Cyclic Fusion Reactor. Passing through each other colliding beams.

[Drakkith]

• Bending magnetic field does not required energy for bending if not considering synchrotron radiation but this is not that case.

Bending? Just generating the field takes power. Same with the electric fields.

• Elastic collisions causing scatterings also will accelerate slower moving ions decelerating faster moving ions. Ions energy losses occur only via transferring the little part of gained via scattering before ion will return to right direction.

Again, I am not referring solely to energy losses from the ions, but also to the increased time it takes for each ion to fuse because of these collisions.

This is not you lovely Polywell in which scattered ion does not return back then scattered again and again. And so all energy losses for fusion.

Provide me with some evidence that your device will cause ALL scattered ions to return.

• Concept can provide near 100% particles the fusing capability. But for that infinitely long confinement duration is required. But 80 % fusion will occur during acceptable time.

I see absolutely nothing that says that. You haven't provided any estimated time, you haven't calculated used power for that period of time, and you don't seem to understand the basics of the Fusion Gain Factor or the cross section. In fact, this entire thread tells me that you seriously need to go back and look at your device. I'm done wasting my time here.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Again, I am not referring solely to energy losses from the ions, but also to the increased time it takes for each ion to fuse because of these collisions.

I have never read a bigger nonsense. The time has increased in comparison with what?

Provide me with some evidence that your device will cause ALL scattered ions to return.

I can not help you if you do not know that unidirectional currents attract each others.

I'm done wasting my time here.

I think that you are wasting your time always when talking about fusion. As you have nothing to do with discussing issue.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I missed something:

Where is the power from the external magnets and electric fields used to keep the particles in place?

Here, my friend:

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?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

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.

About Lawson criterion and some thought concerning breakeven.

Considering fusion experiments using thermal plasma e.g. Tokamak
Initial “ignition”
Tremendous energy should be spent (pumped) for achievement the required temperature (heating)

Plasma creation (discharge) and Ohmic heating.
• Initially very strong toroidal induction electric field is created
• Pulling out of some electrons from their orbits under the influence of electric field (primary ionization)
• Acceleration of electrons in one direction and ions to opposite. As electrons have much higher rate of acceleration, they gain energy faster transferring then energy to other particles finally ionizing gas and heating plasma. Initially the temperature of electron gas much higher, but then thanks to multiple collisions ions’ and electrons’ temperatures are almost equalized. For occurrence of that equalization some time is needed.
• Occurrence of Bremsstrahlung (energy loss) together with hot plasma conductivity increasing limiting the maximum achievable temperature via Ohmic heating.

RF (cyclotron resonance) heating and its energy losses.
• Efficiency of RF generators?
• Efficiency of absorption of RF radiation by plasma?

Heating via neutrals beams
• By my information only 30% of neutrals can be absorbed by plasma, remaining 70% hit walls
• Efficiency of charged particles accelerators?
• Efficiency of neutralization of those beams in neutralization chambers?

So, can anybody say that Lawson criterion considers all above mentioned?
Criterion written in 50s of past century!

And if/when Lawson criterion will be achieved how far will we be from real capability to produce net power?
As that criterion estimates only certain limit overcoming of which “self-burning” is possible.
But achieving “self-burning” capability we before should spend a lot of energy for providing above mentioned processes (heating, etc.) and also should produce some electricity.

And I am sure that TOKAMAKs as well as other experiments are very far from their purposes.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I have altered an estimation of power balance for expressing it in more accessible form.

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 creation and further maintenance process of inducing an accelerating electric field (its loading with the proposed beams) will connect with additional energy expenses.

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 we will have from each fusion event:
Thermal energy specified per a single fusion event:
• 14.1MeV of energy of neutron in center-of-mass frame
• about 0.1MeV of additional energy of neutron considering the non-zero velocity (4.3*10^6 m/s) of ions’ center-of-mass frame
• about 0.5MeV of X-ray radiation (have to be stopped by protection wall – energy of photons converted into thermal energy)
• 1.25*4.8MeV=6MeV of thermal energy via (n+Li6) reaction (where “1.25” is a Tritium breeding coefficient)
So, total 20.7MeV of thermal energy

Charged particles’ energy specified per a single fusion event:
• 3.5MeV of energy of He4 (alpha-particle) in center-of-mass frame
• about 0.4MeV of additional energy of He4 considering the non-zero velocity (4.3*10^6 m/s) of ions’ center-of-mass frame
• (0.2MeV+0.3MeV)*0.2=0.1MeV of energy of non-reacted ions
• (1/50+1/75)*33MeV/0.8=1.375MeV of electrons
So, total 5.375MeV of charged particles’ energy

Input/output energy balance:

input 2.7MeV vs. 20.7MeV (thermal) + 5.375MeV (charged particles) output

Energy conversion efficiency
Input
Taking into account the really achievable efficiency of beams’ generation and also the efficiency of their further maintenance – ~35%, we will have the total energy consumption specified per a single fusion event equal to:

2.7MeV/0.35=~7.72MeV

Output
Thermal cycle
In modern power plants the efficiency of 40% is achievable. And so:

20.7MeV*0.4=8.28MeV

Direct energy conversion of charged particles
Efficiency of 50% is achievable. And so:

5.375MeV*0.5=2.68MeV

Projected net power specified per a single fusion event:

8.28MeV+2.68MeV-7.72MeV=3.24MeV

 

[Drakkith]

In case if only 80% of nuclei will react initially we should spend per one fusion event:

What exactly does this mean?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

What exactly does this mean?

This means that if you have for example 100 pairs of reacting particles:
• 100 faster moving ions with energy 300keV each
• 100 slower moving ions with energy 200keV each
and then only 80% of them will fuse, the spent energy specified per a single fusion event will be not 300+200=500keV but 500keV/0.8=625keV

 

[Drakkith]

How did you come up with 80% of them will fuse?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

How did you come up with 80% of them will fuse?

100 % of fusion demands the infinitely long confinement time.
While 80 % demands an order of milliseconds.
I want that repeatability of impulses will of 10 Hz order as that is technically feasible on base of today's accelerators technology.
And 80 % acceptable if gives positive energy balance.

 

[Drakkith]

No I mean how did you actually determine that 80% of the ions will fuse within this time period?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

No I mean how did you actually determine that 80% of the ions will fuse within this time period?

That estimated on base of following:
• Center-of-mass collision energy – 20.2 keV
• Reaction cross section – 0.4 barn
• Ions’ relative velocity – 1.8*10^6 m/s
• Ions number density – 10^22-10^23 m^-3
About millisecond.

 

[Drakkith]

Is the density of the ions being reduced as more and more fuse? What kind of effect would that have? I'm assuming you don't "replenish" them during this time period. Or do you?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Is the density of the ions being reduced as more and more fuse? What kind of effect would that have? I'm assuming you don't "replenish" them during this time period. Or do you?

Yes, during fusion the density of reacting ions reduces and so - reduces fusion rate by square of density. Nevertheless we need only an order of millisecond for mentioned initial number densities.

After each fusion cycle reaction zone should be freed for a new cycle. Or in the other words remaining charged particles should be extracted to Direct Energy Converter.

 

[Drakkith]

Alright. Good luck with your device. I'm off to bed now.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Alright. Good luck with your device. I'm off to bed now.

Good night.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I just calculated energy consumption for the following parameters:
• Deuterium - 450keV
• Tritium - 300keV
• Electron - 40.6MeV
And energy consumption specified per a single fusion event is about 1.8MeV

Taking into account that collision energy in center-of-mass frame for this case is 30keV (30keV vs. 20.2keV) and so ratio between fusion and scattering sections is more attractive, we should also wait less further energy losses that for previous case estimated as 0.7MeV per each event.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP11/Event/153438

- - - - > SCHEDULING NOTICE FOR:

53nd Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics
Co-located with the 64th Annual Gaseous Electronics Conference
November 14-18, 2011
Salt Lake City, Utah

The abstract you submitted:
(Abstract Log Number DPP11-2011-000008)
'New Fusion Concept Using Coaxial Passing Through Each Other Self-focusing Colliding Beams (Invention),'

has been accepted and scheduled for session UP9, (Poster Session VIII: C-Mod Tokamak; DIII-D II; Solar, Interplanetary, and Magnetospheric Plasma Physics; Plasma Technology; )
which will begin at 02:00 PM on Thursday, 11/17/11 in room: Hall A.

APS Meetings Department
E-mail
(301) 209-?

 

[Drakkith]

Good luck! Hope it goes well for you!

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Thank you.

 

[WatermelonPig]

Good luck with your presentation! Let me know how it goes.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Thank you too.