Nuclear Fusion_New Method_Patent Pending

[Joseph Chikva]

Hello All,
This is patent pending Method of Nuclear Fusion (attached file)
What do you think about this?
Joseph

 

[jambaugh]

Sounds as impractical as other beam fusion methods as far as energy production goes. Come back when you have a working prototype. ("Patent Pending" doesn't mean anything until then.)

Getting a reaction to occur is relatively "easy". The trick is in tapping the energy of the fusion reaction to replace all of the energy used to set up the reaction. Accelerating a beam is pretty energy intensive at large particle currents. The stage where fusion occurs will randomize the relative velocities, especially the relative velocities along the direction of the two beams. These will thermalize and you'll end up with one hot beam. I understand your idea is to use the sufficient net velocity to make refocusing the beams easier. But for sustained fusion you'll be no different from a method involving focusing a single beam. You'll have the same difficulties getting the energy from the fusion out and used to maintain your beam(s).

 

[Joseph Chikva]

"Accelerating a beam is pretty energy intensive"
Not more intensive then heating plasma by one of following ways:
-Ohmic heating
-Neutrals beams (here namely accelerating is used)
-RF
or their combination
"These will thermalize and you'll end up with one hot beam."
Russian physicist Budker in his "Stabilized electronic beam" article has shown that in case of enough high relativism of electronic beam (the range from 1.5 to 5 MeV is already enough) and partial compensation of space charge, this beam will radiate and consequently will cool.
Also the radiation of electrons will struggle with the majority of types of instabilities.
And by the Method we need not total but only partial compensation of positive space charge.
So, we easily can find conditions when fusion reaction responses will exceed the energetic expenses.

And I think that further utilisation of fusion energy will be easier too.

 

[jambaugh]

"Accelerating a beam is pretty energy intensive"
Not more intensive then heating plasma by one of following ways:
-Ohmic heating
-Neutrals beams (here namely accelerating is used)
-RF
or their combination
"These will thermalize and you'll end up with one hot beam."

yes, but these methods w.r.t. tokomak's et al, were a.) methods to heat the plasma, and b.) methods to initially heat the plasma which are supposed to be unnecessary once the fusion reaction produces enough heat to maintain the necessary temperature, and c.) methods used with another as yet unsuccessful method of generating sustained fusion power, oh yes, and d.) for the beams, are a matter of accelerating a substantially smaller particle current than your entire set of fusion reactants.

If the goal is to use energy to heat the plasma, then the fusion reaction will already handle that, no need to tap and convert. The main problem actually is to keep the plasma from cooling too fast to sustain the reaction. As far as your method is concerned, you need to tap fusion energy, convert it to coherent energy in the form of e.g. electrical power and RF waves to contain and accelerate the beams.

This must be done in your method continuously and not just as a start-up procedure. It is a question of how much Helmholtz free energy you tap from the fusion, not just thermal energy.

Russian physicist Budker in his "Stabilized electronic beam" article has shown that in case of enough high relativism of electronic beam (the range from 1.5 to 5 MeV is already enough) and partial compensation of space charge, this beam will radiate and consequently will cool.
Also the radiation of electrons will struggle with the majority of types of instabilities.
And by the Method we need not total but only partial compensation of positive space charge.

All well and good for maintaining a stable plasma, cooling is desired in maintaining a beam, it is the energy costs I'm skeptical of and so of the following

So, we easily can find conditions when fusion reaction responses will exceed the energetic expenses.
And I think that further utilisation of fusion energy will be easier too.

[/quote]
This I doubt. Remember, to get high fusion rates you will get higher 90deg scattering rates. Whatever your relative speed of your two component beams, these will be lost on the first pass. There will be no recycling of particles to collide again except as an essentially single beam method.

I've thought about this myself over many a beer, something like a fusion ram-jet, pinch to heat to fusion, expand and cool and accelerate, tap the flow energy via MHD, recycle.

It might even work on a large enough scale. But I think Bussard's Polywell is more likely to succeed.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

If the goal is to use energy to heat the plasma, then the fusion reaction will already handle that, no need to tap and convert.
Yes, but also we should remember that when we talk about Tokamak and other projects anywhere only partial burning-off of fuel is meant. I propose near 100% burning-off.
As far as your method is concerned, you need to tap fusion energy, convert it to coherent energy in the form of e.g. electrical power and RF waves to contain and accelerate the beams.
Actually the efficiency of accelerators is high enough.
This must be done in your method continuously and not just as a start-up procedure.
Yes
All well and good for maintaining a stable plasma, cooling is desired in maintaining a beam, it is the energy costs I'm skeptical of and so of the following
It should be investigated.
But tapping of reactions directly depends on ions current, current of electrons which we need is about tenth of ion's current. Also radiation and stability will highly dependent on relativistic factor.
Remember, to get high fusion rates you will get higher 90deg scattering rates.
Mainly not 90deg but a lot of scattering on small angles.
But electronic beam will return reacting particles to the axel. Scattering will produce the radial motion increasing the temperature and radiation will dissipate this thermal energy then.
In fact we will have friction between the proposed three beams. And for solving of this problem there is proposed the following:
For compensation of alignment of speeds (velocities) of particles beams of reacting components and also for compensation of energy losses (radiant losses) of focusing electrons it is offered to create the longitudinal electric field.
Thank you for discussion and sorry for bad English.

 

[Drakkith]

This sounds similar to a Polywell, where they trap a well of electrons in the center of a device and inject positive ions, which are accelerated by the electron well and oscillate back and forth through the center of the device until they fuse. One of the main problems they had was that they kept losing electrons from the well. I don't see how your device will produce excess energy if all those electrons from the beams are simply lost or have their energy radiated away.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

This sounds similar to a Polywell, where they trap a well of electrons in the center of a device and inject positive ions, which are accelerated by the electron well and oscillate back and forth through the center of the device until they fuse.
I do not see similarity because I propose to use three independly created beams and then to direct them along the common axel - not "positive ions, which are accelerated by the electron well" but each beam is accelerated by its own accelerator - positive ions and electrons.
I propose to use the electron beam for only partial compensation of ion's positive space charge. Remaining space charge will be compensated by the magnetical attraction of all three beams. So, we need much less concentration in electron beam in comparison of ions. And we should spend initially for acceleration of each elementary fusion act tens or hundreds of keVs and waiting MeVs.

I do not see for electrons the possibility of their losing.
Radiation - yes. The radiation caused with as I already meintained "friction" between three beams. But friction and energy dissipation (radiation in our case) we have in any energetic settings - e.g. in internal combustion engine. But they work with some positive efficiency!

 

[Drakkith]

I apologize, I misread your document and thought the beams were all electron beams.

How will you recycle the the power lost from the ions that don't fuse and the electrons that simply pass through? I think those two factors will contribute to significant energy loss unless they can be recycled.

Also, the radiation losses, while mostly recoverable, still represent losses that have to be accounted for. All in all I think it is an interesting design. Have you done anything with this yet? Built anything yet?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

How will you recycle the power lost from the ions that don't fuse and the electrons that simply pass through? I think those two factors will contribute to significant energy loss unless they can be recycled.
I have two ideas (designs) for realization the Method.

• Linear design
• Cyclic design

Both these designs should work.
And in linear design the reaction length should be big enough for near 100% burning-off of fuel.
Longitudinal electric field will compensate the alignment of ions relative speeds especially if we would use different kinds of ions in defferent beams. For example if we use deuterium and tritium beams with faster deuteriums particles the alignment will be compensated by the higher rate of acceleration of lighter particles.
But certainly I like an idea to use aneutronic reactions: e.g. De+He3
And for recycling the power we can use e.g. MHD principle.

Also, the radiation losses, while mostly recoverable, still represent losses that have to be accounted for.
I like the phrase "mostly recoverable" but unfortunately with limited efficiency.

Have you done anything with this yet? Built anything yet?
No I have not. I am individual and can not build this. I wait that cost of construction of experimental set will reach tens millions USD. Very costly for me and for any other individual as well.

 

[Drakkith]

Could you not build a small scale working model to prove your design? Even if it wouldn't produce net power.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I wait some trigger level of current of electronic beam.
And for example Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics sells for commercial application electron accelerator with beam power of 100 kWt at about 7 millions USD http://www.inp.nsk.su/products/indaccel/Pres_ILU14.pdf
Interesting that power consumption they declare is 500 kWt. So, 20% of efficiency.

 

[AntonL]

Hello All,
This is patent pending Method of Nuclear Fusion (attached file)
What do you think about this?
Joseph

Can we please see the patent application or application No
that word document is no patent

should there be merit - I cannot judge - you now have forfeited a patent
as your idea is in the public domain and no longer patentable.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Thank you, I understand. I am not lawyer but in general am familiar with patent legislation.
Here I published the main idea of invention.
And your answer is like that if I will say that married and have two sons you will ask me marriage certificate and birth certificates.
My publication here was caused only with my interest to hear the judgement of physicists and not lawyers.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

But I think Bussard's Polywell is more likely to succeed.

I have discussion with some people really involved in fusion programs. And on base of that discussion can say that electron beam injected to background plasma suffers very fast developing - so-called two-stream instability. I think that Polywell will not have a future.

 

[Drakkith]

I have discussion with some people really involved in fusion programs. And on base of that discussion can say that electron beam injected to background plasma suffers very fast developing - so-called two-stream instability. I think that Polywell will not have a future.

What does instability have to do with the polywell? I don't know a whole lot about plasma physics, but I didn't think the polywell had anything to do with various plasma effects. The only thing I remember them needing to work on is efficient containment of the electrons.

 

[qsa]

Thank you, I understand. I am not lawyer but in general am familiar with patent legislation.
Here I published the main idea of invention.
And your answer is like that if I will say that married and have two sons you will ask me marriage certificate and birth certificates.
My publication here was caused only with my interest to hear the judgement of physicists and not lawyers.

even if you register with patent office now that does not help you, because the office will search and will find the info and will declare it unpatentable since it was already published. maybe you should delete the post, not sure how that will work.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

What does instability have to do with the polywell? I don't know a whole lot about plasma physics, but I didn't think the polywell had anything to do with various plasma effects. The only thing I remember them needing to work on is efficient containment of the electrons.

Two-stream instability can stop and destroy those electron beams.

 

[Drakkith]

Two-stream instability can stop and destroy those electron beams.

Exactly what do you mean by that? As long as the electrons are getting inside the containment device, does it matter where they are after that? As far as I know they inject the electrons inside the grid, so I don't see the problem. The electrons are entering a negativly charged area anyways, which means that they won't stay in streams and will spread out inside the device, which is just what they are supposed to do.

I'm not arguing, I really don't understand.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

even if you register with patent office now that does not help you, because the office will search and will find the info and will declare it unpatentable since it was already published. maybe you should delete the post, not sure how that will work.

Thank you. I know a lot of patents made during 50 years since researches on controlled nuclear fusion started. Where are they? How many time needed for research & development and further commercialization? Duration of patent?
My purpose is only to push interest to the new Method.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Exactly what do you mean by that? As long as the electrons are getting inside the containment device, does it matter where they are after that? As far as I know they inject the electrons inside the grid, so I don't see the problem. The electrons are entering a negativly charged area anyways, which means that they won't stay in streams and will spread out inside the device, which is just what they are supposed to do.

I'm not arguing, I really don't understand.

I am not a big expert in plasma physics too. But if you have not beam and have only scattered electrons the depth of potential well for ions would be too small.

 

[Drakkith]

I am not a big expert in plasma physics too. But if you have not beam and have only scattered electrons the depth of potential well for ions would be too small.

Why's that? Increasing the volume of the reactor would easily solve this problem. (but at a cost) Besides, the magnetic fields hold the electron well in place.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Why's that? Increasing the volume of the reactor would easily solve this problem. (but at a cost) Besides, the magnetic fields hold the electron well in place.

Magnetic field will hold well only those electrons that will have the arranged velocities (beams).
As I know in Polywell is proposed to use the magnets only for holding of electrons beams. Ions should be confined by the field created then by electrons.
Two-stream instability appears by the interaction between electron beams with different arranged velocities: nonzero and zero in Polywell case or in the other words -between electron beam and background electrons cloud.
This effect firstly was watched by John Pierce when he invented the electronic triode with two cathodes. That triode didn't work, Pierce researched why and discovered this type of instability.

 

[Drakkith]

Magnetic field will hold well only those electrons that will have the arranged velocities (beams). As I know in Polywell is proposed to use the magnets only for holding of electrons beams. Ions should be confined by the field created then by electrons.

I don't believe that's what happened during their project. I've read the report released by them and they most definitely held the majority of the electrons. They inject the electrons inside and hold them there in a well. The "beam" has nothing to do with the operation of the device except to inject electrons. Once the electrons are injected they take random directions in the well.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I don't believe that's what happened during their project. I've read the report released by them and they most definitely held the majority of the electrons. They inject the electrons inside and hold them there in a well. The "beam" has nothing to do with the operation of the device except to inject electrons. Once the electrons are injected they take random directions in the well.

• Have you ever read about plasma density & temperature reached by Bussard or by other people who engaged with Polywell now? I know about experiments but nothing on results.
• I think that you are mistaken on process's physics when saying: Once the electrons are injected they take random directions in the well
• What free run of electrons in the Polywell when they take random directions in the well? And by what they should be confined?
• What should be the sizes of Polywell in this case?
• Beam that is injecting electrons and other electrons already injected will interact or no? Would this have conditions for two-stream instability creation?
• What depth will have potential well of randomized electrons cloud?
• Etc.

 

[qsa]

Thank you. I know a lot of patents made during 50 years since researches on controlled nuclear fusion started. Where are they? How many time needed for research & development and further commercialization? Duration of patent?
My purpose is only to push interest to the new Method.

I understand your motive. But, if you really care about your idea and you want to see it happen (one day) you are a lot better off patenting it since investors will feel jittery about a non-patent idea (especially since it is high risk). Also, you will be more motivated and the investors have some one to trust. Of course, I speak out of experience.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I understand your motive. But, if you really care about your idea and you want to see it happen (one day) you are a lot better off patenting it since investors will feel jittery about a non-patent idea (especially since it is high risk). Also, you will be more motivated and the investors have some one to trust. Of course, I speak out of experience.

Thanks. Patent application on reactor design on base of Method is under way. But I know only a single event when a research in Nuclear Fusion field was financed by private funds on commercial basis. This is Tri-Alpha company. The rest researches as I know are financed by Governments through approved programs.
Commercialization of each patent or non-patent idea always goes with risk. But Governments also have resources to call world class experts for evaluating feasibility of idea before starting. Private funds as well of course when the talk is about a big amount of money.

 

[Drakkith]

• Have you ever read about plasma density & temperature reached by Bussard or by other people who engaged with Polywell now? I know about experiments but nothing on results.
• I think that you are mistaken on process's physics when saying: Once the electrons are injected they take random directions in the well
• What free run of electrons in the Polywell when they take random directions in the well? And by what they should be confined?
• What should be the sizes of Polywell in this case?
• Beam that is injecting electrons and other electrons already injected will interact or no? Would this have conditions for two-stream instability creation?
• What depth will have potential well of randomized electrons cloud?
• Etc.

See here: http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf

1.Temperature is not a factor in an IEC method. The driving voltage simply needs to be high enough for the ions to have enough energy upon collision to fuse. (You can use the velocity of the ions as temp, but that isn't counting the electrons and such.) They used a gas puff method to deliver Deuterium to the device, and I do not know the pressure of the plasma.

2. The injected electrons are subjected to many collisions with other electrons and ions, plus interactions with the magnetic and electric field of the Magrid itself. They most definitely take random directions in the well.

3. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. The magnetic field from the grid confines the electrons in the well, and any that escape are attracted back to the device by the positive voltage on the grid.

4. The WB-6, the final test device in that PDF, was a couple of feet across or so. I can only estimate it based on the pictures of the device.

5. Of course. The injected electrons immediately start to interact with existing electrons and ions and with the electric and magnetic fields from the grid. I'm not sure on the 2 beam instability thing though.

6. The electron well was about 1 foot in diameter I believe. Again, just an estimate based on the descriptions and data I've seen. I haven't seen any specific label for the well diameter.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

See here: http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf

1.Temperature is not a factor in an IEC method. The driving voltage simply needs to be high enough for the ions to have enough energy upon collision to fuse. (You can use the velocity of the ions as temp, but that isn't counting the electrons and such.) They used a gas puff method to deliver Deuterium to the device, and I do not know the pressure of the plasma.

2. The injected electrons are subjected to many collisions with other electrons and ions, plus interactions with the magnetic and electric field of the Magrid itself. They most definitely take random directions in the well.

3. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. The magnetic field from the grid confines the electrons in the well, and any that escape are attracted back to the device by the positive voltage on the grid.

4. The WB-6, the final test device in that PDF, was a couple of feet across or so. I can only estimate it based on the pictures of the device.

5. Of course. The injected electrons immediately start to interact with existing electrons and ions and with the electric and magnetic fields from the grid. I'm not sure on the 2 beam instability thing though.

6. The electron well was about 1 foot in diameter I believe. Again, just an estimate based on the descriptions and data I've seen. I haven't seen any specific label for the well diameter.

I think you are mistaken and ions with low density and temperature of even a few Ev-s will have very big free run (average run of particle from one collision before another collision). And no collision = fusion, but a lot of collisions and one fusion event. So, you need very-very big reactor if the depth of potential well will not be big enough.
And depth of potential well is an energy and not a size.

 

[Drakkith]

I think you are mistaken and ions with low density and temperature of even a few Ev-s will have very big free run (average run of particle from one collision before another collision). And no collision = fusion, but a lot of collisions and one fusion event. So, you need very-very big reactor if the depth of potential well will not be big enough.
And depth of potential well is an energy and not a size.

Ah, sorry for the incorrect terminology.

I don't know the details of the well depth and free run and such. I don't remember reading anything on those.

What exactly does free run for electrons and ions decide in regards to a fusion reactor of this design?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Ah, sorry for the incorrect terminology.

I don't know the details of the well depth and free run and such. I don't remember reading anything on those.

What exactly does free run for electrons and ions decide in regards to a fusion reactor of this design?

I only would like to say that you are mistaken (some mistakes) during explanation of Polywell's working principle.

 

[Drakkith]

I only would like to say that you are mistaken (some mistakes) during explanation of Polywell's working principle.

Which ones?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Which ones?

During the explanation when you talk about potencial well you told me about sizes.
To me is very difficult to explain you something. From one side my knowledge on Polywell is very limited, from another I should explain you what is e.g. the potential well cosists of.
I can not sorry.
I only catched that in Polywell are two groups of electrons interacting each other with different arranged velocities: nonzero and zero. So, conditions for two-stream instability.

 

[Drakkith]

During the explanation when you talk about potencial well you told me about sizes.
To me is very difficult to explain you something. From one side my knowledge on Polywell is very limited, from another I should explain you what is e.g. the potential well cosists of.
I can not sorry.
I only catched that in Polywell are two groups of electrons interacting each other with different arranged velocities: nonzero and zero. So, conditions for two-stream instability.

Take a look at the article I linked above and the wikipedia article on the polywell. That explains it all. The article MIGHT be in another language other than english, so if english isn't your 1st language then maybe that will help. Sorry I can't explain it to you!

 

[Joseph Chikva]

You are right. Sorry for my bad English.
I will try to understand better Polywell and in case of your wish we can then return to its discussion. May be in another thread.
Good luck.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Take a look at the article I linked above and the wikipedia article on the polywell. That explains it all. The article MIGHT be in another language other than english, so if english isn't your 1st language then maybe that will help. Sorry I can't explain it to you!

Take a look at a link: http://www.fpgeneration.com/technology/index.html

One of the major obstacles that limits the fusion output in IEC devices is the result of repulsive electrostatic forces arising from the ions themselves.