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

Want community feedback on the CrossFire Fusion Reactor

  1. Aug 22, 2012 #1
    I wanted to ask the community about something I ran into the other day and I know nothing about physics. I can help you build and hack your network, but stuff like this? Forget it.

    Other then posting this guy's website, I don't know how to explain it, beyond what he has designed, and his pending patients. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Good sci-fi? or what exactly? I know there is a lot of silly "free energy" videos on youtube, but I wasn't so sure on this.


  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 22, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It's bogus. One still has to confine a plasma whether using a magnetic field or electrostatic field, which has NOT (or not yet) proved viable on a commercial scale. Collinding particles beams have the problem of scattering more than producing fusion reactions.

    He's still got to use some fusion reaction, e.g., d+d or p+B, and the higher Z reactions require more initial energy.

    There's very little physics or engineering to discuss on that site.
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2012
  4. Aug 22, 2012 #3
    knew it. Old saying "too good to be true" still applies. Thank you for your time :)
  5. Aug 23, 2012 #4
    Can the problem of scattering be minimized to get more fusion reactions, if the beams are focused by quadrupole magnets to collide more frontally with each other under strong radial pressures inside superconducting electromagnets?
  6. Aug 23, 2012 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Particle scattering is inherent in the process. The beam width is many orders of magnitude greater than the particles. Narrowing the beam simply means increasing the particle flux with an increased reaction per unit area/volume. Scattering occurs at the particle level, and particles do not collide on axis.

    When collisions occur, e.g., as in alpha-scattering (Rutherford), neutron interactions (nuclear fission reactors), electron-scattering (in nuclei), particles scatter.



  7. Aug 23, 2012 #6
    I understood “particle scattering is inherent in the process”, “scattering occurs at the particle level”, then it is almost impossible that all colliding atoms will fuse with each other; it will always remain some unburned fuel.
    However, “narrowing the beam simply means increasing the particle flux with an increased reaction per unit area/volume” and if each microgram contains billions and billions of atoms, thus the probability of having some fusion reactions releasing a considerable amount of energy can be very high.
    Taking into account that just few kilowatts is enough to power superconducting electromagnets and Van de Graaff generator. Could a net energy gain be possible in this case?
  8. Aug 23, 2012 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    A few kilowatts will not give much of a current of particles.

    The idea of magnetic confinement is to keep the particles confiined long enough so that they will eventually fuse. The problem with magnetic confinement is that the density of plasma is limited by the (magnetic) pressure limitations of the magnetic confinement system and the limitations on the strength of the structural materials in the system. Electostatic confinement is similarly limited.

    In either system, there is only so much mass (or number of particles) that one can confine at a given temperature, P = nkT, where P = pressure, n = particle density (nuclei or electrons), k = Boltzmann's constant and T = temperature. The temperature has to be high enough to get fusion reactions. The necessary T increases for increasing Z, the number of protons in a nucleus. Electrons don't fuse, but they contribute to the pressure and energy losses (cyclotron radation, recombination with nuclei, brehmstrahlung).

    Another issue with magnetically confined plasma is the stability of the magnetically confined plasma. The plasma tries to push out at the weakest point in the magnetic field.
  9. Aug 24, 2012 #8
    It is needed just few kilowatts to ionize fusion fuel. If there is no electrical contact between the plasma and the chamber then there is no electric current thereby no power consumption at this point.
    Anyway, a small current of hyper-fast particles is better than nothing.

    Unlike tokamaks (magnetic toroidal confinement), a Penning trap is more stable and can confine small quantities of charged plasma almost indefinitely. Magnetic pressure is limited, but electrostatic acceleration can compensate this by providing higher temperature.
    Well, energy losses (cyclotron radiation, recombination with nuclei, bremsstrahlung) are also inherent in the process and will end as heat.

    http://www.aip.org/png/html/penning.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  10. Aug 30, 2012 #9
    As far as I can understand, the stability problem happens mainly with neutral plasma, and does not occur with non-neutral plasma, because non-neutral plasma and ionized gas can be confined endlessly by electric and magnetic fields in a penning trap configuration.
    IMHO, I think the tokamak confinement system is that is really a flawed concept, because under strong magnetic pressure occurs recombination, the neutral plasma changes its physical state and can leak out as neutral gas.
    From this, wouldn't be the ITER genuinely a bogus?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook