I watched the BBC Horizon programme about sonofusion Nuclear fusion 'put to the test' . Like Pons and Fleischmann’s experiment, it didn’t work, but so what ? One of the methods of science is Trial And Error, such as Michael Faraday’s discovery of electromagnetic induction (and by the way, Faraday was an apprentice bookbinder, not a trained scientist). So, although these fusion scientists haven’t been “successful”, they are at least trying, and they shouldn’t be criticised for that, or have their careers ruined by the Powers-that-Be. And what is “successful” anyway ? Surely, a negative result is a success, in the sense that it can be eliminated from future research considerations, allowing concentration of effort on other proposals. The “experts” talk about the Principles of Science, but they forget that one those principles is Trial And Error. One of the meanings of “experiment” is “To try something new, especially in order to gain experience”.
Here’s a brief description of my nuclear fusion idea:
1) In a plutonium (Pu) fission bomb, the Pu is a sphere of subcritical mass (mean free path of neutrons between each Pu nucleus capture is greater than the size of the Pu sphere). This means the sphere (as it is) cannot generate self-sustaining neutron chain reactions. Criticality is achieved by explosive compression (implosion). The density of the Pu increases, and this reduces the mean free path of any neutrons (the Pu atoms are now closer together), which is now less than the size of the Pu ball. So, the Pu ball can sustain neutron chain reactions (criticality). A neutron initiator activates at maximum compression, to start the chain reaction. (Note: Uranium bombs do not need this rapid explosive compression).
2) So, my idea is to apply the above neutron chain reaction analogy to a pure fusion bomb concept. Use deuterium instead of Pu, and muons instead of neutrons. The implosion method reduces the mean free path of muons between each capture by a deuterium molecule (higher deuterium density), reducing the time between each fusion event, and so the number of fusions per muon is increased (before muon decay occurs). Also, during a molecule capture event, the “half-life” of a muonic deuterium molecule (prior to fusion) may be reduced due to reduced deuterium nucleus separation (arising from the explosive compression process).
The process can be likened to a “muon chain reaction”, and combines nuclear bomb and reactor technologies. The bombs should be designed to exceed energy break-even, but with a low yield (< 1kt HE equivalent), so they can be detonated in a water reservoir to generate steam, for turning turbines. I sent proposals to staff members at these places, but none of the experts were able to give any reason why my idea is unfeasible, I must assume that it is a credible proposition.
The problem with "Muon chain reaction" is that the formation of helium from deuterium does not produce lots of muons.
Every PU-290 or U-235 atom that fissions produces neutron-rich daughter nuclei and a few spare neutrons which have the potential to start new reactions.
So you need some mechanism to "close the loop" if you want a chain reaction.
Without a chain reaction, you would appear to need 2 or more muons per fission reaction.
Every PU-290 or U-235 atom that fissions produces neutron-rich daughter nuclei and a few spare neutrons which have the potential to start new reactions.
So you need some mechanism to "close the loop" if you want a chain reaction.
Without a chain reaction, you would appear to need 2 or more muons per fission reaction.
I think everyone needs to look up a paper by Ken Shoulders called "Charge Clusters in Action". It basically says (among many other things) that if you rapidly inject a whole bunch of electrons near an atom, the excess negative charge is so great that it allows nuclei to combine at room temperature. Google it, and if you can't find it, I'll see if I can post a link.
the1phys: The paper you're looking for may be http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Charge%20Cluster...In%20Action.pdf. Shoulders and Shoulders via Shanks. Looks very iffy to me, eg. if there's something useful there, why hasn't every (or even one) machine shop doing EDM noticed it?
QUOTE (lengould+Feb 22 2005, 02:37 AM)
Looks very iffy to me,
And me too.
Compare the breakdown voltage of air (volts/meter) to the average voltage gradient in the hydrogen atom.
Electrostatic effects should not produce fusion, eh.
And me too.
Compare the breakdown voltage of air (volts/meter) to the average voltage gradient in the hydrogen atom.
