## Re: micro ac tukomak

Expand Messages
• The plasma is inductivly linked to a coil carrying RF. The plasma itself is equivilent to a loop of wire which has resistance. The circuit is therfore a
Message 1 of 79 , Feb 7, 2009
The plasma is inductivly linked to a coil carrying RF. The plasma
itself is equivilent to a loop of wire which has resistance. The
circuit is therfore a transformer with the one turn and series
resistor being the plasma. So the plasma is in series. The primary
of the transformer is the coil of the tuned circuit.

--- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "chris64strev" <cjrs@...> wrote:
>
> The rise in VSWR is the result of a change in the dynamic
impedance
> of the LCr circuit. The ionised gas forms part of the resistance.
I
> use Thevethin's theorem to regard it as a series resistor and if
the
> plasma conducts better that increases the load a reduces the
dynamic
> resistance (this is an increase in the effetive series resistance
r)
> this is seen as a drop in the S meter reading. This resukts in a
> mismatch thus increasing the VSWR. If the ionised gas generates
> power (by fusion) then the dynamic resistance this is because the
> effective series resistance goes down, if this become zero as the
> part of the resistance due to the gas becomes negative then the
> dynamic resistance (L/Cr) goes to infinity and if the effective
> series resistance becomes negative the dynamic resistance becomes
> negative and the tuned circuit will oscillate. If the ionised gas
> has resistance r then power absorbed P=I^2R but if R goes negative
> then P goes negative too.
>
> Negative resistance as a part of the effective series resistnce
will
> change the dynamic impedance and change the VSWR as well as the
> positive resistance will. So my observation of a rise in reverse
> power shows a change in the effective series resistance of the LCr
> circuit only this can be due to an increase or a decrease of r.
> However the change in dynamic resistance for a positive change of
r
> is likely to be less than a negative change in r because the
> negative change is approaching an asymtope that does not occur
with
> a positive change of r.
>
> Conclusion - undecided.
>
• i wasnt doubting your device, i was disputing what ever her name was, description of fusion reaction. sorry you thought it was about you. i hope that you
Message 79 of 79 , Feb 23, 2009
i wasnt doubting your device, i was disputing what ever her name was, description of fusion reaction.
sorry you thought it was about you. i hope that you suceed with your device.
jim

From: chris64strev <cjrs@...>
To: All-Energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:05:18 PM
Subject: [All-E] Re: micro ac tukomak

It is not as simple as that and the tube will only give power at 20
KW for 5 hours. I suggest you read Edward Tellers book on the
hydrogen bomb. You may not be able to buy it easily as it is probably
classified. I found it in the library at aldermaston nuke factory
where I once worked as a junior physicist.

--- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, James Sapp <aquaboi@... > wrote:
>
> so basically, everytime they tried to create a fusion reaction, it
was a fission reaction instead and burned out, even with hydrogen
bombs. and you expect matter to become engery ''be converted directly
to electricity' ' and then condense back into matter again and implode
and explode forever in the mushroom palace elf mansion where fairy
tales are told. not even stars implode and explode forever without
waste or burning out.
> what a crock of shit.
> jim
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: eleni constantinou <tpanayiotou@ ...>
> To: All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:05:46 AM
> Subject: [All-E] Re: micro ac tukomak
>
>
> Hey Chris are you getting some funding?.... ....
>
> Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Receives \$1.2 Million to Test Hydrogen-
> Born Fusion
> Eric Lerner's focus fusion project has received funding from The
> Abell Foundation and individual investors to undertake a two-year
> experimental project to test its scientific feasibility.
>
> Adapted by Sterling D. Allan
>
> Imagine a non-polluting power plant, the size of a local gas
station,
> that would quietly and safely power 4,000 homes, for a few tenths
of
> a penny per kilowatt-hour, compared to 4-6 cents/kw-h of coal or
> natural-gas- powered plants. One technician could operate two dozen
> of these stations remotely. The fuel, widely available, is barely
> spent in the clean fusion method, and would only need to be changed
> annually.
>
> That is what physicist Eric Lerner envisions with his focus fusion
> technology in which hydrogen and boron combine into helium, while
> giving off tremendous amounts of energy in the process. Hydrogen-
> boron fuel produces almost no neutrons and allows the direct
> conversion of energy into electricity.
>
> The size and power output would make it ideal for providing
localized
> power, reducing transmission losses and large-grid vulnerabilities.
> The cost and reliability would make it affordable for developing
> nations and regions.
>
> We first reported on Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) Inc., a
small
> research and development company based in West Orange, NJ, back in
> Nov. 2, 2005. They were the very first technology we at the New
> Energy Congress added to out Global Top 100 Clean Energy
Technologies
> listing.
>
> In December, LLP announced that they had received \$1.3 million in
> funding for the initiation of a two-year-long experimental project
to
> test the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion, controlled nuclear
> fusion using the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) device and hydrogen-boron
> fuel. The goals of the experiment are first, to confirm the
> achievement the high temperatures first observed in previous
> experiments at Texas A&M University; second, to greatly increase
the
> efficiency of energy transfer into the tiny plasmoid where the
fusion
> reactions take place; third, to achieve the high magnetic fields
> needed for the quantum magnetic field effect which will reduce
> cooling of the plasma by x-ray emission; and finally, to use pB11
> fuel to demonstrate greater fusion energy production than energy
fed
> into the plasma (positive net energy production).
>
> In a phone interview on Feb. 10, Eric Lerner, President of LPP,
said
> that they are under way, renting a facility, hiring two physicists,
> and ordering equipment.
>
> The experiment will be carried out in an experimental facility in
New
> Jersey using a newly-built dense plasma focus device capable of
> reaching peak currents of more than 2 mega-amps. This will be the
> most powerful DPF in North America and the second most powerful in
> the world. For the millionth of the second that the DPF will be
> operating during each pulse, its capacitor bank will be supplying
> about one third as much electricity as all electric generators in
the
> United States.
>
> A small team of three plasma physics will perform the experiments:
> Eric Lerner; Dr. XinPei Lu and Dr. Krupakar Murali Subramanian. Mr.
> Lerner has been involved in the development of Focus Fusion for
over
> 20 years. Dr. Lu is currently Professor of Physics at HuaZhong
Univ.
> of Sci. & Tech., Wuhan, China, where he received his PhD in 2001.
He
> has been working in the field of pulsed plasmas for over 14 years
and
> is the inventor of an atmospheric- pressure cold plasma jet. Dr.
> Subramanian is currently Senior Research Scientist, AtmoPla Dept.,
> and BTU International Inc., in N. Billerica, Massachusetts. He
worked
> for five years on the advanced-fuel Inertial Electrostatic
> Confinement device at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where
he
> received his PhD in 2004 and where he invented new plasma
diagnostic
> instruments.
>
> To help in the design of the capacitor bank, LPP has hired for two
> months a leading expert in DPF design and experiment, Dr. John
> Thompson. Dr. Thompson has worked for over twenty years with
Maxwell
> Laboratories and Alameda Applied Sciences Corporation to develop
> pulsed power devices, including DPFs and diamond switches.
>
> The \$1.2 million for the project has been provided by a \$500,000
> investment from The Abell Foundation, Inc, of Baltimore Maryland
and
> additional investments from a small number of individuals.
>
> The basic technology of LPP's approach is covered by a patent
> application, which was allowed in full by the US Patent Office in
> November. LPP expects the patent to be issued shortly.
>
> # # #
>
> SOURCES:
>
> Dec. 18, 2009 LLP Press Release
> Feb. 10, 2009 phone interview with Eric Lerner, President of LPP by
> Sterling D. Allan
> Previous Coverage by PESN
> Focus Fusion poses competition to Tokamak - Purports to be a far
more
> feasible and profoundly less expensive approach to hot fusion, in
> contrast to what the international project (ITER) in France is
> pursuing. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is currently researching and
> developing the Plasma Focus Device for hydrogen-boron nuclear
fusion.
> (PESN; Nov. 2, 2005)
>
> Top 100: Fusion / Focus Fusion >
> U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility
> of Focus Fusion - Lawrenceville Plasma Physics and Chilean Nuclear
> Commission initiate a three-year, three-phase experimental
