Focus Fusion

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Focus Fusion

Post by djolds1 »

Opinions about the general concept appreciated. Pure BS? Promising?

Duane
Vae Victis

pstudier
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:37 pm

Post by pstudier »

Smells like BS to me. It is advocated by Eric Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., see http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com . The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner mentions that he does not believe in the big bang and has its own theory of cosmology. Google maps indicate that the address of this company is in a residential neighborhood, see long url . I don't have the patience to dig through the website, but I bet he never gives any numbers for density, temperature and energy confinement time to judge against a Lawson criteria. The claim of p-B11 fusion seems far fetched to me without evidence of a gazillion neutrons from D-D. :roll:
Fusion is easy, but break even is horrendous.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Electrode erosion.

BTW do a search. This one has been beat to death.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

MSimon wrote:Electrode erosion.

BTW do a search. This one has been beat to death.
Yup. Strange cat that Lerner guy, VERY strange.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Read this article by Jan S. Brzosko.
http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2007/ ... nds-bk.pdf
Here are lots of data: density, neutrons and scaling laws.
Among the results: Electrode erosion:: not limiting factor.

The theory presented in BB newer happened, is not from Lerner but from Hanes Alfven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n

pstudier
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:37 pm

Post by pstudier »

Torulf2 wrote:Read this article by Jan S. Brzosko.
http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2007/ ... nds-bk.pdf
From page 25, the best shot is the blue line with 50kJ of energy. With D-D, this gave about 9e10 neutrons. Multiply by 2 fusions/neutron * 2.7 MeV /fusion * 1.6e-13 J/Mev, we get 0.78 Joule. So Q is 1.6e-6. Give two orders of magnitude improvement for D-T, and it is still Q=0.00016 . For practical power, Q must be at least 10. A long way to go.
Fusion is easy, but break even is horrendous.

rnebel
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:15 am

Post by rnebel »

The Plasma Focus has been around for a long time. The usual criticism is that the fusion comes from instabilities (much like happened in Zeta in the 50s) and it won't scale. However, these machines can produce a lot of neutrons and I don't know what the new wrinkle is that is being proposed here.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Yes the fusion comes from instabilities and that is the beef.

Post Reply