Electric Fusion Systems
-
Difficult to judge at this moment.
The 'technology' section of their site does not show yet.
Patent application(s) are not yet published if the inventors are the founders.
Fusion caused by lithium vapor combined with a hydrogen plasma is not unique and claimed by others as well.
-
This paragraph, at the end of the page, calls the attention as it claims direct electricity production from the plasma "oscillation". This would set it completely appart but I don't know if this would be really capable of capturing the energy of the reaction efficiently:
How does EFS produce electricity?
As the fusion reactions cycle into and out of a fusion state, they create a burst of electromagnetic pressure which oscillates back and forth based on how our design drives the reactor. This Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) is harvested into electrical coils wrapped around the reactor and subsequently rectified via traditional power supply designs into AC or DC output at the voltage, current, and frequency for the desired application, be it 800VDC for a transportation application, or 35 kilovolts AC in an electrical substation.
In principle the information delivered is scant and one can assume too much, specially considering the background each one may have. But I can't discard it outright as "vaporware" as I think the basic premise is valid given what we know today from many other projects, specially in SAFIRE, the problem is that this is wrapped in the appearance of being based on mainstream science, which I would say it can't be because only from electric arcing fusion is considered impossible by mainstream, but we LENRists know better.
-
Although Wikipedia has many faults, it’s section on aneutronic fusion reactions is quite useful.
The electric product reactions are discussed. Maybe someone has a new thing, but the reactions in the candidate table are considered to be the most favourable, and unfavourable side reactions that are often overlooked are also mentioned for several. Most new companies floating something will be attempting one of these in the list.
-
Although Wikipedia has many faults, it’s section on aneutronic fusion reactions is quite useful.
The electric product reactions are discussed. Maybe someone has a new thing, but the reactions in the candidate table are considered to be the most favourable, and unfavourable side reactions that are often overlooked are also mentioned for several. Most new companies floating something will be attempting one of these in the list.
I would agree they tossed a lot of buzzwords in the mix as they also talk about electron screening.
The only thing that really stood out for me was the claim of direct electricity production. -
Harvesting electricity from oscillating plasmas is not new. It has appeared in quite a few patent applications and claimed by other startups.
They called it EMP harvesting, indicating they have an unstable plasma fluctuating at random it seems.
Best way to harvest these electromagnetic radiations is to develop a system that can act in resonance. Also the receiving coil then needs to be in full resonance to have an optimized energy transfer and harvesting.
Resonance is probably also required to give the ions sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb forces to enable fusion
(if possible at all).
-
This approach was implemented in hydrowave technology in 2006 - Vladimir Stepanovich Afanasyev managed to implement an "outstanding technical trick" - without supplying electricity to the reactor, without having a cathode or anode in the reactor in the form of some kind of metal rods - electric discharges were initiated in his reactor, thanks to which was nuclear fusion and the trigger of this fusion was the e-capture reaction on a free proton, which he received by "processing dirty water" ...
-
Display More
Harvesting electricity from oscillating plasmas is not new. It has appeared in quite a few patent applications and claimed by other startups.
They called it EMP harvesting, indicating they have an unstable plasma fluctuating at random it seems.
Best way to harvest these electromagnetic radiations is to develop a system that can act in resonance. Also the receiving coil then needs to be in full resonance to have an optimized energy transfer and harvesting.
Resonance is probably also required to give the ions sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb forces to enable fusion
(if possible at all).
You wrote - "Resonance is probably also required to give the ions sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb forces to enable fusion" ... On this site I have already posted a lot of material that proves that Maxwell's "electric charge" does not exist in nature - Maxwell was exposed and he was wrong, there is no "electrical force" in nature and therefore there is no Coulomb barrier in nature and therefore nothing needs to be overcome - in this sense, but only the secondary magnetic field needs to be overcome ... The results of the Japanese in 2013 will help you - it can be seen from them that the Coulomb barrier is 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the theoretical barrier -
Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1, 4.02.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1RW8/UmRBsBtPp
Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1, 4.02.2021 – https://drive.google.com/file/…NP6FzqAd/view?usp=sharing
-
Hello, Thanks so very much for your interest!
While as has been noted, the EFS LEEF approach is not LENR, it is unique.
We have updated our FAQ section with the following information:
HOW DOES EFS’S APPROACH ACHIEVE PRACTICAL FUSION?
The standard of fusion system performance is the Lawson Criterion. The Lawson criterion is a figure of merit used in nuclear fusion research. It compares the rate of energy being generated by fusion reactions within the fusion fuel to the rate of energy losses to the environment. The criterion consists of three basic elements: density, temperature, and time. These elements are used to calculate a value known as the “Triple Product”
EFS’s LEEF Triple Product is favorable for the follow reasons:
- EFS’s LEEF fuel operates in a supercritical fluid state with a density orders of magnitude higher than any other known approach. LEEF densities are literally off the chart used to document the plethora other approaches.
- Ion temperatures orders of magnitude higher and measured in MEV as opposed to KEV seen in other approaches result in significant chain reactions during every fusion cycle. Again, LEEF energies are literally off the chart.
- In other approaches stability of magnetic confinement is the primary driver of the confinement & Fusion burn time. This has been a failure point for other approaches. The LEEF process is cyclical and fusion EMF energy is extracted every cycle via magnetic induction at very high efficiencies exceeding 90% as compared to the ~30% seen in “heat” based extraction used in other approaches. Our induction field by nature is not a steady state field nor should it be lest we suffer the same issues plaguing other programs.
- In a preignition state our fuel exhibits a modified coulomb barrier by orders of magnitude through a phenomenon known as electron screening.
-
Our induction field by nature is not a steady state field nor should it be lest we suffer the same issues plaguing other programs.
Hello k.e.kopp , thanks for coming to LENR-forum and commenting on our thread about the EFS LEEF technology. The quoted statement is related to the oscillating nature of the plasma achieved in the electric arc that is mentioned? What temperatures does this happen at?
Albeit you may disagree that this is LENR, the extended definition of LENR includes systems that are by no means low energy, but on levels that are still considered (by ITER pushing experts) to be of low probability of fusion, and you will see that plenty of those systems are using electric arcing, being electric Arcs capable of nuclear reactions themselves, so we consider your system to be on the LENR family nevertheless. -
Thanks for joining!
EFS’s LEEF fuel operates in a supercritical fluid state with a density orders of magnitude higher than any other known approach.
Would this involve an ultra dense form of hydrogen?
Can you tell us whether this has been determined by solid measurements or is this a theoretical hypothesis?
-
Hello k.e.kopp , thanks for coming to LENR-forum and commenting on our thread about the EFS LEEF technology. The quoted statement is related to the oscillating nature of the plasma achieved in the electric arc that is mentioned? What temperatures does this happen at?
Albeit you may disagree that this is LENR, the extended definition of LENR includes systems that are by no means low energy, but on levels that are still considered (by ITER pushing experts) to be of low probability of fusion, and you will see that plenty of those systems are using electric arcing, being electric Arcs capable of nuclear reactions themselves, so we consider your system to be on the LENR family nevertheless.The chain reacting plasma is not homogeneous and ion energies range from relatively cold to many MEV.
-
Thanks for joining!
Would this involve an ultra dense form of hydrogen?
Can you tell us whether this has been determined by solid measurements or is this a theoretical hypothesis?
There is no unknown or theoretical physics. The state of the hydrogen pre-ignition is liquid so calculated using Avogadro's number, thereafter supercritical and not yet been measured.
-
"We have designed and tested a compact aneutronic fusion reactor capable of delivering tens of kilowatts of power, yet scalable to megawatts. It can deliver constant, distributed energy, anywhere, anytime, without generating greenhouse gases or other waste products, or requiring expensive capital infrastructure or exotic materials, or even any oxygen or solar energy to operate.
Our electric fusion devices are portable, safe, and inexpensive to manufacture. Our patent-pending embodiments create a globally transformative change to all energy production with a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions. The technology heralds a monstrous leap in clean energy technology, not an incremental improvement to existing technology.
Based on the R&D data we will refine three application-specific designs at different power scales, initially targeted at 10 kilowatts, 500 kilowatts, and one megawatt. These units will be placed with key customers or strategic partners for further integration in their specialized commercial markets.
With feedback from beta testing, we will refine the engineering of our design approaches to maximize energy harvest and minimize production costs. Designs and technical design guidelines will be prepared to support licensees of the technology to strategic production and integration partners for a variety of applications and markets.
In a preignition state our fuel exhibits a modified coulomb barrier by orders of magnitude through a phenomenon known as electron screening."
Pioneering Fusion Energy Solutions - Electric Fusion SystemsCompact fusion reactor capable of small to large scale power production. Deliver constant, distributed energy, anywhere, anytime. No greenhouse gases or…electricfusionsystems.com -
EFS Plans Aneutronic Fusion Reactor
The inventors and co-founders, Ken E. Kopp and Ryan S. Wood, have found an easier and safer way to generate fusion chain reactions. Their fusion reactor has been physically reduced in size to a small, portable, safe device, suitable for a wide range of applications, unlike traditional approaches to fusion technology. "We have built a series of experiments that show fusion reactions on a laboratory table top. This is confirmed via neutron detection, gamma and optical spectroscopy that substantiate fusion reactions," said Kopp.
It looks like miniaturized variant of Z-pinch fusion for me. The pinch is said to generate accelerated alpha particles which get braked with magnetic field during each explosion and their energy is returned into system in form of transformer. The explosions are miniscule sparks but they repeat in fast paced cycle.
-
It looks like miniaturized variant of Z-pinch fusion for me. The pinch is said to generate accelerated alpha particles which get braked with magnetic field during each explosion and their energy is returned into system in form of transformer. The explosions are miniscule sparks but they repeat in fast paced cycle.
This only works if no neutrons are produced what in principle cannot be avoided by kinetic fusion. Of course it looks better that the ITER brain fart. But this is just one small step what they did show so far. 0.01% of target reached...
We should discuss such stuff only if an independent certification is available.
-
In a preignition state our fuel exhibits a modified coulomb barrier by orders of magnitude through a phenomenon known as electron screening."
The coulomb barrier occurs in one dimension: that direction from which the projectile comes. It is a repulsion of like positive charges. Electron screening implies electron density localizes in pathway cross-section of impact. That is problematic because What causes the localization?; How is it lined-up with pathway of the cross-section of impact?
This only works if no neutrons are produced what in principle cannot be avoided by kinetic fusion.
Or if what neutrons come out are not classic neutrons but something which slightly different. [0906.4268] Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua-ions (arxiv.org)
-
Thanks all for the patience! The wheels of progress do indeed turn slow!
Based on the discussion thread, here are the identified questions, objections, and points, along with detailed technical replies designed to educate regarding EFS LEEF technology:
1. Question about Uniqueness and Patents (Rob Woudenberg): The concern is about the uniqueness of the fusion process involving lithium vapor and hydrogen plasma, and the status of patents.
Reply: The EFS LEEF technology, while it may share some common elements with other fusion technologies, distinguishes itself through its specific approach to fusion, particularly the use of Heavy Rydberg Matter and specific reaction conditions. Regarding patents, it's common for details to remain confidential until patent applications are published. The uniqueness of EFS LEEF lies in its method of energy extraction and the specific conditions under which fusion is achieved.
2. Direct Electricity Production from Plasma Oscillation (Curbina): The question centers on the efficiency and feasibility of capturing energy directly from plasma oscillations.
