| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Gordon" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2008 06:41:09 PM |
| Object: |
Hydrogen fusion |
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
These electrodes are to be arranged such that alternate electrode
tips along the tube axis penetrate the tube wall from opposite
sides and the pointed tips are equally spaced and aligned along
the central axis of the tube. The electrodes are to be connected
to the high voltage power source such that the electrodes that
penetrate one side of the tube are positive and those from the
other side are negative.
Would the hydrogen atoms drift to a positive electrode, lose
their electron to this positive electrode, then, in the ionized
state, be driven away from the positive electrode while being
drawn toward the negative electrode.
Is it remotely possible that some of the ionized hydrogen nuclei
approaching a negative electrode from opposite directions would
collide with each other with enough momentum to overcome the
Coulomb barrier and fuse into deuterium, then repeat the process,
wherein some of the deuterium ions would be bumped up to
tritium..,,and so on to the deuterium - tritium fusion.
There are so many possibilities, using different hydrogen gas
pressure, electrode spacing and voltage values. I can't work out
the math on this well enough to convince myself that it is not
workable.
Gordon
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 01:49:05 PM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
[snip]
Fusion productivity requires the Lawson criterion,
(temperature)(pressure)(confinement time). Your proposal isn't even
wrong.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion#The_.22triple_product.22_neT.CF.84E>
Thermonuclear Reaction Cross-Sections vs. Temperature
Temp Reaction Cross Sections (cm^2)
(keV D-D D-T T-T D-He3 T-He3
1.0 1.5x10^-22 5.5x10^-21 3.3x10^-22 3.0x10^-26 1.0x10^-28
2.0 5.4x10^-21 2.6x10^-19 7.1x10^-21 1.4x10^-23 1.0x10^-25
5.0 1.8x10^-19 1.3x10^-17 1.4x10^-19 6.7x10^-21 2.1x10^-22
6.0 2.3x10^-19 2.6x10^-17 3.3x10^-20
7.0 3.5x10^-19 4.1x10^-17 5.3x10^-20
8.0 5.0x10^-19 6.0x10^-17 8.0x10^-20
9.0 6.7x10^-19 8.2x10^-17 1.3x10^-19
10.0 1.2x10^-18 1.1x10^-16 7.2x10^-19 2.3x10^-19 1.2x10^-20
15.0 1.9x10^-18 2.6x10^-16 1.3x10^-18
20.0 5.2x10^-18 4.2x10^-16 2.5x10^-18 3.8x10^-18 2.6x10^-19
30.0 6.3x10^-18 6.6x10^-16 1.0x10^-17
40.0 1.0x10^-17 7.9x10^-16 2.3x10^-17
50.0 2.1x10^-17 8.7x10^-16 8.7x10^-18 5.4x10^-17 5.3x10^-18
100.0 4.5x10^-17 8.5x10^-16 1.9x10^-17 1.6x10^-16 2.7x10^-17
200.0 8.8x10^-17 6.3x10^-16 4.2x10^-17 2.4x10^-16 9.2x10^-17
500.0 1.8x10^-16 3.7x10^-16 8.4x10^-17 2.3x10^-16 2.9x10^-16
1000.0 2.2x10^-16 2.7x10^-16 8.0x10^-17 1.8x10^-16 5.2x10^-16
"Naval Research Lab Plasma Formulary"
Nuclear Data Tables A6 353 (1969)
Nuclear Data Tables A8 199 (1970)
S Glasstone and RH Lovberg, "Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions" (Van
Nostrand, New York, 1960), esp. Chap. 2
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 02:56:47 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:47979A31.84FACA47@hate.spam.net...
| Gordon wrote:
| >
| > What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
| > feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
| > voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
| > talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
| > then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
| > penetrating the wall of the tube.
| [snip]
crap snipped.
PISSING AND MOANING IDIOT ALERT!!
PISSING AND MOANING IDIOT ALERT!!
http://tinyurl.com/2g2ukd
20 Aug 2003, 21:16
| Hey stupid:
| 1) Newton summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = V1 + V2
| 2) Special Relativity summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = (V1 + V2)/[1
+(V1)(V2)/c^2]
| There's the math. Now you can ***** and moan about an inertial observer.
| We'll proactively play it your way, *****. -- Schwartzshit.
