Possible Low-Cost Conventional Fusion

  • Possibly a low cost, small reactor approach to conventional D-D fusion ---


    "On pulsating DD neutron yield under inertial electrostatic confinement of

    complex plasma at miniature vacuum discharge"


    Abstract. We continue to analyze the effects of deuteron oscillations in potential well of a virtual cathode under inertial electrostatic confinement based on nanosecond vacuum discharge. The goal of this paper is to present and discuss in detail available experimental results on pulsating DD neutron yield at this scheme. Also, the results of simulations for virtual cathodes and potential wells for particular experimental regimes of neutron yields are shown and discussed, as well as comparison with available similar scheme of periodical oscillating plasmas spheres for fusion.


    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…42-6596/1147/1/012103/pdf


  • In future the cold fusion and hot fusion processes undoubtedly converge (for example Lipinski fusion of Unified Gravity has many things in common with hot fusion).
    But the production of neutrons will make hot fusion always prohibitive, not to say about energy waste.

  • conventional D-D fusion

    In fact, at the experiment with NVD with deuterated Pd anode we have PW depth ' ≈ 50 kV


    namely for deuterons,


    deuterons = D+..


    The authors state somewhere that 50kV PW enables collisional D-D fusion.

    Although there are neutrons... the 50keV sounds too low to overcome a conventional Coulomb barrier..

    for me at least

    This looks to be LENR

  • In future the cold fusion and hot fusion processes undoubtedly converge (for example Lipinski fusion of Unified Gravity has many things in common with hot fusion).
    But the production of neutrons will make hot fusion always prohibitive, not to say about energy waste.

    As far as I understand there is a deep difference between LENR and classical fusion.

    Even if it is still uncertain, it seems clear that LENR is a multibody "slow" fusion, while hotfusion is a fewbody high-energy outcome fast fusion.

    The difference is as between particle accelerators and superconductors, as between rape and seduction.

    The core of LENR weirdness is not overcoming the coulomb barrier, but avoiding the big bang of 24MeV afterward. For me this is the core difference.

    Muon fusion, fractofusion, screening, lowering coulomb barrier, neutrons capture, it is hot fusion, at least not LENR.

    Only when you have only sub-MeV quanta out of the like-a-fusion, can you talk of LENR.



  • The paper is all about whether the 1998 idea of POPS (periodically oscillating plasma spheres, from his references [10,11]) could possibly achieve break-even. And those are partly in thermal equilibrium - at which 50keV gives cross-section 1% of peak over all energies. The experiments here are in line with simulation results: and AFAIK current simulations do not incorporate LENR.


    The history of unconventional hot fusion has been many attempts to overcome the different limits of thermal and non-thermal plasma distributions. For thermal, you have all the classic problems of maintenance at high density/temperature. For non-thermal, you have the problem that (as that paper puts it) the Coulomb scattering cross-section is higher than the fusion cross-section which makes it expensive in energy to maintain a non-equilibrium distribution.


    It is natural to hope that some plasma phenomena can somehow bring together the benefits of both, hence the idea of POPS where pulsating plasmas achieve higher fusion than possible in equilibrium.


    Anyway, I don't see this is that likely to achieve useful fusion gain, but it is interesting in having completely different scaling constraints from classic schemes, and the pay-off if it worked is so high that it is worth exploring even unlikely possibilities: there is always the chance of some unexpected synergy that will make things possible. (like those that Hora claims, but does not yet have very strong evidence of, in H-B laser-based non-thermal fusion).


    [10] Nebel R A and Barnes D C 1998 Fusion Technol. 38 28–45
    [11] Barnes D C and Nebel R A 1998 Phys. Plasmas 5 2498–504


  • The core of LENR weirdness is not overcoming the coulomb barrier,

    Thanks Alain for clarifying that LENR is not just a way of using low energy some way to overcome a high Coulomb barrier


    I read somewhere in Wyttenbach's stuff that the high transient and aligned magnetic fluxes during the

    4d/3D transitions perturb the charge fields so that the Coulomb barriers are not operating uniformly

    but perhaps I misunderstood that.


    In LENR-(low energy nuclear reaction)- the low energy is really a misnomer-

    since these magnetic fluxes can be high energy as 24 MEV

    which are divided out into smaller and smaller magnetic fluxes with lower and lower energies

    to appear mainly as heat by induction heating of electron clouds.

    .. well that's my amathematical KISS understanding of stoff.

  • This flux is stored magnetic energy at the nuclear scale. Currently no way of measuring in conventional magnetic units it except by describing the total amount of energy converted into flux., it might even be monopole flux, in which case conventional units might not be appropriate.

  • Magnetic energy?

    Potential energy can be associated with a field, like a ball on top of a hill in a gravitational field.

    Or you can have potential energy associated with a magnetic field, like a ferrous object at a distance from a magnet.

    The force from the field does work to accelerate the object and change the potential energy into kinetic energy.

    But the field itself cannot be measured in energy units.

  • My attempt was to call it the Coriolis effect


    The Coriolis effect in 4D is uber-Millsian...and not Pennsylvanian


    3.2.1 Magnetic flux compression in 1;2;3 Dimensions.

     

    Basically long time stable flux reduction(compression)

    is only possible between proton and neutrons.

    Key for the n-p binding is the split nature of the neutron that can give or accept flux.

    The term bond is wrong ....as in reality the magnetic flux is unidirectional.

    Thus here double arrows are only illustrative. If we, in the following text,

    talk of a 3D/4D wave, then we mean a wave,

    that is “equivalent” to a 3D mass, but traveling/rotating along a 4D surface in 4D space!

    In 4D space most energy is stored in flux, .. a synonym for compressed magnetic field lines.

    3D/4D flux is a bundle of magnetic field lines with 3 rotations that stays in 4D space.

    4D flux makes 4 rotations and 2D/4D ( +,-) flux-potential seems to (radially?) balance the first two.

    The base particle electron makes only two full rotations,

    because a large part of the disposable energy is stored in the radial field.

    The proton mass has a “large” (compared to electron) excess mass that needs a third dimension to flow in.

    in the 4D world, radial energy is converted into rotational mass/energy or will be disposed.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20

  • The force from the field does work to accelerate the object and change the potential energy into kinetic energy.

    This is true if you induce a magnetic flux with 4000 Amps and then do flux compression the KE is large.


    ““I designed the iron housing to endure against about 700 T,”

    . That was about 60 percent of what it actually delivered. “I didn’t expect it to be so high.” OOPS!!


    A peak field of 1200 T was generated by the electromagnetic flux-compression (EMFC) technique with a newly developed megagauss generator system.

    The performance was analyzed and compared with data obtained by the preceding EMFC experiments

    to show a significant increase in the liner imploding speed of up to 5 km/s.





    https://spectrum.ieee.org/nano…et-with-a-bang-1200-tesla