Now as science lovers we would all love for someone out there to design a working fusion generator that can actually generate ignition and sustain if for more than a few seconds. Desgin your own fusion generator. If your good with any kind of autocad or picture draw please give some pictures of it with description. Or describe it in words.
Fusion Gene
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
I'm sorry I messed up my "desgin" because I tried to write on both sides of the examination paper at the same time. I guess I just don't have the right fusion gene.
Mr. Fusion! 
I'm sorry, but what does that third sentence say? At least read what you're typing to yourself and see if it makes sense.
The topic is silly. You might as well ask a bunch of kindergartners to draw a horse.
Well, I like the polywell approach, and the main argument against it (electron leakage) has already been disproved in extensive testing last year. The U.S. Navy is funding it and is satisfied with the data but still hasn't coughed up the $200 million needed to build a full-scale prototype.
This kind of fusion scheme was conceived by the late Dr. Robert Bussard, a leading physicist in the field of fusion research, after whom our Trekiverse Bussard collectors were named. When he died, he left a team of competent physicists in charge, who are still working with the few million a year the Navy provides to keep the lab open and the project going but still not the $200 million it would take to build a full-scale working reactor, which would be about 5 feet in diameter. Instead, they have built one miniature after another too small to demonstrate overunity operation.
Basically, the idea is to have 12 magnetic fields squeeze the space in the center, and pressure can be increased just by ramping up the voltage. Originally, some scientists said it wouldn't work because of electron leakage to the outside, but the latest miniature prototype worked fine, with no leakage. The device is basically just 12 electromagnets in a dodecahedral configuration, all bearing down on the center, where fusion can occur if they use big-enough magnets. Even if they get the funding, there might be some unforeseen problem, but all the data gathered so far suggest that it will work if they get the funding and build it in the theoretically minimum size to produce overunity fusion. It's a gamble, but if it works, the ability to build such small and relatively cheap fusion reactors would obviously have an enormous positive impact on the world economy, not to mention the environment.
Another interesting aspect of this design is that if it works this kind of reactor can also be configured as a fusion rocket for spacecraft.
This kind of fusion scheme was conceived by the late Dr. Robert Bussard, a leading physicist in the field of fusion research, after whom our Trekiverse Bussard collectors were named. When he died, he left a team of competent physicists in charge, who are still working with the few million a year the Navy provides to keep the lab open and the project going but still not the $200 million it would take to build a full-scale working reactor, which would be about 5 feet in diameter. Instead, they have built one miniature after another too small to demonstrate overunity operation.
Basically, the idea is to have 12 magnetic fields squeeze the space in the center, and pressure can be increased just by ramping up the voltage. Originally, some scientists said it wouldn't work because of electron leakage to the outside, but the latest miniature prototype worked fine, with no leakage. The device is basically just 12 electromagnets in a dodecahedral configuration, all bearing down on the center, where fusion can occur if they use big-enough magnets. Even if they get the funding, there might be some unforeseen problem, but all the data gathered so far suggest that it will work if they get the funding and build it in the theoretically minimum size to produce overunity fusion. It's a gamble, but if it works, the ability to build such small and relatively cheap fusion reactors would obviously have an enormous positive impact on the world economy, not to mention the environment.
Another interesting aspect of this design is that if it works this kind of reactor can also be configured as a fusion rocket for spacecraft.
VidiianSkinRash
Ensign
Give me a minute, I need to go check out the Ironman films, my design is going to look strangely like that thing in Ironmans chest.
Or just fire positrons at tritium from 12 directions. That should cause fusion. I don't know it if could ever be cost effective, though.
I could be that in conventional methods being tried for fusion the chambers just aren't clean enough, where just a few molecules of oil can contaminate the plasma and make the critical difference in efficiency.
This can actually be confirmed, using a little-known test for trace contanimants, explained here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Penned-in+positrons%3a+captured+positrons+create+the+first+antimatter...-a07441251
So my suggestion would be to consider using a more powerful cleaning method. Dry-ice blasting, when used to clean food-processing equipment, can effectively decontaminate surfaces of Salmonella enteritidis, E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes such that these microorganisms are not detectable using conventional microbiological methods. Cleaning with chemicals can't accomplish that. Each tiny granule of dry ice, being vaporized on contact, causes the equivalent of a tiny explosion when it strikes the target surface, resulting in an extreme degree of cleaning, since the contaminant is also vaporized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice_blasting
This could perhaps be performed by a robot arm sealed in a flexible material that itself would have to be superclean.
This can actually be confirmed, using a little-known test for trace contanimants, explained here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Penned-in+positrons%3a+captured+positrons+create+the+first+antimatter...-a07441251
So my suggestion would be to consider using a more powerful cleaning method. Dry-ice blasting, when used to clean food-processing equipment, can effectively decontaminate surfaces of Salmonella enteritidis, E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes such that these microorganisms are not detectable using conventional microbiological methods. Cleaning with chemicals can't accomplish that. Each tiny granule of dry ice, being vaporized on contact, causes the equivalent of a tiny explosion when it strikes the target surface, resulting in an extreme degree of cleaning, since the contaminant is also vaporized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice_blasting
This could perhaps be performed by a robot arm sealed in a flexible material that itself would have to be superclean.
Its not that silly. It was probably round table talk like this that came up with the latest generator designs.
Yeah what I meant to say was, post the picture and if you can't include the description of the different parts, just attach a word file on it.
Lcars that for taking it seriously though someone believes it childish. Yeah certainly, I saw how people use dry ice blasting to clean old structures and add on life. I had up to this point believed it was the escaping of those electrons that prevented ignition from taking place.
Wow only 5' in diameter. sounds kinda small but could probably power a small city.
This maybe a stupid question, but why can't we just use the real fusion atoms, both are easily found here, hell some of us have even changed our voices by sucking the helium out of a balloon.
Even if round table talk like this were the source of the latest generator designs, the participants in that discussion at least had all the same backgrounds in physics and engineering; what we have on this BBS is an eclectic mix of mostly laymen (and some kids) with an interest in science fiction sprinkled with a few practicing, credentialed doctoral-degree-holding scientists. Given the diversity of education, then, how can there be a useful discussion of designs of fusion generators?
Last edited:
I think you'll need to use an image-hosting website, such as photobucket.com.
OK, so the gist of the topic is really 'what do you think is the most promising design?". Well, I have been following Bussard's Polywell project for a couple years and think it shows a lot of promise. It's simple to build, simple to operate, and unless they missed something in the scale up, has a good chance of working.
I also love the fusion engine application for deep space travel. (and when I say "deep space" I mean it in NASA's term of beyond earth orbit. not beyond the solar system.)
I also love the fusion engine application for deep space travel. (and when I say "deep space" I mean it in NASA's term of beyond earth orbit. not beyond the solar system.)
Commercially viable fusion power seems to have been 30 years away for the last 50 years. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Similar threads