HEY FUCKHEAD!
We'll proactively play it your way, *****.
| [@] Among the reasons it is unphysical is the fact that the
| composition of two velocities to the right can result in a
| velocity to the left. Another reason is that "time" acts
| just like "space". Neither of these are true in the world
| we inhabit.
|
|
| Tom Roberts
No aether.
No fucking aether.
NO FUCKIN' AETHER.
NO FUCKING AETHER, DUMBFUCK!
NO ***** FUCKING AETHER, YOU USELESS PILE OF *****!
TAKE YOUR POXY AETHER AND SHOVE IT UP YER ARSE,
YOU MORON!!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
The pencil is broken. Don't like empirical observations, Schwartzshit?
Fuckhead.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
"BTW, you *****-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Schwartzshit, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling alley."
http://tinyurl.com/3pwu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 03:28:47 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Nothing.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 04:25:15 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4797B18F.E6A914D6@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Nothing.
That's right, it was all the nothing crap you wrote.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
22 Jan 2008 08:11:02 PM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
Hydrogen fusion requires hight temperature and pressure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
22 Jan 2008 08:25:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:11:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
Hydrogen fusion requires hight temperature and pressure.
Sam, I quite agree, but this may not be the only way to achieve
hydrogen fusion. Actually the effect of high temperature and
pressure is the very high relative velocity between two hydrogen
nuclei and the high probability of a direct collision that will
utilize this velocity (momentum) so jump the Coulomb barrier.
Is there any possibility of achieving this required high relative
velocity by means of a corona with two hydrogen nuclei moving
toward a negative electrode?
Gordon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
22 Jan 2008 09:44:45 PM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:11:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
Hydrogen fusion requires hight temperature and pressure.
Sam, I quite agree, but this may not be the only way to achieve
hydrogen fusion. Actually the effect of high temperature and
pressure is the very high relative velocity between two hydrogen
nuclei and the high probability of a direct collision that will
utilize this velocity (momentum) so jump the Coulomb barrier.
Is there any possibility of achieving this required high relative
velocity by means of a corona with two hydrogen nuclei moving
toward a negative electrode?
Gordon
No--the protons must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
24 Jan 2008 09:41:48 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 5:44=A0am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:11:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
=A0 Hydrogen fusion requires hight temperature and pressure.
Sam, I quite agree, but this may not be the only way to achieve
hydrogen fusion. Actually the effect of high temperature and
pressure is the very high relative velocity between two hydrogen
nuclei and the high probability of a direct collision that will
utilize this velocity (momentum) so jump the Coulomb barrier.
Is there any possibility of achieving this required high relative
velocity by means of a corona with two hydrogen nuclei moving
toward a negative electrode?
Gordon
=A0 =A0No--the protons must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
=A0 =A0the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.- Hide quoted =
text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------------------
so how would you do it Sami ??
by slogans ??
may be by QM eqauations ??
Y.P
------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 08:48:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:44:45 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:11:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
Hydrogen fusion requires hight temperature and pressure.
Sam, I quite agree, but this may not be the only way to achieve
hydrogen fusion. Actually the effect of high temperature and
pressure is the very high relative velocity between two hydrogen
nuclei and the high probability of a direct collision that will
utilize this velocity (momentum) so jump the Coulomb barrier.
Is there any possibility of achieving this required high relative
velocity by means of a corona with two hydrogen nuclei moving
toward a negative electrode?
Gordon
No--the protons must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.
Quite true, but my question is, can this be accomplished with a
corona electric field, under the right hydrogen gas pressure and
corona field intensity conditions.
The corona field arrangement that I described in an earlier post
is set up such that hydrogen nuclei would be drawn toward a
corona electrode from opposite directions, and if they didn't
actually strike the corona electrode, some of them might
experience a head-on collision. Is it even remotely possible that
this head-on collision momentum would/could be sufficient to
breach the Coulomb barrier?
