Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: p-B11 Plasma Toroid Fusion

  1. #1 p-B11 Plasma Toroid Fusion 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    Dear Folks:

    I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response.

    Can you be of assistance?

    I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing.


    In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion.

    Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges.
    The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium?
    I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site.


    You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds....tm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have.

    Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source.


    "Hi Erich,

    I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address
    the fusion application. A few points:

    1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be
    crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is
    happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to
    understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t
    seem to use many other than the photos.

    2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to
    errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to
    say the least.

    3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not
    fully trust it.

    3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net
    fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he
    also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they
    hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit
    each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick
    together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the
    collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only
    have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm
    across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles
    fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of
    3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed
    by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ--
    a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either
    you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids
    stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any
    experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that
    much longer confinement times will happen.

    Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than
    focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some
    theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically
    that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory,
    published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably
    reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good
    diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also
    extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the
    dense plasma focus.

    Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But
    they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break
    even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they
    claim.

    I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to
    answer questions on focus fusion when you get them.

    Eric"



    And Clint's response:



    "Dear Erich,

    Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points.

    1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions.

    NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see.

    2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work.

    3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website.

    3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents.

    3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest.

    3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary.

    Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus.

    Hopefully this helps.

    Clint Seward"



    Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi.....Wow!



    "An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our
    technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a
    draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their
    having talked with our technology partners.

    Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have
    copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review.

    "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
    chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
    that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
    EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
    work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
    Motors).

    Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
    plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
    generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
    aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
    compositions."

    Please let me klnow what you think.

    Clint


    Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting
    group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004

    Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons
    (KEWs)

    Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass.

    Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an
    STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for
    reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called
    "electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST
    electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient
    to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel
    laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning,
    are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without
    requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be
    accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g.,
    600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic
    acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab
    and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although
    these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter
    long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak"
    fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must
    then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast,
    EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate
    high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6
    seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest
    from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a
    major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion
    reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long
    "neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision.

    Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale)
    EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or
    projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor
    penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers
    in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600
    km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's
    extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum.

    Metrics:
    - Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities
    (defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
    - Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS
    estimate)
    - Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary
    (officially defined as 62 miles)
    - Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose
    initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate
    its ESTs.

    Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
    formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
    remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
    technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
    automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
    functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
    Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).

    Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor)
    - appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for
    Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY
    2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support),
    but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5)
    within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with
    visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners
    (agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power)
    could accelerate this.
    -MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least
    $2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by
    development of an integratable engineering package.

    TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with
    Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both
    agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable.
    MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing
    their work.

    Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
    plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
    generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
    aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
    compositions."




    It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants ,NIST grants etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

    There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. I can go into their histories if you are interested

    I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc.

    Been sending my posted questions to academics, science magazines, and forums, not a whole lot of responses.

    Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GO...Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter.
    Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a few months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as the paramount problem of our time.
    The New York Times> Search> Abstract

    Thank you for your attention


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Aneutronic Fusion Update 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    Dear Folks:
    Clint Seward just sent this update of their progress at http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ , a very nice time frame, if Clint can find the funding:

    "Hi All,
    The following is the annual update to the EPS progress toward a clean energy solution to replace fossil fuels. Below is a brief summary of where we are. Attached is an updated copy of the manuscript describing our project.

    It remains clear that we have made and patented a new discovery in physics: a plasma toroid the remains stable without external magnetic fields. This is so far beyond the experience and understanding of plasma scientists today that, to say the least, we are having trouble convincing reviewers. We have completed the design of an improved neutron tube. This is what we have to build to demonstrate a clean energy source, and I plan to do the first steps in 2006, with a first demo in 2007 if all goes well.

    Clint Seward, EPS

    Chapter 27. Colliding EST Spheromak Neutron Tube

    In 2005 we completed a detailed design of the apparatus we need for the first demonstration. This is possible because of two things. First, we understand the EST is really just a special case of a spheromak, a plasma ring that is being studied by others, except that the EST is high density spheromak, which will overcome the limitations of spheromaks for the clean energy application. Secondly, we can adapt the EST Spheromak to the well known neutron tube, by applying all of the pieces we have developed over the years.

    We plan to do this by making a new, high energy neutron tube. There are several thousand neutron tubes in use in the US today that safely collide hydrogen ions to produce neutrons, which in turn are used for explosives detection, industrial process control, and medical testing. Figure 1 shows the neutron tube schematically. An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to 110 kV, then directed to hit the target (also deuterium), a process which produces neutrons (see reference below).

    Figure 1: A One Meter Long Neutron Tube Schematic

    Neutron tubes today are limited by the low density of the hydrogen ions. We plan to overcome this limitation by adapting the EST Spheromak to increase the ion density to produce a high output neutron tube. The EST Spheromak is patented jointly by EPS Inc. and MIT scientists who also have published papers confirming the physics and data. Since each part of the development has been done by others or by EPS, we anticipate that this will be an engineering project to produce a proof of concept lab demo in two years, with modest funding.

    The major application is a high output neutron tube for clean energy applications. The high output neutron tube can be thought of as a heat generator to replace a furnace and/or generate electricity. Fuel costs for energy will 20:1 less than fossil fuel costs. Ultimately we plan to use the hydrogen/boron process to produce clean energy without neutrons.

    The development is a scale up of work completed to date. We make EST Spheromaks in the lab and accelerate them. Each step has been shown to work individually, and we plan to adapt them to produce a lab demo in two years. Milestones:

    1. Defining Patent: (Note: co-inventors are MIT scientists). 2000

    2. Spheromak acceleration: 2001

    3. Spheromak capture in a magnetic trap: 2006

    4. Spheromak collision for a lab proof of concept demonstration: 2007

    5. First neutron tube commercial prototype: 2008

    6. First commercial product: 2009

    Our best estimate at this time (December 2005) is that we will need 24 months and approximately $500,000 to demonstrate a colliding EST fusion process.

    Reference: Chichester, D. L., Simpson, and J. D. “Compact accelerator neutron generators.” The Industrial Physicist. American Institute of Physics. http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html. December, 2003."



    Also:

    I am glad to see the interest in Vincent Page's presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion in other forums, (Below Is an excerpt). Vincent Page is a technology officer at GE!!

    He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:


    "for larger plant sizes
    Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale
    Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:
    Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)
    Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%
    Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%

    Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities
    • Research & development is also needed in
    the area of computing power.
    • Many fusion researchers of necessity still
    use MHD theory to validate their designs.
    • MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism
    and perfect conductance.
    • These qualities may not always exist in the
    real world, particularly during continuous operation.
    • More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory
    such as the Vlasov equations.
    • ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.
    • Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the
    limits of the available computing power.
    • Governments need to fund these efforts."


    I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

    You may have seen my efforts with my "Manhattan Project" article, which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will run an article on aneutronic Fusion soon.

    About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.
    My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.
    I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.

    I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.
    http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm

    This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.
    My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.

    Thanks for any help

    __________________
    Erich J. Knight
    "Religion Is Bunk " T. A. Edison


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Focus Fusion News 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    Looks like Eric Lerner is moving down the road!!

    U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_L...ar_Commission/
    Erich J. Knight
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •