Nuclear Fusion_New Method_Patent Pending

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph Chikva
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a patent-pending method of nuclear fusion proposed by a participant. The conversation explores the feasibility, energy efficiency, and technical challenges associated with this new approach, comparing it to existing fusion methods and theories. Participants engage in technical reasoning and critique various aspects of the proposed method, including energy production and beam dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of the proposed method, suggesting it may face similar energy production challenges as other beam fusion methods.
  • One participant argues that while accelerating a beam is energy-intensive, it may not be more so than other plasma heating methods, citing various techniques like Ohmic heating and RF.
  • Another participant references Russian physicist Budker's work, suggesting that under certain conditions, an electronic beam can radiate and cool, potentially aiding in energy efficiency.
  • Concerns are raised about the need to continuously tap fusion energy to maintain the reaction, rather than relying solely on initial heating methods.
  • Some participants discuss the importance of managing scattering rates and the potential for recycling particles in the fusion process, with differing views on how effective this might be.
  • One participant compares the proposed method to the Polywell concept, noting challenges faced in that approach, particularly regarding electron loss.
  • Another participant clarifies that their method involves using three independently created beams rather than a single electron well, emphasizing a different mechanism for managing space charge and energy losses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility or efficiency of the proposed fusion method. Multiple competing views and technical challenges remain unresolved, with some participants expressing skepticism while others defend the potential of the approach.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights various assumptions about energy costs, the efficiency of different fusion methods, and the complexities of beam dynamics. There are unresolved mathematical and technical details regarding the proposed method's implementation and its comparison to existing models.

  • #31
Joseph Chikva said:
I only would like to say that you are mistaken (some mistakes) during explanation of Polywell's working principle.

Which ones?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Drakkith said:
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.
 
  • #33
Joseph Chikva said:
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!
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
Drakkith said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
That should be changed to say: "One of the major obstacles that limits the fusion output of ALL devices is the result of repulsive electrostatic forces arising from the ions themselves"

Every design has to get around this repulsive force. That is the whole idea behind the reactor.
 
  • #37
Drakkith said:
Every design has to get around this repulsive force. That is the whole idea behind the reactor.
Sometimes people also try to get around physics laws. May be in Polywell's case too. I do not claim confidently but doubt that it's so.
 

Similar threads

Cylindrical and Symmetrical Nuclear Fusion Reactor
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
China plans world’s first fusion-fission power plant
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough....What Does This Mean?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Computation for nuclear reactor systems
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Sources for nuclear fuel pellet fabrication methods?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Major Nuclear Fusion Milestone: Ignition Achieved
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Have pulsed fission reactors got any potential in nuclear energy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
How would electricity be generated from a nuclear fusion reactor?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
Nuclear Energy reading material
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Critical mass for nuclear fusion
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K