Gordon
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 10:51:32 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 9:48 am, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:44:45 GMT, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:11:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
Hydrogen fusion requires hight temperature and pressure.
Sam, I quite agree, but this may not be the only way to achieve
hydrogen fusion. Actually the effect of high temperature and
pressure is the very high relative velocity between two hydrogen
nuclei and the high probability of a direct collision that will
utilize this velocity (momentum) so jump the Coulomb barrier.
Is there any possibility of achieving this required high relative
velocity by means of a corona with two hydrogen nuclei moving
toward a negative electrode?
Gordon
No--the protons must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.
Quite true, but my question is, can this be accomplished with a
corona electric field, under the right hydrogen gas pressure and
corona field intensity conditions.
The corona field arrangement that I described in an earlier post
is set up such that hydrogen nuclei would be drawn toward a
corona electrode from opposite directions, and if they didn't
actually strike the corona electrode, some of them might
experience a head-on collision. Is it even remotely possible that
this head-on collision momentum would/could be sufficient to
breach the Coulomb barrier?
Gordon
The probability of a particle (atom or ion) in a gas or plasma at
temperature T having the energy Ei is given in the first equation
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_distribution
where the second and third equations explain the quantities N and Z(T)
used in the first equation.
The quantity Ei/kB*T in the first equation [for Ei equal to the
Coulomb barrier for hydrogen fusion and T equal to the melting point
of tungsten (3700K)] is about 600,000 [as explained in another post of
mine in this thread].
Plug exp(-600000) into the Google calculator and you will learn that
this probability is approximately (to at least 12 decimal places)
Zero.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 03:41:02 PM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
If you really mean proton-proton fusion the cross section for that is
orders of magnitude too low for it to ever be accessible by laboratory
means. Anything else will have to address construction of a D or DT or
DHe3 plasma. Unless you're going to try p+B11 (and then deal with all
the brehmsstrahlung).
What you describe might produce a plasma of 1 to 10 eV which is not
fully ionised. You'll never get fusion with a setup like that.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
24 Jan 2008 10:14:30 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 11:41=A0pm, Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
If you really mean proton-proton fusion the cross section for that is
orders of magnitude too low for it to ever be accessible by laboratory
means. =A0Anything else will have to address construction of a D or DT or
DHe3 plasma. =A0Unless you're going to try p+B11 (and then deal with all
the brehmsstrahlung).
What you describe might produce a plasma of 1 to 10 eV which is not
fully ionised. =A0You'll never get fusion with a setup like that.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: =A0http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
----------------------
but Bruce
you will never get fusion with your
TOKAMAK either!!!!
50 years is not enough to realize it ??
and now you are waisting huge money
ans worse than that precious time
you your bombastic European project !!
(sorry i forgot its name ..)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 09:56:51 AM |
|
|
On 22 jan, 19:41, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
These electrodes are to be arranged such that alternate electrode
tips along the tube axis penetrate the tube wall from opposite
sides and the pointed tips are equally spaced and aligned along
the central axis of the tube. The electrodes are to be connected
to the high voltage power source such that the electrodes that
penetrate one side of the tube are positive and those from the
other side are negative.
Would the hydrogen atoms drift to a positive electrode, lose
their electron to this positive electrode, then, in the ionized
state, be driven away from the positive electrode while being
drawn toward the negative electrode.
Is it remotely possible that some of the ionized hydrogen nuclei
approaching a negative electrode from opposite directions would
collide with each other with enough momentum to overcome the
Coulomb barrier and fuse into deuterium, then repeat the process,
wherein some of the deuterium ions would be bumped up to
tritium..,,and so on to the deuterium - tritium fusion.
There are so many possibilities, using different hydrogen gas
pressure, electrode spacing and voltage values. I can't work out
the math on this well enough to convince myself that it is not
workable.
Gordon
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
This is why fusion was never achieved in labs.
What is required is neutrons saturation of a hydrogen
mix similar to that achieved with the H bombs, which
will induce fusion and then heat and pressure.
Neutrons is the missing term of the equation.