Electrostatic effects should not produce fusion, eh.
Hi,
If I remember the charge cluster arguement, it seems to imply that the effect of the electron clusters is to break down the coulomb barrier that prevents fusion.
z
If I remember the charge cluster arguement, it seems to imply that the effect of the electron clusters is to break down the coulomb barrier that prevents fusion.
z
I am god. Mike is not a child molester. Look in the mirror and change man. The answer to your eternal search for scientific knowedge is pointless because there are intrinsic properties to this universe that we'll never be able to measure. Wake up and save the planet man. 
QUOTE
The problem with "Muon chain reaction" is that the formation of helium from deuterium does not produce lots of muons. Every PU-290 or U-235 atom that fissions produces neutron-rich daughter nuclei and a few spare neutrons which have the potential to start new reactions. So you need some mechanism to "close the loop" if you want a chain reaction. Without a chain reaction, you would appear to need 2 or more muons per fission reaction.
I agree with you there. With each fusion, no additional muons are generated, apart from the original one (a pity). But a nuclear bomb only needs one neutron from the initiator to start the chain reaction, because additional neutrons are generated with each fission event. The "muon chain reaction" is not intended to be a direct analogy to a neutron chain reaction, and therefore would require a large initial amount of mouns to make the process viable.
The muon chain reaction is non-divergent, like what happens in a fission reactor, where neutron loss from the reactor means on average only one neutron per fission generates a further fission, causing a controlled fission reaction (in contrast to the divergent neutron chain in a fission bomb, which is an uncontrolled reaction). So, the problem is to generate sufficiently large number of fusions per muon beefore decay occurs, to exceed breakeven. That is the intention of using compression by implosion. One way to determine the feasiblity of the idea would be to conduct computational simulations to see if the compression could make the number of fusions per muon sufficiently large. Depending on the amount of energy released, maybe it could be used as an energy source in it's own right, or as a non-fissile initiator in a conventional fusion bomb design. That's the point of research, experimenting by trial and error, like Michael Faraday. It will either work or not work, but no-one can be certain unless it is investigated.
I've done a quick web search for "fusions per muon". It seems conventional experiments have yielded around 150 fusions per muon, but a minimum of 300 fusions per muon is needed for breakeven, with around 1,000 fusions per muon for a viable reactor > EXPLORING THE COLD ROUTE TO NUCLEAR FUSION
I think my idea for using explosive compression to increase the fusions per muon by inducing a muon chain reaction is promising. It's more credible than sonoluminescence or palladium eletrolysis (Pons and Fleischmann), because it uses pre-existing nuclear warhead methods. Such a device would be a Pure Fusion Bomb.
What I suggest is some preliminary research by hydrocode computational simulations, to see if the compression of deuterium will significantly reduce the mean free path of a muon.
I think my idea for using explosive compression to increase the fusions per muon by inducing a muon chain reaction is promising. It's more credible than sonoluminescence or palladium eletrolysis (Pons and Fleischmann), because it uses pre-existing nuclear warhead methods. Such a device would be a Pure Fusion Bomb.
What I suggest is some preliminary research by hydrocode computational simulations, to see if the compression of deuterium will significantly reduce the mean free path of a muon.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 22 2005, 03:47 AM)
QUOTE (lengould+Feb 22 2005, 02:37 AM)
Looks very iffy to me,
And me too.
Compare the breakdown voltage of air (volts/meter) to the average voltage gradient in the hydrogen atom.
Electrostatic effects should not produce fusion, eh.
The Charge Clusters in Action paper has many problems. The claim for fusion is weakly supported only by previous unreviewed articles by the authors of this paper. Their claim for an "electron populations on the order of Avagadro’s number." is wildly unsupported. There are 96500 Coulombs of charge per mole of electrons, and their microscopic "evidence" is on the order of a millionth of a meter in diameter.
