Greg,Greg Bernhardt said:
What makes you think that the device does not or would not work? How do you explain the neutron emissions? I understand that the device is not suitable for energy production (there's a really nice paper at MIT about that) but that doesn't mean that there isn't fusion.Morbius said:There's no way that device achieves fusion ignition.
I'm sorry - physics says no.
Morbius did not say the device could not work. He said it could not achieve fusion ignition.NateTG said:
Nate,NateTG said:What makes you think that the device does not or would not work? How do you explain the neutron emissions? I understand that the device is not suitable for energy production (there's a really nice paper at MIT about that) but that doesn't mean that there isn't fusion.
The reactor is almost certainly a fusor (inertial electrostatic confinement), and others have also succesfully had fusion reactions (or at least neutron emission) from similar set ups starting, as far as I am aware, in the 60's.
- Appl Radiat Isot. 2000 Oct;53(4-5):779-83.
The IEC star-mode fusion neutron source for NAA--status and next-step designs
Miley GH, Sved J.
Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org
Based on research at the University of Illinois, a commercial neutron source has been developed by Daimler Chrysler Aerospace using a small grided-type Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) plasma device (Miley and Sved, 1997) This device employs a unique "Star-Mode" deuterium plasma discharge to create ion-beam driven fusion reactions in a plasma target (Miley et al., 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Miley, 1999). As such, it represents the first commercial application of a confined fusing plasma. The Star-Mode discharge is an essential feature of this device since it minimizes ion-grid collisions and also allows tight beam focussing.
How, precisely, are IEC fusion reactors junk science? As far as I can tell, fusor reactors, for example, are well documented and repeatable.CharlesP said:It amazes me how fast junk science gets around and how hard it is to put out fires like this one.
Nate,NateTG said:Fusion, even 'exothermic' fusion, has been possible for more that 50 years now -- a 15megaton hydrogen bomb (Bravo Shot) was set off on Feb 25, 1954. People have been trying to harness fusion power in a less destructive fashion since before then.
The fusion power problem isn't just achieving fusion, but achieving contained and exothermic fusion.
No actually - some fusion reactor concepts use neutral beam injectors to selectively put energy into the D ions such that the energy per ion is higher than the target plasma. This helps to reduce the energy losses from the plasma, which is relatively cooler. And there are other heating methods, such as RF (bascially microwaves) heating, as well.It seems to me that the IEC approach is considered too simplistic for 'real' scientists to bother considering it as a 'real' player in the research field.
dream_reaper,dream_reaper said:To quote Dr. Greenman: "In order for fusion to occur - one has to have both the requisite density and temperature."
Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I was of the understanding that in order for 'Fusion to Occur' you need to overcome the Coulomb Barrier - Essentially, you need to push two Ions close enough together so that the Strong nuclear force, slightly more powerful but acting over shorter distances than the Electromagnetic force acting to repel the like-charged particles), is able to exert its influence and bind the two nuclei together? In the case of D - T fusion, you've got a pair of alpha particles that result from this fusion... the odd-man-out Neutron with it's 14.1 MeV of kinetic energy, and the Helium-4 nucleus with it's 3.5 MeV (? I don't remember if that's correct or not on the H4 nucleus).