Andr=E9 MIchaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 01:04:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
This is why fusion was never achieved in labs.
Fusion is achieve in labs all the time... but not efficiently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 01:30:43 PM |
|
|
On 23 jan, 14:04, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
This is why fusion was never achieved in labs.
Fusion is achieve in labs all the time... but not efficiently.
I was talking about useful sustained fusion of course.
The type that real understanding of the foundations was supposed
to provide.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 01:45:14 PM |
|
|
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:004b2ee4-f5ed-4b59-a9be-7731a2c09db6@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 23 jan, 14:04, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
I was talking about useful sustained fusion of course.
Oh, of course. In hindsight.
The type that real understanding of the foundations was supposed
to provide.
What a bozo you are.
The understanding of the foundations show that sustained
fusion in a practically scaled device is technologically
*hard* to contain and control.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
24 Jan 2008 09:26:52 AM |
|
|
On 23 jan, 14:30, wrote:
On 23 jan, 14:04, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
wrote:
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
This is why fusion was never achieved in labs.
Fusion is achieve in labs all the time... but not efficiently.
I was talking about useful sustained fusion of course.
The type that real understanding of the foundations was supposed
to provide.
So ?
Another failure of the underlying theory similar to the LIGO failure ?
Has any "physicist" dared chalenge the theory ?
I am positive that none has.
Talikng neutrons saturation in the same sentence as fusion is
way too "explosive", isn't it ?
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 10:32:19 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 10:56=A0am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 11:16:48 AM |
|
|
On 23 jan, 11:32, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
No. I watch elementary particles.
Why do you think that fusion was never achieved in
labs, with all your "knowledge"?
Andr=E9 michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 11:38:15 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 11:32, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
No. I watch elementary particles.
Why do you think that fusion was never achieved in
labs, with all your "knowledge"?
Uh, fusion is routinely produced in the lab.
Andr=E9 michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 11:52:11 AM |
|
|
On 23 jan, 12:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 11:32, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
No. I watch elementary particles.
Why do you think that fusion was never achieved in
labs, with all your "knowledge"?
Uh, fusion is routinely produced in the lab.
Sure. Just like LIGO confirmed g-waves.
When was the first commercial fusion reactor that
every government has been waiting for began
production?
Wake up Eric.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 12:16:03 PM |
|
|
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:026e7a67-a0e2-406f-8054-3294554c0c44@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 23 jan, 12:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Uh, fusion is routinely produced in the lab.
Sure. Just like LIGO confirmed g-waves.
When was the first commercial fusion reactor that
every government has been waiting for began
production?
Idiot Michaud can't tell the difference between
break-even and non break-even fusion reactors.
Fusion in the lab was written up as far back as
1934:
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Rutherford-1934b/Rutherford-1934b.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 12:24:38 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 8:52 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 12:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 11:32, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
No. I watch elementary particles.
Why do you think that fusion was never achieved in
labs, with all your "knowledge"?
Uh, fusion is routinely produced in the lab.
Sure. Just like LIGO confirmed g-waves.
When was the first commercial fusion reactor that
every government has been waiting for began
production?
Fusion in the lab is not fusion in a power plant.
Stop being so butthurt about science you don't understand. Find a
simpler hobby, like gardening.
Wake up Eric.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 12:42:23 PM |
|
|
On 23 jan, 13:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:52 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 12:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 11:32, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
No. I watch elementary particles.
Why do you think that fusion was never achieved in
labs, with all your "knowledge"?
Uh, fusion is routinely produced in the lab.
Sure. Just like LIGO confirmed g-waves.
When was the first commercial fusion reactor that
every government has been waiting for began
production?
Fusion in the lab is not fusion in a power plant.
So you have been able to make little sparks with your empty lighter
in the lab.
Hmmm... but the fire didn't start! How interesting!
I am convinced that none of you compute-and-shut-up physicists
ever even asked yourself the simple common sense questions:
How come? What is missing ?
Your problem is that coupled with your compute-and-shut-up
Copenhagen philosophy, there are 1) an undissociable
don't-think-for-yourself element and most importantly 2) a
don't-ever-discuss-possible-avenues-of-solution-unless-some-
other-authorized-compute-and-shut-up-physicist-first-authorized-
the-discussion element associated with it, which makes it
out of your collective reach to ever find a solution.
Stop being so butthurt about science you don't understand. Find a
simpler hobby, like gardening.
I like both and I do both.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 01:36:05 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 9:42 am, wrote:
[snip whining]
You never have any constructive criticism for physics - just
criticism. No wonder you are ignored by the community at large.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
24 Jan 2008 10:04:07 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 7:38=A0pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 23 jan, 11:32, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, wrote:
[snip]
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
You watch a *lot* of television, don't you.
Socks
No. I watch elementary particles.
Why do you think that fusion was never achieved in
labs, with all your "knowledge"?
Uh, fusion is routinely produced in the lab.
Andr=E9 michaud- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
Hi young genious
so why it is not not implements in big sacale
to solve energy crisis ??
how about some QM suggestions
to make a break through by the yong genious ??
Y.P
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
24 Jan 2008 09:59:52 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 5:56=A0pm, wrote:
On 22 jan, 19:41, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas. I'm
talking about producing hydrogen gas by ordinary electrolysis,
then venting this through a tube with an array of electrodes
penetrating the wall of the tube.
These electrodes are to be arranged such that alternate electrode
tips along the tube axis penetrate the tube wall from opposite
sides and the pointed tips are equally spaced and aligned along
the central axis of the tube. The electrodes are to be connected
to the high voltage power source such that the electrodes that
penetrate one side of the tube are positive and those from the
other side are negative.
Would the hydrogen atoms drift to a positive electrode, lose
their electron to this positive electrode, then, in the ionized
state, be driven away from the positive electrode while being
drawn toward the negative electrode.
Is it remotely possible that some of the ionized hydrogen nuclei
approaching a negative electrode from opposite directions would
collide with each other with enough momentum to overcome the
Coulomb barrier and fuse into deuterium, then repeat the process,
wherein some of the deuterium ions would be bumped up to
tritium..,,and so on to the deuterium - tritium fusion.
There are so many possibilities, using different hydrogen gas
pressure, electrode spacing and =A0voltage values. I can't work out
the math on this well enough to convince myself that it is not
workable.
Gordon
There is a curious misconception in the community that heat
and pressure will produce hydrogen fusion, similar to the
idea that lighting a fire at the bottom of a wet phone post
will produce a booster rocket to put a satellite in orbit.
This is why fusion was never achieved in labs.
What is required is neutrons saturation of a hydrogen
mix similar to that achieved with the H bombs, which
will induce fusion and then heat and pressure.
Neutrons is the missing term of the equation.
Andr=E9 MIchaud- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------------
neerly right!
i liked your photn pole methaphore
untill that you were right
but not forther
iMHO
the energy required should be achieved by ..
**counter acceleration* of the proper particles
he cheapest are of course the protons!!
dont forget the 'cost benefit' argument
so you have to look for the cheapest
and please do me a favour and dont mix the hydrogen bomb here ...
we need a smale scale proccess controled one
not bombs ...
the fision point should not be at the sourse
from which the particles are emmited
as the op suggested
but far away from the sourse
fot instance the mid way between the sources
or else the sourses will be blown off
so
atmidd way there must be a sort of a sphere
in wich the huge heat will be created
and it must be well paded with heat resistant meterials
and that will be the location in which the heat will be extarcted for
the useful purpuis
now ifone will ask waht about the relulsion of protons
may be use proton neutron collision ??
but does not seem good because youcant accelerate
neutrons
there fore i recently suggested to start
counter accelearting **protons*
but a short way before collision point
to lok for away to cange one of the accelerated protns
from being a proton to be a neutron
and i went on suugestiong
that it will be done by
inserting a perpendicular ange to the proton stream
a streem of electrons
that should do the swich (proton ------> neutron)
now we are not done yet
we got only Deutrons and may be trititons..
so waht next ??
just wait for my suggestions if asked for
by the appropriate institutes !!
now a quation
could not all the above be suggested
by a good mathematician ?? (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
22 Jan 2008 07:31:08 PM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 7:41 pm, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas.
The bare protons and/or deuterons will have positive charges.
They will repel each other.
To initiate fusion, they must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.
They need at least 4x10^5 eV to collide:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NICONF96.html
Not easy at temperatures that won't vaporize your enclosure.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
22 Jan 2008 07:55:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:31:08 -0800 (PST), tadchem
<tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:41 pm, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas.
The bare protons and/or deuterons will have positive charges.
They will repel each other.
To initiate fusion, they must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.
They need at least 4x10^5 eV to collide:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NICONF96.html
Not easy at temperatures that won't vaporize your enclosure.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Quite true, Tom, but two bare protons/deuterons would be
attracted toward a negative electrode, and at the same time be
repelled by the positive electrode that just stripped away the
electron.
If these protons/deuterons happened to be coming toward this
negative electrode from opposite directions, could they perhaps
miss the electrode and collide with each other some times?
I can't work out the math on this but it seems that there is a
reasonable probability that this could happen. I'm sure the
hydrogen gas pressure, the electrode spacing and voltage level
would have to be within certain limits, and maybe these limits
are beyond that which can be set up.
The concept keeps haunting my brain, and I just wanted to see the
opinions of others on the matter.
Gordon
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Hydrogen fusion |
23 Jan 2008 10:26:19 AM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 8:55 pm, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:31:08 -0800 (PST), tadchem
<tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:41 pm, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
What are the arguments and the mathematics contraindicating the
feasibility of producing hydrogen fusion by discharging a high dc
voltage corona within an enclosure filled with hydrogen gas.
The bare protons and/or deuterons will have positive charges.
They will repel each other.
To initiate fusion, they must be thrown TOGETHER with more energy than
the coulomb barrier that repels them from each other.
They need at least 4x10^5 eV to collide:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NICONF96.html
Not easy at temperatures that won't vaporize your enclosure.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Quite true, Tom, but two bare protons/deuterons would be
attracted toward a negative electrode, and at the same time be
repelled by the positive electrode that just stripped away the
electron.
If these protons/deuterons happened to be coming toward this
negative electrode from opposite directions, could they perhaps
miss the electrode and collide with each other some times?
The protons would have to have a relative energy of 400,000 electron
volts. If you put an annular cathode in the middle between two anodes
and ionized each hydrogen with 200,000 volts or more, then they would
have enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion (the Coulomb
barrier) and actually make contact with each other. If the magnetic
moments were opposed, then perhaps they would 'stick' and fuse.
The problem is that not all the hydrogens would do this. Most would
not. They would be bouncing around inside your enclosure with 200,000
electron volts of energy EACH. That corresponds to a temperature of
(200000 eV/ion) * (1.602e-19 Joules/eV) * (6.02252e23 ions/mole) /
(8.31433 Joules/mole-Kelvin) = 2.32e9 Kelvins
(that's 2 BILLION degrees!)
What will you make your anodes and cathode out of to stand up to that
temperature?
I can't work out the math on this but it seems that there is a
reasonable probability that this could happen. I'm sure the
hydrogen gas pressure, the electrode spacing and voltage level
would have to be within certain limits, and maybe these limits
are beyond that which can be set up.
Probabilities will depend on energies - i.e. temperature & voltage.
The higher they are, the more likely that fusion could occur. The
limits would be the melting temperature of your electrodes.
Tungsten melts at about 3700 Kelvins. The average kinetic energy of an
atom at this temperature is about 0.0000015th of the minimum kinetic
energy for hydrogen fusion. Even given an open-ended Maxwell-
Boltzmann distribution of particle energies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_statistics
the probability of a particle having an energy above a specific
threshold falls off exponentially as the threshold is raised.
In a gas at 3700K, only a VERY small number will have an energy
corresponding to 2,320,000,000K. The chance of two such particles
meeting in opposite directions is negligible.
The concept keeps haunting my brain, and I just wanted to see the
opinions of others on the matter.
My opinion is that this kind of fusion is what is termed "an unlikely
event".
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
