talks.

Post Reply