Latest fusion upstart

Yours and mine. This is where you can gas on about how you think the universe works. To a point, after that we'll expect you to actually test your stuff and report.

Latest fusion upstart

Postby csnyder » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:05 am

http://www.unifiedgravity.com/

So these guys (probably Hubert) came up with a theory about gravity. After reinventing the wheel while doing beam on target in academic settings for several years, they pulled back to there own facility, applied their theory and now claim to be making power via proton->LI->HE3/HE4. They claim this is possible because their theory explains tunneling so that they can exploit that effect. At least that is my takeaway from the theory and the patent.

I am not quite ready to invest ;) but it was fun to read...
User avatar
csnyder
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:24 pm
Location: Lexington, NC

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:47 am

All I saw on that was a slideshow about how great it's gonna be. We kinda already know that. I presume that there are more details elsewhere, but that link didn't get me to any.
Of course, these guys just looking for money from the true believers never have scientifically interesting stuff to tell us - if they did we'd hear about it as product that worked and groan about their IP monopoly on it. Unless history is no guide.

H->Li has always been my "theoretical favorite" reaction, but practically speaking, Li ions floating around tend to deposit on insulators and...fast alphas are hard to reliably detect in a sea of fast protons...So it's hard to work with in a research setting. Once you have the math hammered and can do things feedforward with some confidence, that one is definitely worth looking at, despite a resonance nearby that's endothermic (never mentioned by the fanboys, and if they don't they're spewing bafflegab here).

If someone has cracked tunneling in a sense other than just piling the rocks together and waiting (which is what I'm refining), well then. All quantum physics is then "wrong", and they'd better be ready for the Feynman criteria. With no uncertainty principle, there'd be things even nicer than controlled fusion possible - and of course no need to sell the benefits - you'd own the solar system at least.

What I've been up to on that kind of thing is simply getting the info on how close and for how long things have to be to have a decent chance to tunnel into fusion. I'd not seen that quantified anywhere before, it took some real digging to get a probability vs time and distance curve going, even a pretty approximate one. When I did that and looked at the numbers, it turns out that indeed, it's not a ridiculous idea to attempt to create far better conditions than what you'd get with thermal setups and random banging around. The required distances are on the order of a deBroglie wavelength of a 50kev electron (hint), which is commensurate with the Schrodinger wavelength of a deuteron (well, within a few effective diameters, the tunneling probability falls off very quickly with distance). The idea being if you can get a bunch of D coming in to a focus so the density would've become high in the absence of repulsion, and then bring in electrons that are, due to their relative speed, small enough to get between the D ions (normally they are not, and by a fat factor) - you could get the D's to hang around in proximity long enough to vastly increase the likelihood of fusion.

What's interesting is this does pass at least the simplest Feynman smoke tests. It explains why we don't see it in nature - it's not a trivial thing to set up. It explains how what I actually had happen, could have happened without magic or totally new theories of how it all works. The time scales make sense too.

We'd have D's in proximity for around a nanosecond in my scheme, in bunches approaching and passing through a focus. In the scheme of nuclear timescales, that's an eternity - those tend to be 10-20 or 10-22 kinds of times for tunneling to happen or various quark oscillations. If you can get 10-11 tries to tunnel, per pair, more or less...the odds go up a good bit. ;)

Normally, electron wavefunctions are FAR too big for them to help us here. They just don't fit, or localize well enough to be "between" a couple of D ions. It's part of the reasons atoms are so big compared to the pieces that make them up. So, what if we have a bunch of D's trying to get together because we put a bunch of directed kinetic energy into them and aimed them at one another, and at the last instant (well, nanosecond or so) when they're starting to get close and repel one another, preventing fusion, we bring in a bunch of electrons (we had them anyway, but now we have use for what was an annoyance) in, with enough relative velocity so that they "fit" and temporarily reduce or eliminate the repulsion? While this is juggling a lot of fast moving stuff on timescales that are not in normal human intuition...the thing to keep track of is how one fast thing might be geologically slow compared to another fast thing...in this model, the deuterons and electrons are dog-slow compared to nuclear oscillations, even though in this example the deuterons are dog-slow compared to the electrons (>> factor of 60).

