Cyclic Fusion Reactor. Passing through each other colliding beams.

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
55 replies · 11K views
Joseph Chikva
Messages
202
Reaction score
2
Recently I have placed here the new - viable by my opinion Concept how to produce fusion.

By some reasons I have decided not to file the patent application and so for discussing now I am placing here the description of Cyclic Reactor on base of that Concept.

Ioseb (Joseph) Chikvashvili
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
Honestly this seems like a very overcomplicated way of achieving fusion. And I don't think your estimates on power usage are correct. While the power per fusion event might be, the chances of nuclei fusing per collision is extremely small. Did you take that into account?

Also how would you overcome the problem of fuel and electrons being thrown out of the beams after collisions?
 
Drakkith said:
Honestly this seems like a very overcomplicated way of achieving fusion. And I don't think your estimates on power usage are correct. While the power per fusion event might be, the chances of nuclei fusing per collision is extremely small. Did you take that into account?

Also how would you overcome the problem of fuel and electrons being thrown out of the beams after collisions?
I think that calculation of energy specified per each fusion event is very simple.
If you have found mistake please note. If not - I am sure in that estimation.

I think that it is not more complicated than e.g. TOKAMAK with which I see some similarity. For example the way of creation of induction electric field are very similar. But unlike TOKAMAKs the invention provides opportunity to reach real Breakeven while TOKAMAK cannot achieve even Lawson criterion that is too optimistic criterion as does not take in consideration real efficiency of energy conversion cycles used (Ohmic heating + energy expenses on creation of indiction electric field, heating via neutrals injection + energy expenses on creation of neutrals beam, etc, efficiency of thermal cycle of electricity production).

Cinematically plasma in proposed device is absolutely stable. Scattered particles thanks to very strong poloidal self-magnetic field will return back to the axis (right direction) after each scattering event. And also focusing of betatron type device (fixed-field alternating gradient or Stellarator windings, etc. would be very useful against various types of instabilities)
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying your energy per fusion event is wrong, I'm saying that it takes time for each particle to fuse. While they aren't fusing you still have to confine them, which wastes energy. Also, I'm not sure why you think the tokamak cannot generate breakeven. You can easily see the trend of fusion devices starting from the 50's and see the drastic improvements since then. The whole reason ITER is being built is because it is supposed to hit breakeven.

Als, the Lawson Criterion has absolutely nothing to do with efficiencies of the system used to generate the fusion. It is ONLY conserned with the fusion power output and if it is enough to keep the plasma heated to a high enough temperature against all losses to continue to provide reactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
 
Drakkith said:
I'm not saying your energy per fusion event is wrong, I'm saying that it takes time for each particle to fuse. While they aren't fusing you still have to confine them, which wastes energy. Also, I'm not sure why you think the tokamak cannot generate breakeven. You can easily see the trend of fusion devices starting from the 50's and see the drastic improvements since then. The whole reason ITER is being built is because it is supposed to hit breakeven.

Als, the Lawson Criterion has absolutely nothing to do with efficiencies of the system used to generate the fusion. It is ONLY conserned with the fusion power output and if it is enough to keep the plasma heated to a high enough temperature against all losses to continue to provide reactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
Since 50's till today researchers/developers of various fusion approaches (TOKAMAK, inertial confinement, Plasma Focus, etc.) only try to come nearer to the Breakeven and nobody hasn't stepped yet. ITER too - will not be able to generate net power. It would be very big success if ITER would achieve the Lawson criterion.

And you are wrong that Lawson Criterion has absolutely nothing to do with efficiencies. As that estimate the limit after overcoming of which fusion energy release will exceed the energy expenses. But as mentioned - not takes in consideration efficiency of energy conversion. Real criterion should be much stricter. And so - more complicated to achieve.
 
I think I misunderstood what you said about the Lawson Criterion earlier. No, no one has reached it yet, but I don't think ITER is being built if they aren't pretty sure that it will be able to reach it.

And you are wrong that Lawson Criterion has absolutely nothing to do with efficiencies. As that estimate the limit after overcoming of which fusion energy release will exceed the energy expenses. But as mentioned - not takes in consideration efficiency of energy conversion.

No, the criterion states that it is only the energy from the fusion against the energy losses of the plasma. Efficiencies with the reactor have nothing to do with it. Also, just because you don't like the criterion doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. It is used for a specific thing that ignores all the differences between devices. This is useful as a measurement of plasmas against all other devices. Research doesn't reach for the most efficient means to do the job available until they can actually do the job to begin with. This is why the Lawson Criterion is used. ITER and other research reactors are trying to reach this first, and then they can focus on everything else.
 
Drakkith said:
I'm not saying your energy per fusion event is wrong, I'm saying that it takes time for each particle to fuse. While they aren't fusing you still have to confine them, which wastes energy.
It would be easier for me to use Energy Gain Factor Q.
My calculation is following:
energy expenses specified per a single fusion event has been occurred is 2MeV.
Energy gained from that event estimated as 20.6MeV considering only neutron cycle+breeding tritium.
So, Q>10!
Plus we also gain energy of alpha particle as well and some part of energy initially pumped into process via Direct Energy Conversion cycle.
 
Perhaps I missed something in your paper. Where did you use the cross section in your calculation of energy gain?
 
Drakkith said:
No, the criterion states that it is only the energy from the fusion against the energy losses of the plasma. Efficiencies with the reactor have nothing to do with it.
Yes, the criterion states that it is only the energy from the fusion against the energy losses of the plasma and not considering the efficiency of creating plasma, its further heating, etc.
And efficiency of further fusion energy conversion into electricity.
By this reason I am saying that Lawson Criterion is too optimistic.
 
Drakkith said:
Perhaps I missed something in your paper. Where did you use the cross section in your calculation of energy gain?
I do not understastand what you talk about.
 
Joseph Chikva said:
Yes, the criterion states that it is only the energy from the fusion against the energy losses of the plasma and not considering the efficiency of creating plasma, its further heating, etc.
And efficiency of further fusion energy conversion into electricity.
By this reason I am saying that Lawson Criterion is too optimistic.

Why would it be too optimistic? It's just one goal on the way to the finish line. It is a given that you must include efficiency of input and output power for a working reactor.
 
Last edited:
Drakkith said:
Why would it be too optimistic? It's just one goal on the way to the finish line. It is a given that you must include efficiency of inpute and output power for a working reactor.
Not a given.
 
Joseph Chikva said:
I do not understastand what you talk about.

Each collision only has a small chance of the nuclei fusion. I didn't see anywhere that you took that into account for your power calculations in your paper. If you just look at power per fusion event, then sure it looks good, but lots of power is wasted during the time it takes each pair of nuclei to fuse.
 
Drakkith said:
What?
I said that Lawson Criterion does not include efficiency of input/output energy conversion cycles and as mentioned - too optimistic.
If not considering those my invention provides Energy Gain Factor Q=7-10 and achievement of Lawson criterion in TOKAMAK gives only Q=1
 
Joseph Chikva said:
I said that Lawson Criterion does not include efficiency of input/output energy conversion cycles and as mentioned - too optimistic.
If not considering those my invention provides Energy Gain Factor Q=7-10 and achievement of Lawson criterion in TOKAMAK gives only Q=1

First, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the Lawson Criterion is too optimistic. How does the lawson criterion and optimism fit together? What situation are you talking about?

Second, how does your device achieve Q = 7-10? I don't see how given your power calculations. Did you take the overall power of your proposed device and use the cross section of the reactions against the power used over time?
 
Drakkith said:
Each collision only has a small chance of the nuclei fusion. I didn't see anywhere that you took that into account for your power calculations in your paper. If you just look at power per fusion event, then sure it looks good, but lots of power is wasted during the time it takes each pair of nuclei to fuse.
You are wrong.
I thought that you understand how my concept works. As we discussed it earlier.
Particles do not loss. Scattered particle thanks to very strong focusing forces returns to right direction and tries to fuse again and again before fusion.
There calculated only 80% of particle should react. That's 80% too pessimistic estimation.
 
Drakkith said:
First, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the Lawson Criterion is too optimistic. How does the lawson criterion and optimism fit together? What situation are you talking about?
Optimism is when you are waiting that the achievement of Lawson Criterion automatically means the opportunity to generate net power.
Drakkith said:
Second, how does your device achieve Q = 7-10? I don't see how given your power calculations. Did you take the overall power of your proposed device and use the cross section of the reactions against the power used over time?
The raw estimation of required energy that should to be put into the beams specified on a single fusion event (initial energy consumption of a single fusion event)
In case if only 80% of nuclei will react initially we should spend per one fusion event:

(300keV+1/75*33MeV+200keV+1/50*33MeV)/0.8=2MeV

The raw estimation of energy consumptions during namely fusion process (pinch, accelerating particles for compensation of alignment of ions’ velocities and also for compensation of electron radiation losses) specified on a single fusion event – 0.7MeV.

So, the raw estimation of total energy consumption specified per a single fusion event
2MeV+0.7MeV=2.7MeV

From the other side from each fusion event we will have:
• one 14.1MeV neutron
• about 0.5MeV of X-ray radiation
• 1.25*4.8MeV=6MeV thermal energy via (n+Li6) reaction (where “1.25” is a Tritium breeding coefficient)
So, from each event total energy of 20.6MeV

And this if not considering the charged particles energy that also can be converted into electricity.

Q=20.6/2.7=??

vs. Lawson Criterion providing only Q=1
 
Joseph Chikva said:
You are wrong.
I thought that you understand how my concept works. As we discussed it earlier.
Particles do not loss. Scattered particle thanks to very strong focusing forces returns to right direction and tries to fuse again and again before fusion.
There calculated only 80% of particle should react. That's 80% too pessimistic estimation.

I think you have a misunderstanding of how this works. Scattered particles ARE loss. You are consuming power just to keep unfused particles in the reactor. Each collision between nuclei only has a small chance of fusing. The more time it takes for each particle to fuse on average the more power consumption you have and the less power output you get.

Joseph Chikva said:
Optimism is when you are waiting that the achievement of Lawson Criterion automatically means the opportunity to generate net power.

Who ever said that meeting the Lawson Criterion meant net power? That is wholly incorrect. Just reaching the criterion is a huge step in the right direction, but that's it.
The raw estimation of required energy that should to be put into the beams specified on a single fusion event (initial energy consumption of a single fusion event)
In case if only 80% of nuclei will react initially we should spend per one fusion event:

(300keV+1/75*33MeV+200keV+1/50*33MeV)/0.8=2MeV

I REALLY don't think 80% is anywhere close to a realistic estimate on how many nuclei will fuse during this "initial" event, whatever that means.
 
Drakkith said:
I think you have a misunderstanding of how this works.
Thanks. Am I misunderstanding how should my invention work? :)
Scattered particles will not loss but will return back to the axis thanks to self-magnetic field of combined beam.
From where you get so random statements?
 
Last edited:
Joseph Chikva said:
Thanks. Am I misunderstanding how should my invention work? :)
"Condensed particles" from what have you took that?

Considering you can't tell me how the cross section of the fuel comes into play, it looks like it to me.

What are you talking about with condensed particles?
 
Look man, I'm really trying to understand your paper. I don't understand how the energy per fusion event means Q=10 or whatever. What about the energy per non fusion event?
 
Drakkith said:
Considering you can't tell me how the cross section of the fuel comes into play, it looks like it to me.
I see that a number of threads were locked because of nonsenses. Not with my participation.
For your note: I am PhD not physicist but mechanical engineer.
And I doubt that you could see something showing my ignorance of elementary things (such as fusion cross section). Please quote.
 
Drakkith said:
Look man, I'm really trying to understand your paper. I don't understand how the energy per fusion event means Q=10 or whatever. What about the energy per non fusion event?
Dear Mr., firstly let's make some reading. Then ask.
Will be glad to be useful.

As you have already asked.
Non fusion events have been considered as well.
Total energy outputs/inputs have been specified per one occurred fusion event.
 
Joseph Chikva said:
Dear Mr., firstly let's make some reading. Then ask.
Will be glad to be useful.

As you have already asked.
Non fusion events have been considered as well.
Total energy outputs/inputs have been specified per one occurred fusion event.

Where did you consider the non fusion events in calculating your power use?
 
Joseph Chikva said:
I see that a number of threads were locked because of nonsenses. Not with my participation.
For your note: I am PhD not physicist but mechanical engineer.
And I doubt that you could see something showing my ignorance of elementary things (such as fusion cross section). Please quote.

Here's a few things that says to me you don't understand:
Particles do not loss. Scattered particle thanks to very strong focusing forces returns to right direction and tries to fuse again and again before fusion.

As I said before, particles that scatter and don't fuse contribute to loss. Not in the sense that the particles are lost out of the device, but that it takes time for them to fuse during which you use energy to keep them in the beams.
The raw estimation of required energy that should to be put into the beams specified on a single fusion event

Why do you only include the energy per fusion event? To me it seems to ignore the issue of power spent before fusion happens.

Optimism is when you are waiting that the achievement of Lawson Criterion automatically means the opportunity to generate net power.

Your belief that engineers and scientists are only using the Lawson Criterion and ignoring actual Fusion Energy Gain factors tells me that you don't understand it. Did I misunderstand you somehow?

Edit: Please, don't take this as a personal attack or anything. I'm trying very hard to be completely serious, I apologize if it seems that I am not.
 
Drakkith said:
Where did you consider the non fusion events in calculating your power use?
First please definite non fusion events. Significant only fusion event and scattering event.

And scattering more often than fusion. When scattered particles will return back to the right direction than that again will try to fuse. And again and again.

But when significant part of particles will fuse, we will face with significant reducing of number density. Fusion rate will reduce as well but by square of number density.
And we can not get fusion for 100% of nuclei if not confine plasma for infinitely long time. And I think that would be expedient to allow fusing only to 80% of nuclei.
 
Joseph Chikva said:
First please definite non fusion events. Significant only fusion event and scattering event.

And scattering more often than fusion. When scattered particles will return back to the right direction than that again will try to fuse. And again and again.

But when significant part of particles will fuse, we will face with significant reducing of number density. Fusion rate will reduce as well but by square of number density.
And we can not get fusion for 100% of nuclei if not confine plasma for infinitely long time. And I think that would be expedient to allow fusing only to 80% of nuclei.

Again, how can you ignore the lost power during scattering events? They may eventually fuse but until then they just consume power. I don't see this in your power calculations. Those are integral in determining Q.
 
Drakkith said:
As I said before, particles that scatter and don't fuse contribute to loss. Not in the sense that the particles are lost out of the device, but that it takes time for them to fuse during which you use energy to keep them in the beams.
That's sorry is nonsense.
Confinement time (duration) means that to allow some certain number of paticles to fuse not in one moment.
But needs some time during which we should confine plasma.
The main thing here that invention allows particles the opportunity to participate in multiple collisions from which some will end with fusion event and if scattering then scattered particle will return back for one more time attempting to fuse again.

The main thing here is a new confinement concept allowing all mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Drakkith said:
Again, how can you ignore the lost power during scattering events? They may eventually fuse but until then they just consume power. I don't see this in your power calculations. Those are integral in determining Q.
If you really interested you should read text more carefully. As scattered particle will return back to the axis losing only very little part of energy.
Only that part that particle being in returning motion transferred momentum to electron gas.
Then that little loss will be compensated with acceleration by induction electric field.