As to why I said this was iffy when I hadn't read the article:
Basic electrostatics:
At the Bohr-radius, the voltage-per-meter is 13.6/0.529x10^-10 = 2.57 x 10^11 Volts/meter, based on the standard Energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
But even for Mica, which has a breakdown voltage much higher than any gas, the dielectric strength is only 5000 kV/inch = 2x10^8 Volts/meter, which is only 0.1% of the average force felt on the electron. Any bigger electrical potential than this, and you have current flowing across the dielectric.
This is why I think electostatically induced fusion is not going to be wildly successful.
If you create some sort of dynamic effect, then you are moving huge currents around, and your losses will be systemic and larger instead of localized at the fusion experimental region.
rpenner, no one ever said the charge clusters are supported statically. That would be ludicrous, as you have shown. Rather, they go through the material dynamically. This however does not cause massive 'currents'. I don't think you should dismiss Mr. Shoulders' paper so readily. I mean, how do you explain how silicon and calcium got into a sheet of pure aluminum?
Well, I'm still here. And I sent the idea to the Pentagon anti-terrorism website, and research establishments that investigate nuclear energy, but that didn't make any difference either. My idea is perfectly sensible, creative, ingenious, and potentially useful, no-one has been able to find an obvious flaw in it, so such a thing is not "asking for trouble".
Well, I'm still here. And I sent the idea to the Pentagon anti-terrorism website, and research establishments that investigate nuclear energy, but that didn't make any difference either. My idea is perfectly sensible, creative, ingenious, and potentially useful, no-one has been able to find an obvious flaw in it, so such a thing is not "asking for trouble".
Bum-badda-boom, cause Juip is cool an swirls round-and-round, electrical current, can be found. Now take-a-little glass, fill-it full of cold, round a dense element and pwr will unfold"!? Duda duda bom pada do! With hand jive one of the homies says, then supercold, has producing pwr, for yrs and yrs?
If you think this idea has potential, then by all means approach the powers that be, but judging from my own experiences, don't be disappointed if you cannot get a straight answer, but good luck with your "cool Juip" idea
And me too.
Compare the breakdown voltage of air (volts/meter) to the average voltage gradient in the hydrogen atom.
Electrostatic effects should not produce fusion, eh.
The Charge Clusters in Action paper has many problems. The claim for fusion is weakly supported only by previous unreviewed articles by the authors of this paper. Their claim for an "electron populations on the order of Avagadro’s number." is wildly unsupported. There are 96500 Coulombs of charge per mole of electrons, and their microscopic "evidence" is on the order of a millionth of a meter in diameter.
As to why I said this was iffy when I hadn't read the article:
Basic electrostatics:
At the Bohr-radius, the voltage-per-meter is 13.6/0.529x10^-10 = 2.57 x 10^11 Volts/meter, based on the standard Energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
But even for Mica, which has a breakdown voltage much higher than any gas, the dielectric strength is only 5000 kV/inch = 2x10^8 Volts/meter, which is only 0.1% of the average force felt on the electron. Any bigger electrical potential than this, and you have current flowing across the dielectric.
This is why I think electostatically induced fusion is not going to be wildly successful.
If you create some sort of dynamic effect, then you are moving huge currents around, and your losses will be systemic and larger instead of localized at the fusion experimental region.
I agree. By all means investigate charge clusyters and other methods, but my muon-chain-reaction pure fusion bomb seems to be the most obvious route.
Certainly, no-one has yet been able to find an obvious flaw, so I don't know why the powers that be weren't interested in it. Maybe they want to suppress it, because they know it's promising, and they want all the research money for their own pet theories, or they are planning to steal it, by keeping quiet, hoping I'll go away, and then a few years from now they'll "discover" it themselves, but in a slightly modified form.
We already know that muons generate fusion reactions, and implosions generate nuclear exposions, and my pure fusion bomb combines both methods.