In our patent application I described a waveform to cause first acceleration and bunching of deuterium ions towards a central focus, followed by a polarity switch on a much faster timescale once the D's were inside the grid (electrostatically shielded from the grid-tank field) to bring in the otherwise bothersome electrons at the right instant - that's possible as they move a lot faster than D's in the same fields due to less mass. Seems obvious at some level. The thing is, the details of the waveform that will produce the desired results in the presence of a rapidly changing field due to the D ions themselves moving and being at varying densities during the cycle is not only not trivial, it's not even theoretically solvable with current mathematical techniques - it's a fractal and would have to be finite-element-simulated like the weather or some gravitational/orbit problems. For a few entities, that's doable. We have 10-18 or more here - and a far longer time-scale span between the things that matter. So, while in my mind, it's a simple exponentially falling initial waveform - over a few uS, which is what we've been working to get a measurement on for the last two years (it ain't easy) - followed by a kickback to high positive voltage on the nanosecond time scale - the exact details of the shape of the initial falling part - which will have to account for the repulsion caused by the ions getting closer to the focus and each other, as well as the distortion in the applied field that creates - are problematic. Even in an ideal case this waveform, which is also "big" at 50kv or so - has to have a bandwidth spanning 100's khz to 100's mhz - and no extant RF source does that anything like easily and for sure not at 50kv. So I'm having to push the state of that art along with the rest to even try this.

I just couldn't come up with a better explanation for what actually did happen during my accidental super high output. This one likely explains the ones Farnsworth had too - mine was during a self-oscillation that was hard to reproduce - the details do matter here - and his likely the same or at least that's possible with what I saw in his setup with parasitic inductances and capacities.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby Donovan Ready » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:10 am

If someone has cracked tunneling in a sense other than just piling the rocks together and waiting (which is what I'm refining), well then. All quantum physics is then "wrong", and they'd better be ready for the Feynman criteria. With no uncertainty principle, there'd be things even nicer than controlled fusion possible - and of course no need to sell the benefits - you'd own the solar system at least.


Don't you have an eCat yet? That's all we need to become Kardashev type 1 civilization, right? Andrea Rossi instead of Zephram Cohcrane? Hell, yeah! :mrgreen:
Donovan Ready
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:22 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby csnyder » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:14 am

Doug,

FYI, at the link I listed, you need to scroll down below the slideshow and there are links for their theory and patent.

Understand, I am not promoting their solution, I just found it interesting.... wait, is that promoting??...

Donovan, I will sale you my ECat just as soon as I finish testing it. ;)

Charles
User avatar
csnyder
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:24 pm
Location: Lexington, NC

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby Doug Coulter » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:41 pm

I gotta get me one'a them Rossi things. Oh, wait, there's no news about that at all anymore. Seems the newsies cut them a ton of slack, as did the fanboys - but when they didn't deliver when they said, everyone had forgotten they were claiming a thing that was going to change the world dramatically and overnight? Just forgot? At least the fanboys have more or less shut up about it. Maybe that's a reason why old age is a target of some discrimination - we spoil others' fun by having seen this all before and mentioning it. A huge buzzkill, eh?

Sometimes you wonder if humans deserve it. At least they stay off my lawn, anyway.

That site didn't scroll for me the other day, but it does now, and I read their "patent" at least partway through. Their gravity theory (which I didn't read but which would be a huge deal in astrophysics if they bothered to read it and not laugh) seems, they say, to predict a huge cross section resonance at a certain velocity differential, what they call in "v space". Interesting that if true, no one has ever seen that, since Cockroft and Walton, who did that one as the very first man-made reaction, didn't have total control - they had a range of energies, and of course in that case some would have hit this putative resonance and been discovered way back then. Their statements about the peak-ever being in 1935 are total BS that assume no one's been following physics in detail...I have plenty of documentation in physics books of various ages that show the cross sections of that reaction, and another energy eating one that also happens nearby in energy.
At least they made the attempt to come up with decent bafflegab - and for a second there I thought they might be trying to do what I'm trying to do (which is a lot easier with all the reactants having the same charge/mass ratio, FWIW). But nope, or at least, their apparatus would let that be done. Nor would it let one hit a very narrow resonance if one should exist and not be discovered or predicted by the existing math that oops, does predict all the other resonances for all the possible reactions pretty well.

And they need to do research on how to change very hot alpha rays into heat? Really? How about letting them hit something? Want higher grade energy? If you know which way they're going, they can charge up an electrode to near their eV (E. Lerner of focus fusion patented that one). But the first way gets you most all of it easily and cheaply.

I'll have to call BS on that. Looking at the corp structure, it's mostly sales types, investor-fooling pros.
I guess we can wish them luck on anything *legit* they're doing. But it doesn't smell that good.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby csnyder » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:55 pm

Rossi has not went away. He just did another feeble demonstration (11/24/17) for some of his disciples with the latest incarnation of the device. I expend about 30 seconds once a week to see if he has succeeded or went to jail by visiting ecatworld.org.

As to humans deserving it (it being a new power source), that is a tougher question than how to succeed with fusion.

Point taken about UnifiedGravity, but as I read your response, I had deja vu that I was reading a response from RH on the fusor forum. I swear if you would have used the phrase "lucky donkey" I would have had to check for plagarism! :lol:

My jist of your device - which is probably quite wrong - is almost like muon fusion. At the right moment, you would like to fly the electrons between the d's to cancel the repulsion and collapse the d's for enough time for tunneling to happen efficiently. Gross over simplification.

My personnel effort at the moment is in simulation. There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel so I am gathering knowledge and simulating until I think I have a better wheel or someone else's wheel works.

Charles
User avatar
csnyder
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:24 pm
Location: Lexington, NC

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby Doug Coulter » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:54 pm

Richard's "this'll never work" has been an inspiration all along. Maybe it's pride, but when someone says that, I get going. It might not work for the average bear, but my track record shows I'm not quite average. However, the proof of the pudding will be whatever it winds up being, so...I keep at it. I can't see anyone else bringing to the table the sheer range and persistance I do, so I still have hope. The hobbyists are just that, and have little broad knowledge and not much discipline other than it's kinda cool to be the first on your block to do fusion at all. They run out of ideas real quick, or just lose interest. So, in his world, Richard could hardly be more right.

I have something a little better than just hope, though - I have an existence-proof that a factor of around 109 improvement is possible, and the rad sickness to prove that.
Now, that's not enough to get to gain...but if that can happen by accident, and the phenomenon is one of the things I think it might be, then yeah, gain is going to be possible - the accidents (mine and Philo's) almost certainly only hit the bottom of the tuning curve. The usual 100+ more that is usually there DOES get to gain.

I couldn't figure out any way to simulate what I'm trying to do re bunching a pretty high current beam of charged particles, since there is so much interaction that isn't a problem in the more conventional devices that do bunched particles. It's analogous to a many body gravity problem with more than one charge sign and charge/mass ratio for "gravity". If it could be simulated, I could build very close to the ultimate design center right off, but as is, I have to just try things and find the good spot, using measurements I take along the way. That's why I've spent so much time/money on data aq and repeatablity here. And the "kind of like muonic" thing that I think really pushes it over the top is pure theory at this point - I don't have much in the way of experimental backing on it, though a couple of "real" particle physicists aren't telling me I'm crazy - they're saying it's not well explored and I should just try it.

Again, I kind of know that something works pretty well. It's just a question of exactly what that was. I know I can't expect too much belief from those who weren't here to witness it, and I didn't get the data down very well - both my setup crashed, since hardened, and hey, it was an unexpected accident. I have that stuff handled now, so...onward and hopefully upward.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby johnf » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:20 am

Doug
Thats alright as you have two lucky Donkeys!!!!!!!!!

as per Richard's one lucky Donkey!!

PS Rossi has a bag of Fermi worms that need feeding regularly
johnf
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: Wellington New Zealand

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby Doug Coulter » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:12 pm

adonkey.jpg
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Latest fusion upstart

Postby Bob Reite » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:33 am

I personally would try to put back that "power oscillator" you had and try to get that parasitic oscillation back that gave you the gonzo results, now that you can safely operate the machine at a distance. I assume that as part of the remote control project you EMI hardened the data aq stuff. I'd love to look at it running with a spectrum analyzer.. At a safe distance of course to protect both my analyzer front end and the cells in my body!
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Bob Reite
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Wilkes Barre / Scranton PA

Next

Return to Theories and speculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron