Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nuclear Fusion idea

  1. Apr 6, 2007 #1
    Hey people,

    Had an idea about a device for nuclear fusion. Now I figure its too much mess and too many people will have to be envolved anyway to get a patent or something, even if it was a realistic idea - as remote as that chance may be, so if it works remember I thought about it so I could at least be famous if not rich. :wink:

    Anyway, jokes aside. First we use a standard configuration - take some Deutirium or Tritium, strip the electrons and put'em in a cyclic acceleretor, the form doesn't matter much, just that they cycle around inside with their KeV level energies that're anough for fusion, small voltages required to keep them at the same energy due to sychrotron radiation and powerful magnets focusing them. Now the novell part, we take carbon nano-tubes with each carbon having another connection with a Deutirium or Tritium atom (according to what we have cycling in the accelerator) on the inside of the tube. Now we let the ion beam go inside the tube and some of the atoms hit their counterparts and fuse. That's the idea basicly.

    Many things unknown here, to me at least. First of course, can such a carbon nano-tube be created, is it chemicaly feasable ? Second, how efficient can such a device be ? Normally the ion beam is directed at a target with one chance to fues and here we can keep it cycling. Now the energy of the beam is about 3-4 orders lower than the fusion energy, which we can extract with partial efficiency, and to keep it cycling requires like a percent per cycle so can the fusion reaction rate in theory exceed the required energy for long anough sections of the accelerator containing the carbon-hydrogen isotope nano-tubes. (Several tens of angstroms tube diameter, several tens of fusable atoms per layer and a huge amount of layers - just one tube is normally a few milimeters, but only about a 10^-5 ansgstrom distance required for fusion to occur.) And, if it could be energy effective then how much damage could the fusion reactions inflict upon the nano-tubes during reasonable operation time periods.

    Well that's about it, thank you for your time - remember you're doing it for all of humanity's future. :wink: :smile:
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2007 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Oy vey! Not again!

    Zz.
     
  4. Apr 6, 2007 #3
    Not again.. meaning ? Which part doesn't work, the nano-tube chemistry ? The ability to focus or direct the ion beam ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  5. Apr 6, 2007 #4

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Aero Stud,

    Won't work. If you can't get the Deuterium and Tritium ions up to energies great enough
    so that they will fuse - then fancy carbon nanotubes and a cyclic device won't help.
     
  6. Apr 6, 2007 #5
    Perhaps you misunderstood something, the ion beam has several KeV level energy - that is the energy level required for fusion during "impact" (or very close path) of the various hydrogen isotopes near each other, so that they fuse when nuclear forces take over. It has been done for years, however currently the ion beam is accelerated and then directed at a titanium matrix rich with more high density hydrogen isotopes. Some hit their counterparts and the majority are scattered and the beam is lost. In the configuration I suggest the beam is not lost but maintained by means of a small addition of energy per cycle, because the nano-tubes' function is to pack a huge amount of hydrogen isotopes in the path of the ion beam, without the beam getting scattered - as long as it is contained inside the tube but can reach the walls - this edge resolution of about an angstrom wide for hydrogen is probably a problem, but that's exactly part of why I'm asking experts. Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  7. Apr 6, 2007 #6

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Aero Stud,

    It hasn't been done for years the way you are proposing.

    Why the carbon nano-tubes? Just because you think it sounds "high-tech"?

    Why would you want to introduce a higher Z material into your plasma or beam?

    That's the LAST thing you would want to do - it just causes Brehmstahlung radiation
    loss of your energy.

    Give it up - this idea belongs in the trash can.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  8. Apr 6, 2007 #7
    The part with the ion beam has been done precisely like I said, with stationary targets with more hydrogen isotopes in them.
    Carbon nano-tubes are among the largest densly packed and highly ordered on the single atom level stable material structures. Carbon binds with hydrogen in many well known molecules. If it can be done then you get dense and well ordered hydrogen isotopes inside a non-conductiong tube, so the magnetic fields of the accelerator will not be a problem. I didn't do a search on whether it could be chemicly done for a nano-tube, I'm asking like I said.
    WHERE did I say anything like that ?
    The idea is to contain and run the beam inside the tube with interference only from the hydrogen atoms on the inner side. Yeah you're right, more energy will be needed to keep
    the movement inside the tube, could it be reasonably stable then in your opinion ? The dimensions are small, or as large as the tube can get, but it doesn't matter that much even if the ion current is very small too - if it works in principal with a net gain in energy.
    Frankly, I'm sceptical too on occasion but without any connection to this being my topic, I think I didn't earn the superfecial unconnected responses or insulting tone, that's just bad attitude.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  9. Apr 6, 2007 #8

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But what happens to the carbon nano-tubes if hydrogen starts binding with the carbon?

    When you introduce carbon (Z=6) nanotubes in the beam of deuterons (d) and tritons (t).

    Now one has an ion beam of d's or t's which is impinging upon a structure of C. What about scattering of d's and t's? One certainly cannot line up mirco or nano beams just right. Collisions of d's and t's and subsequent scattering of d's, t's and C's are inherent.

    Now what happens when fusion occurs - D+T -> alpha (3.5 Mev) + n (14.1 MeV). What will a 3.5 MeV alpha flux do to a carbon nano tube?

    If some answers seem flip or insulting, it is because many of us have had a long experience of people claiming a revolutionary idea that is full of ideas constructed on a poor understanding of the physics of the fusion process and plasma systems. To make it worse, some people claim they have overcome real physical constraints and in some cases, the claimants ignore or disregard actual physics. Please bear with us.
     
  10. Apr 7, 2007 #9
    Don't know. Just seems to make sense chemicly that carbon could connect to 3 others carbons and one hydrogen.
    Well they are supposed to be stationary and the beam only on the inside.
    I see. Though I thought it's a matter of low enough beam current and powerful anough magnetic focusing cavities. If the distances required here are still too small anyway, then yeah it abviously won't work.
    That's right, that's what I asked too. Damage is still a relative thing after all.
    Absolutely. I don't want to waste my time for no reason either or argue with an expert about real and relevant facts, when they're pointed out to me. Thanks.

    Well now I do see there are real problems here, mostly what I initially suspected, my bad.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
  11. Apr 7, 2007 #10

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Aero Stud,

    Why would you want that to happen in your fusion device?

    You're going to focus an ion beam inside a carbon nano-tube so that the beam
    doesn't impinge on the walls? Good luck with that.

    If you have low enough beam current - then you're not going to get much in the
    way of fusion.

    Sure you can get fusion with accelerators - that's the way it was first done.

    However, the idea is to get copious amounts of fusion reactions such that the energy
    from the fusion is greater than the energy expended setting up the conditions for
    fusion. Otherwise, what's the point?

    That's what the latest fusion research is trying to do - get more energy out than what
    you put in.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  12. Apr 7, 2007 #11

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Astronuc,

    EXACTLY!!!

    I don't know how many times I've seen posts; some here, and in other forums like Usenet
    where somebody has a story like:

    All the scientists working on fusion are so dumb. I have the answer. All we need to
    do is put some palladium in a carbon nano-tube; and wrap it around a dilithium crystal...

    I've already designed it; but the Dept. of Energy won't fund it because of all the scientists
    that bad mouth my idea; when they are just jealous that they didn't think of it.....

    I'm the expert; I have a common law doctorate in physics....

    In one of these discussion, the fusion "genius" asked me where I got my degree.

    I told him that my doctorate is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    His reply was, "Oh, I thought you had a real doctorate from a university.
    Degrees from state technical schools are not real doctorates."

    Sigh.

    Perhaps you know of this guy, I've had a few online run ins with him many
    years ago:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium

    ...Others defended him on the grounds that anyone who dubbed himself
    "The King of All Science" while talking to Nobel prize winners about pumping
    water from the Pacific Ocean to the Moon via a giant hose using osmotic pressure,
    more than made up for any perceived lack of academic credentials for the sheer
    entertainment that such things gave to the world. Plutonium gained a cult following,
    with summaries of his postings occasionally being posted by others for the benefit of
    those who had been on vacation and who missed the show.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
  13. Apr 8, 2007 #12
    I'm glad I'm not such a guy then.. :wink:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nuclear Fusion idea
  1. Nuclear fusion (Replies: 5)

  2. Nuclear Fusion Idea (Replies: 33)

Loading...