Certainly, no-one has yet been able to find an obvious flaw, so I don't know why the powers that be weren't interested in it. Maybe they want to suppress it, because they know it's promising, and they want all the research money for their own pet theories, or they are planning to steal it, by keeping quiet, hoping I'll go away, and then a few years from now they'll "discover" it themselves, but in a slightly modified form.
We already know that muons generate fusion reactions, and implosions generate nuclear exposions, and my pure fusion bomb combines both methods.
QUOTE
If I remember the charge cluster arguement, it seems to imply that the effect of the electron clusters is to break down the coulomb barrier that prevents fusion.
That's exactly the argument.rpenner, no one ever said the charge clusters are supported statically. That would be ludicrous, as you have shown. Rather, they go through the material dynamically. This however does not cause massive 'currents'. I don't think you should dismiss Mr. Shoulders' paper so readily. I mean, how do you explain how silicon and calcium got into a sheet of pure aluminum?
QUOTE (the1physicist+Feb 26 2005, 04:23 PM)
how do you explain how silicon and calcium got into a sheet of pure aluminum?
First of all, it wasn't "pure aluminum" it was a palladium sheet, exposed to dueterium.
Second, the sheet was prepared by John Dash who has lingering doubts about it's purity.
Another Shoulders and Shoulders Paper
Thirdly, it's clear that electric arcs, regardless of source, produce high temperatures, above the melting point of most materials. The problem of cross-contamination with previous experiments, and the chamber constituants have not been properly addressed in my opinion.
Fourthly, there interpretation of their EV or EVO phenomena is nonstandard. These look like standard electric discharges, which can blow silicon chips at 0.5 kV and up with similar micrographs. See Image 24 ESD EFFECTS IN MICROELECTRONICS WORKSHOP STATIC CONTROL PRODUCTS AND PRECISION HANDTOOLS
Fifthly, the term "charge cluster" presumes a Short Range Electron Attractive Force which has not been observed, even at ranges of 10^-15m, let alone the 10^-10m distance that they require.
First of all, it wasn't "pure aluminum" it was a palladium sheet, exposed to dueterium.
Second, the sheet was prepared by John Dash who has lingering doubts about it's purity.
Another Shoulders and Shoulders Paper
Thirdly, it's clear that electric arcs, regardless of source, produce high temperatures, above the melting point of most materials. The problem of cross-contamination with previous experiments, and the chamber constituants have not been properly addressed in my opinion.
Fourthly, there interpretation of their EV or EVO phenomena is nonstandard. These look like standard electric discharges, which can blow silicon chips at 0.5 kV and up with similar micrographs. See Image 24 ESD EFFECTS IN MICROELECTRONICS WORKSHOP STATIC CONTROL PRODUCTS AND PRECISION HANDTOOLS
Fifthly, the term "charge cluster" presumes a Short Range Electron Attractive Force which has not been observed, even at ranges of 10^-15m, let alone the 10^-10m distance that they require.
QUOTE
When this foil is analyzed in detail with an xray
energy dispersive analyzer, it shows as clean palladium in all places except those bombarded with EVs.
energy dispersive analyzer, it shows as clean palladium in all places except those bombarded with EVs.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When this foil is analyzed in detail with an xray energy dispersive analyzer, it shows as clean palladium in all places except those bombarded with EVs. |
Many of the bombarded areas, but not all, show that nuclear conversions have taken place. The new materials
showing are mostly silicon, calcium and magnesium.
showing are mostly silicon, calcium and magnesium.
This is taken from pages 11-12 of lengould's link, which is the paper I was referring to. If you look at that xray analysis graph, the concentrations of those elements and silicon in particular are just too high to be impurities. Furthermore, those elements are only found in the EV holes. Perhaps the reason these charge clusters have not been observed before is that no one was looking for them. ?
I'll have to see if the Russians, North Koreans, Chinese or Iranians are interested in my idea 
I bet the Israelis [Admin:edited]are interested. They're definitely gonna need as many nukes as they can get pretty dang soon.
Yes, Israel, China, North Korea, Russia and Iran might be interested in my pure fusion bomb idea, and Syria too. It might be a way of developing a WMD, without requiring uranium, and this might help it to be more difficult for UN weapons inspectors to detect 
I just hope international terrorists, such as Al-Qaeda , don't get their hands on a device like that. The Russians and Americans used the red mercury idea in the early 1990s, to trace organisations interested in acquiring nuclear technology, but there was never any danger, because it was probably a joint CIA - KGB disinformation plot, and they knew red mercury didn't work. However, as we are all agreed on this website that my idea is a viable concept, this means it couldn't be used in a similar intelligence gathering mission
It's quite possible that the charge cluster method generates a small number of fusion reactions, as other methods have been shown to do this, eg the fracture of deuterium rich crystals generates small bursts of neutrons. Also, neutron initiators in nuclear warheads use the energy of the implosion to generate fusion reactions (the neutron output being used to start the chain reaction). However, the problem with these methods is that the number of fusion reactions is small, and the input energy is very large.
Naturally, professional scientists already working in this field (in academic institutions and research establishments) have invested megabucks of taxpayers money in plasma and laser fusion research over decades, and built their careers on such things, so they won't want to admit the correctness of my ideas, otherwise they'll look pretty silly
I just hope international terrorists, such as Al-Qaeda , don't get their hands on a device like that. The Russians and Americans used the red mercury idea in the early 1990s, to trace organisations interested in acquiring nuclear technology, but there was never any danger, because it was probably a joint CIA - KGB disinformation plot, and they knew red mercury didn't work. However, as we are all agreed on this website that my idea is a viable concept, this means it couldn't be used in a similar intelligence gathering mission
It's quite possible that the charge cluster method generates a small number of fusion reactions, as other methods have been shown to do this, eg the fracture of deuterium rich crystals generates small bursts of neutrons. Also, neutron initiators in nuclear warheads use the energy of the implosion to generate fusion reactions (the neutron output being used to start the chain reaction). However, the problem with these methods is that the number of fusion reactions is small, and the input energy is very large.
Naturally, professional scientists already working in this field (in academic institutions and research establishments) have invested megabucks of taxpayers money in plasma and laser fusion research over decades, and built their careers on such things, so they won't want to admit the correctness of my ideas, otherwise they'll look pretty silly
I hate to break it to you guys, but the pure fusion bomb has been developed.
Unfortunately, I won't tell you where or when or who.
Or even what other scary as hell dependant breakthrough occured at about the same time.
(but, you can think briefcase sized nuke.)
I will just sit back here till someone sniffs out my IP adress and then live in interesting times.
Unfortunately, I won't tell you where or when or who.
Or even what other scary as hell dependant breakthrough occured at about the same time.
(but, you can think briefcase sized nuke.)
I will just sit back here till someone sniffs out my IP adress and then live in interesting times.
Well, I have noticed that my phone doesn't make the normal dialing tone when I pick it up, and the video recorder makes occasional bleeping sounds for no good reason. Also, two of my PCs have crashed, so I now use computers at my local library. I just wish any CIA - MI5 internet surveillance officers out there who are reading this would find something better to do with their time, other than loading spyware onto my PCs and bugging my house
I've seen the weblink at the top of this page American Nuclear Society. The future developments page hasn't been finished yet, so maybe they'd like to add my idea.
I've seen the weblink at the top of this page American Nuclear Society. The future developments page hasn't been finished yet, so maybe they'd like to add my idea.
non
I would suggest the use of the word starting and ending with "B" and om in the middle is asking for trouble even in a forum.
QUOTE
I would suggest the use of the word starting and ending with "B" and om in the middle is asking for trouble even in a forum.
Well, I'm still here. And I sent the idea to the Pentagon anti-terrorism website, and research establishments that investigate nuclear energy, but that didn't make any difference either. My idea is perfectly sensible, creative, ingenious, and potentially useful, no-one has been able to find an obvious flaw in it, so such a thing is not "asking for trouble".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would suggest the use of the word starting and ending with "B" and om in the middle is asking for trouble even in a forum. |
Well, I'm still here. And I sent the idea to the Pentagon anti-terrorism website, and research establishments that investigate nuclear energy, but that didn't make any difference either. My idea is perfectly sensible, creative, ingenious, and potentially useful, no-one has been able to find an obvious flaw in it, so such a thing is not "asking for trouble".
Bum-badda-boom, cause Juip is cool an swirls round-and-round, electrical current, can be found. Now take-a-little glass, fill-it full of cold, round a dense element and pwr will unfold"!? Duda duda bom pada do! With hand jive one of the homies says, then supercold, has producing pwr, for yrs and yrs?
If you think this idea has potential, then by all means approach the powers that be, but judging from my own experiences, don't be disappointed if you cannot get a straight answer, but good luck with your "cool Juip" idea
To summarise the situation so far:
1. Is there an obvious flaw in my idea ? Answer > no (if there had been, someone on this website would have spotted it by now).
The only remaining options are:
2. There is a non-obvious flaw, or
3. There isn't a flaw, and the idea will work.
The only way to decide between options 2 and 3 is to conduct preliminary research, for example computer simulations. That's why I originally suggested it as a research idea to various organisations. I didn't get any sensible answers though. Maybe it's because to do postgraduate research the applicant must already be at a university, but that's intellectual snobbery: the idea should be considered on its own merits, not the "status" of the applicant.
1. Is there an obvious flaw in my idea ? Answer > no (if there had been, someone on this website would have spotted it by now).
The only remaining options are:
2. There is a non-obvious flaw, or
3. There isn't a flaw, and the idea will work.
The only way to decide between options 2 and 3 is to conduct preliminary research, for example computer simulations. That's why I originally suggested it as a research idea to various organisations. I didn't get any sensible answers though. Maybe it's because to do postgraduate research the applicant must already be at a university, but that's intellectual snobbery: the idea should be considered on its own merits, not the "status" of the applicant.
I think you are on the right track, but the reasoning is not.
The compression in plutonium bomb is to increase the probability of neutrons hitting another nucleus, before they exit the ball.
As for muon-catalyzed fusion, this compression may actually increase the probability of mouns getting stripped from the energetic alpha particles, that come out of this reaction (uDT -> 4He+n). This is highly desirable, because muons become useless, if they stick to helium. So, the mouns are more easily transferred to deuterium-tritium molecules when the alpha particles, that carry them, pass through a more dense medium.
As a reference - the Japanese found out that this alpha-sticking is minimum when they used liquid or solid hydrogen at low temperatures. They are on the forefront of muon-catalyzed fusion research - they get 150 reactions per muon - only halfway to breakeven.
Regards,
Roman.
The compression in plutonium bomb is to increase the probability of neutrons hitting another nucleus, before they exit the ball.
As for muon-catalyzed fusion, this compression may actually increase the probability of mouns getting stripped from the energetic alpha particles, that come out of this reaction (uDT -> 4He+n). This is highly desirable, because muons become useless, if they stick to helium. So, the mouns are more easily transferred to deuterium-tritium molecules when the alpha particles, that carry them, pass through a more dense medium.
As a reference - the Japanese found out that this alpha-sticking is minimum when they used liquid or solid hydrogen at low temperatures. They are on the forefront of muon-catalyzed fusion research - they get 150 reactions per muon - only halfway to breakeven.
Regards,
Roman.
How long can you keep the pressure at the needed level?
An explosion is a pressure pulse that fades away after a short time. Are you able to create enough Fusions >1000 ? with 1 muon in that limited time?
An explosion is a pressure pulse that fades away after a short time. Are you able to create enough Fusions >1000 ? with 1 muon in that limited time?
Light weight, portable, ruggedly built and you can put this unit in the back of a truck?
i'm wondering what sort of tamper you're thinking of using to contain the fusion reaction - U238?, Lead?
the problem with that educated "guess" is containment.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.