> collaboration to duplicate earlier results, improve and optimize
> efficiencies, and test alternate input fuels in the focus fusion
> process. (PESN; Mar. 18, 2006)
>
> Top 100: Fusion / Focus Fusion >
> Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Submits Patent Application - The
patent
> covers the use of high magnetic fields in the production of fusion
> energy, the injection of angular momentum into the plasma sheath,
and
> a new method of converting X-ray energy into electricity; as well
as
> how to combine these into a functional fusion energy reactor.
(PESN;
> Mar. 18, 2006)
>
> Top 100: Fusion / Focus Fusion >
> Sandia Z-Pinch and Texas A&M Focus Fusion Compared - Billion-degree
> fusion reported by Eric Lerner, et al. at Texas A&M University in
> 2001 has been duplicated recently by a variation set-up at Sandia
> National Laboratories. The two processes are compared. (PESN; Mar.
> 18, 2006)
>
>
> --- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, "chris64strev" <cjrs@> wrote:
> >
> > The cross section is given in barns. I do not understand Barns.
> > However the probability of a collision resulting in fusion
depends
> on
> > the energy. So with a higher power exciter the cross section will
> > increase thus increasing the reaction rate and thus the power of
> the
> > reaction. At 1KW exciter the collision energy will rise to 400 eV
> > where the D+D reaction rate is astronomical. The P+P cross
section
> is
> > smaller than D+D.
> >
> > When a P approaches another P the protons become polarised. This
is
> > quatised so a polaron is exchanged (also known as a meson). This
> > makes the force between the two protons change from repulsion to
> > attraction. There is a probablity which rises with collision
energy
> > that the polaron which is a virtual particle will obtain enough
> > energy to become real and becomes a positron which is ejected and
> > takes away the collision energy. In which case one of the Protons
> > becomes a neutron and becomes bound to the proton by the exchange
> > force as the N and P change places as P<>N exchange takes place.
> This
> > is then a Deuteron.
> >
> > I could not find a reference to the cross section for this
reaction.
> >
> > This is the first interaction. The next stage is D+D>He4. This
has
> a
> > low cross section, however the reaction D+D>He3+n has a cross
> section
> > of about 80 mBarn at 400KeV.
> >
> > My previous experiments showed no signs of neutrons so the
neutrons
> > must have been mopped up by He3+n>He4 because of the high
particle
> > density.
> >
> > The rapid removal of the D formed by the P+P reaction means that
> the
> > reaction P+P>D is favoured over D>P+P and so the reaction will
go.
> >
> > This is similar to the reaction kinetics of wet chemistry.
> >
> > The other reaction that is occuring is e+ + e->2gamma. In
previous
> > experiments these gammas were detected at 0.51 MeV. The energy of
> > positron-electron anhilliation.
> >
> > Most of these gammas are stopped by the ionised gas outside the
> > active region.
> >
> > Looking at astrophysics I see the P+P reaction chain takes place
at
> > 20MK and the cycle takes 10^9 years to complete. This is for a
> single
> > reaction chain. However a 400 KeV collission is equivalent to
> 4640MK
> > so using the theory of exponential increace where the reaction
rate
> > doubles for every 40 KeV increase the rate at this temperature
will
> > be 994 times faster than at 20 MK (1.7KeV) so the reaction cycle
> will
> > complete in 1E6 years or 3.17E13 seconds. If the collision
> frequency
> > is 2E11 collisions per second the reaction rate will be 6.3E-3
> > fusions per second making a power of 32E6x6.3E-3 per cc =2MW per
> cc.
> > My reactor has an active volume of 2.3E-2 cc so the expected
power
> is
> > 4.7KW.
> >
> > --- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, "chris64strev" <cjrs@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The reaction rate depends on both the temperature and the
> pressure.
> > > The pressure in the sun is thousands of tonnes force per meter
> > > squared. The temperature is about 200 million K.
> > >
> > > The reaction rate at the pressure in the tube is much lower
than
> in
> > > the presure in sun at the same time. However the force on the
> ions
> > > from the current in the windings compresses them into the axis.
> And
> > > because of focussing the pressure near the axis is higher than
> near
> > > the windings.
> > >
> > > The pressure near the windings is the force/area and the force
is
> > the
> > > current x number of turns x e0 so the pressure is INe0/(length
of
> > > coil x circumference of coil) this is about 6x15x8.85E-7/ 0.06
x
> > > 0.0785 = 0.0168 Pa but near the windings it will be 0.0168 x
2000
> > Pa
> > > = 33.82 Pa.
> > >
> > > This is additional to the pressure of 2 torr of the gas in the
> > tube.
> > > one atmosphere is about 10^5 Pa so 2 Tor is 263 Pa so the total
> > > pressure is 296 Pa.
> > >
> > > The reaction rate is the probability of a fusion x collision
> > > frequency and this may be calculated. The probability of fusion
> is
> > > known as the cross section. The collision frequency depends on
> the
> > > particle density and therefore the pressure.
> > >
> > > I looked up the power density from "controlled thermonuclear
> > > reactions" (ISBN 0-88275-326- 6) where P+P reactions are not
> listed
> > as
> > > the cross section is too low but for D-D at 40 KeV is 4
> watt /cm^3
> > so
> > > my 29 cm^2 tube with only 0.1 of the volume being active is
> > therefore
> > > 11 watt. I cannot see from the graph how to estimate the effect
> of
> > > pressure.
> > >
> > > However at 2 Tor the particle density is 10^16 particles per
cm^3
> > and
> > > if the chances of a collision is given by the mean free path of
5
> > mm
> > > then the number of fusion reactions in a cc is 1/8 x 10^16 per
cc
> > so
> > > if each collision makes a fusion reaction then there will be
> > 2.61E15
> > > x 1/8 x 10^16 /10^23 per cc 32E6 joules. The collision
frequency
> is
> > > 1/transit time of 5 mm this comes to 2x10^11 collisions per
> second.
> > >
> > > So the power will be 32E6 x 2x10^11 or 7.2 x 10^18 watt.
> > >
> > > I would suggest that experiments show that the power level
> obtained
> > > is between the two values.
> > >
> >
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.