Reply: The EFS LEEF technology harnesses energy from plasma oscillations via electromagnetic pulse (EMP) harvesting. This is achieved through coils wrapped around the reactor, converting the energy into electricity. This method is based on established principles of electromagnetic induction. The innovation lies in the efficient conversion of oscillating plasma energy, a direct product of the fusion reactions, into electrical energy, which is a significant advancement over traditional heat-based energy extraction methods.
3. Aneutronic Fusion Reactions and Electron Screening (Paradigmnoia, Curbina): The discussion is about the feasibility of aneutronic fusion reactions and the role of electron screening in EFS LEEF.
Reply: Aneutronic fusion, which produces energy without neutron emissions, is indeed challenging but highly desirable due to its cleaner energy output. The EFS LEEF approach, while ambitious, is rooted in advancing this area of fusion science. Electron screening in HRM significantly lowers the Coulomb barrier, making fusion reactions more attainable. This aligns with the principles of quantum mechanics and is supported by emerging research in the field.
4. Electricity Harvesting from Oscillating Plasmas and Resonance (Rob Woudenberg, Cherepanov2020): Questions about the novelty of harvesting electricity from oscillating plasmas and the need for resonance in the system.
Reply: While the concept of harvesting electricity from oscillating plasmas isn't entirely new, the EFS LEEF approach refines this concept by optimizing the resonance conditions within the reactor. This optimization ensures maximum energy transfer and efficient fusion. The system is designed to maintain resonance conditions that not only support sustained fusion reactions but also enhance energy harvesting efficiency.
5. Coulomb Barrier and Electron Screening (Drgenek): Concerns about the practicality of electron screening and its alignment with the pathway of impact.
Reply: The concept of electron screening in EFS LEEF technology doesn't imply precise localization of electrons along the collision pathway but rather an overall reduction in the effective Coulomb barrier in the reactor environment. This reduction is due to the electron cloud distribution in HRM, which alters the electrostatic potential experienced by the reacting nuclei. The effect is not localized to a specific pathway but is rather a general condition within the reactor environment, facilitating fusion reactions more readily.
6. LENR Considerations and EFS LEEF's Position (Multiple Contributors): Discussions on whether EFS LEEF aligns with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and its relationship with mainstream science.
Reply: EFS LEEF technology, while distinct from traditional LENR, shares the common goal of achieving efficient, clean nuclear reactions at relatively low energies compared to conventional fusion approaches. The technology is rooted in sound scientific principles, albeit it pushes the boundaries of current mainstream fusion science. The approach involves advanced concepts in quantum mechanics and plasma physics, aiming to make a significant contribution to the field of fusion energy.
In summary, the EFS LEEF technology stands as a novel approach in the field of fusion energy, characterized by its unique method of initiating fusion reactions and its efficient system of energy extraction. While it draws on established scientific principles, it also pushes the boundaries of current understanding, representing an innovative step in the pursuit of practical and sustainable fusion energy.
-
The concern is about the uniqueness of the fusion process involving lithium vapor and hydrogen plasma, and the status of patents.
Lipinskis did heavily invest in this work and issued 2 patents. But the whole thing has been developed by the Germans before and during WW II and brought - by US army - to the states. Once the still secrete papers are published you can forget all the patents.
Be aware that the biggest lie is that the Germans in WW II had no working bomb in their lab. In reality they directly looked at the Li-D bomb (USA: called Hydrogen bomb to hide the details..).
-
Be aware that the biggest lie is that the Germans in WW II had no working bomb in their lab. In reality they directly looked at the Li-D bomb (USA: called Hydrogen bomb to hide the details..).
This is interesting and news to me. Do you have any credible backup for this claim?
It is really hard to find any „closer insights“ on this topic, e.g. like this. Thanks.
Why Hitler Did Not Have Atomic BombsIn the 75 years since the end of World War II there is still no agreement on the answer to the question of why the presumed race between the USA and…www.mdpi.com
