Joseph Chikva wrote:What is small perturbation without fixing the reason why they occur?
No particles will be travelling exactly along the intended orbit. As they get acted on by restoring forces, so they will undergo orbital variations one way or the other. Stochastic thermal effects and/or/which are quantum noise will see to it that nothing is ever 'exact', even if all the electric and magnetic fields are perfectly uniform.
Generally speaking, 'Focussing' always involves a mechanism in which a particle feels a stronger self-correction the further out of equilibrium it deviates. If it is otherwise, the system is generally unstable.
That’s nonsense. Stable system reacts on any perturbation irrespective of the reason of its occurrence. Whether it is stochastic thermal movement, quantum noise or a carnival drumbeat in Rio.
Joseph Chikva wrote:That’s nonsense. Stable system reacts on any perturbation irrespective of the reason of its occurrence. Whether it is stochastic thermal movement, quantum noise or a carnival drumbeat in Rio.
Yes, chaos if taking into consideration that we talk about the system where the tens thousands amperes current flows. How Chris is going to hear the quantum noise? There in article about Stellatron is talking about stability against mismatch from equilibrium position or equilibrium energy of 50%.
That is even in case of non-neutralized space charge. As additional Stellarator windings only expands the space charge limitation of betatron. But in my proposal oppositely charged particles are in a very deep potential well of each other. And no any space charge limitation!
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:
chrismb wrote:...and the 'news' element of this self-appreciation society is...?
News, theory and of course history
Self-appreciation is rather high...thanks. It appears you stopped criticism of my invention or "invention" and go to psychology.
You want more criticism? Plenty more where that came from.
But, why don't you just build it and stop gassing. I didn't understand how you would power the electrons, in your energy budget, so I guess maybe you have some 'free energy' device at work already?
chrismb wrote:You want more criticism? Plenty more where that came from.
But, why don't you just build it and stop gassing. I didn't understand how you would power the electrons, in your energy budget, so I guess maybe you have some 'free energy' device at work already?
Certainly I want more qualified criticism.
But recently someone threatened me saying something like: "Come with numbers, then let's talk".
I came with some numbers, but threats of that person have sufficed only on one question.
But instead he well knows psychology.
What's a problem with electrons?
Why don't I just build?
Good question.
Can you estimate how many the impulse energy storage (capacitors bank with voltage-300kV, energy – 2 MJ) can cost? My name is not Warren Buffet.
Joseph Chikva wrote: or a carnival drumbeat in Rio.
since each samba school has a drumcorps with about 300 members, and samba schools compete with each other, the drumming is actually quite organized. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSmNWvdrkc
Joseph Chikva wrote: or a carnival drumbeat in Rio.
since each samba school has a drumcorps with about 300 members, and samba schools compete with each other, the drumming is actually quite organized. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSmNWvdrkc
or a carnival drumbeat in Rio.