New Fusion Method_What do you think?

[chrismb]

From your posts I take it that you are a Physicist, in an academic role?

Is that sarcasm?

[Joseph Chikva]

Is that sarcasm?

You are right - I am not physicist. But unlike you I don't mix the immiscible phenomena. "Energy bellow O-P", "pile of particles"
It appears that the particles colliding with energy by which the fusion cross-section is maximum, "will be destroyed themselves" via certain another reaction.
Do you know the cross section of that total-destroying reaction for the following pairs:
• deuterium and tritium
• deuterium and helium-3
• proton and boron-11
• etc.
Is that exothermic or endothermic? What does wikipedia say?
And who in existing now fusion experiments does consider that?
Thanks.

[chrismb]

Maybe it is a language issue. But I have provided you with leads, and now it is for you to do work and find out if these are relevant or not to your purposes. I am not the one making claims and asking for recognition.

It is for you to show what you want to, but if you do not know physics basics (and want someone else to spoon feed you) then you are not going to be able to show anything.

[Joseph Chikva]

Maybe it is a language issue. But I have provided you with leads, and now it is for you to do work and find out if these are relevant or not to your purposes. I am not the one making claims and asking for recognition.

It is for you to show what you want to, but if you do not know physics basics (and want someone else to spoon feed you) then you are not going to be able to show anything.

So, regardless who I am - physicist or Chinese opera singer you could not explain me why Oppenheimer-Fillips?

And from what do you claim that I do not know physics basics?
I have a classic technical education, academic degree in engineering, had a very good teacher and colleague in physics, have a good literature on plasma and accelerators physics, also for developing an idea have a steady interest to learn more in this branch, have an internet and at least the opportunity to read wikipedia.
Thanks.

[chrismb]

You asked for opinions. You got mine. I gave you some things to look up, in case they were relevant for you. It's for you to do the research and read up to see if its relevant.

You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy and I say you need to read up around that subject to be able to ask good questions.

If you have any specific question then go ahead and ask them - in the right forum....

[Joseph Chikva]

You asked for opinions. You got mine. I gave you some things to look up, in case they were relevant for you. It's for you to do the research and read up to see if its relevant.

You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy and I say you need to read up around that subject to be able to ask good questions.

If you have any specific question then go ahead and ask them - in the right forum....

Ok.
First

...the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'.

Oppenheimer-Phillips
D(2)+X(A)=p+X(A+1)
You talk me about this reaction? That instead of fusion (target reaction) I will get this. Am I right?

If yes:
D+T=p+H(4)
or proton and hydrogen nucleus with 3 neutrons?
Is that possible?

Second

You will got pile of particles

In which form?

Go and read wiki

What should I find in wiki? How does the pile of particles create?

Third

You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy

collision cross section?

[ladajo]

probability of colliding

[Joseph Chikva]

probability of colliding

In nuclear physics nobody uses the term "collision cross section". Chemists - yes.
Also first Reserford calculated "scattering cross section". And that is widely used as well.
In tipical fusion conditions we should consider only fusion event and its cross section and scattering and its cross section.
And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.

[chrismb]

And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.

The only 'nonsense interactions' are claims like;

one beam of particles should transit through another beam and their relative speed (velocity) should be sufficient for that the majority of particles could overcome the Coulomb barrier between the reacting particles.

I pointed you at Gamow quantum tunneling, so go make sure you understand this, then post something intelligible in the THEORY section.

[ladajo]

probability of colliding

In nuclear physics nobody uses the term "collision cross section". Chemists - yes.
Also first Reserford calculated "scattering cross section". And that is widely used as well.
In tipical fusion conditions we should consider only fusion event and its cross section and scattering and its cross section.
And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.

I would disagree to the extent of the your thought.

I was formally trained in nuclear physics with the concept of the probability of an interaction, so to that point, as a matter of clarification, the word "interaction" would be more appropriate. However, that said, and "interaction" does not a fusion or fission make. That is something else.

So I am unsure as to your point in this regard.

[Joseph Chikva]

I would disagree to the extent of the your thought.

I was formally trained in nuclear physics with the concept of the probability of an interaction, so to that point, as a matter of clarification, the word "interaction" would be more appropriate. However, that said, and "interaction" does not a fusion or fission make. That is something else.

So I am unsure as to your point in this regard.

From a formality you are certainly right. And of course we can admit a non-zero probability of birth of even hydrogen nucleus (isotope) with three neutrons via O-P reaction. As it claims my immoderately emotional opponent.
But let’s also agree that the probability of that event will be scornfully low. And I have already mentioned the phenomena which should be considered. Also have to be considered very interesting researchs on non-neutral plasma wich are under way at this moment.
I have shared here the idea in hope to hear the qualified criticism. But not nonsenses.
Thank you.

[Joseph Chikva]

And no any other interactions like Oppenheimer-Fisher and other nonsenses.

The only 'nonsense interactions' are claims like;

one beam of particles should transit through another beam and their relative speed (velocity) should be sufficient for that the majority of particles could overcome the Coulomb barrier between the reacting particles.

I pointed you at Gamow quantum tunneling, so go make sure you understand this, then post something intelligible in the THEORY section.

From engineering side of view in all nuclear fusion experiments nobody considers quantum tunneling, short action strong forces, etc.
It is enough to operate with data of fusion cross section at certain collision energy. Many people have already made appropriate researches and we can simply use the results of those. Let's not to complicate.

And you was wrong for initially when claimed that to overcome a Coulomb barrier I need many MeV-s of collision energy.

b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'.

As I understand we both are agree to use this paper:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
In table 1.2 on page 12 is written:
• deuterium+ tritium: cross section 5 barns @ 64 keV
• deuterium + He-3: cross section 0.9 barns @ 250 keV
• proton +B-11: cross section 1.2 barns @ 550 keV
All energies are in center-of-mass frame
So, in required energy estimation you was wrong on one or two orders of magnitude!
And can anybody claim that any other reactions will have higher cross section?
Here I do not talk on scattering's cross section because proposed Method able to solve the problems with scattering.

[chrismb]

Your discussion suggests a lack of basic understanding of fusion reactions. I have already tried to explain this to you, so will attempt to do so one last time.

And you was wrong for initially when claimed that to overcome a Coulomb barrier I need many MeV-s of collision energy.

b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'.

We both are agree to use this paper:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
In table 1.2 on page 12 is written:
• deuterium+ tritium: cross section 5 barns @ 64 keV
• deuterium + He-3: cross section 0.9 barns @ 250 keV
• proton +B-11: cross section 1.2 barns @ 550 keV
All energies are in center-of-mass frame
In required energy estimation you was wrong on one or two orders of magnitude!

These are peak tunneling resonances. They are NOT indicative of the Coulomb barrier.

[Joseph Chikva]

Your discussion suggests a lack of basic understanding of fusion reactions. I have already tried to explain this to you, so will attempt to do so one last time.

And you was wrong for initially when claimed that to overcome a Coulomb barrier I need many MeV-s of collision energy.

b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'.

We both are agree to use this paper:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
In table 1.2 on page 12 is written:
• deuterium+ tritium: cross section 5 barns @ 64 keV
• deuterium + He-3: cross section 0.9 barns @ 250 keV
• proton +B-11: cross section 1.2 barns @ 550 keV
All energies are in center-of-mass frame
In required energy estimation you was wrong on one or two orders of magnitude!

These are peak tunneling resonances. They are NOT indicative of the Coulomb barrier.

That is all? Do you consider classic mechanics when talk about Coulomb barrier?
If we consider nucleus as a sphere with size calculated by classic mechanics - yes.
But we should overcome Coulomb barrier only till short action nuclear forces will begin acting. And should not as two spheres collide like billiard balls.
So, if we would like to approach the particles to proximity sufficient for action of nuclear forces, for this purpose overcoming of Coulomb barrier is required.
Then fusion (if you wish let's call it "tunneling") will happen or one particle will scatter on another. Or in a very lower probability will happen something else.
And no "many MeV required" - It's wrong.
But only stated above energies.

PS: In fact tunneling is a certain model of interaction the nature of which is not explained yet. By some other models the interchanging of some intermediate particles is considered.

[chrismb]

So, if we would like to approach the particles to proximity sufficient for action of nuclear forces, for this purpose overcoming of Coulomb barrier is required.

OK, I'll step you through this calculation like a good little seminar tutor, and we'll see how far you get....

So how close do you think two nucleii need to get to before nuclear forces begin to have an action?