Good question, but is this a good answer?

 

Even though it is New Year's Eve, this post will be about something else. It is going to be about nuclear fusion again...

There is no problem in achieving nuclear fusion. The problem is getting more energy out of the reaction than what is put into it. So, why is it so hard? That is what you call a "good question". A good question is one in which an answer is not so easy.

Allow me to speculate a bit. It takes a lot of energy to get to fusion in the first place. In order to produce a plasma, the electrons have to be driven off. This takes a lot of energy. In order to produce this much energy, it will take a lot of energy. That energy has a lot of losses associated with it in order to produce it. Imagine a really big internal combustion engine that requires a really big starter to get it moving. The principle is the same, but the magnitude necessary for a fusion device is much more difficult to achieve.

I like Bussard's Polywell concept because it doesn't confine positively charged hydrogen nuclei ( or protons), but uses electrons instead. Think about it. It takes a minute amount of matter, which electrons possess, to produce the electric equivalent of millions of degrees of thermal energy. Electrons are the negatively charged component of the electrically neutral atom. An electron masses at 1/2000th the mass of a corresponding proton or neutron. That is quite a difference in mass. Consequently, to contain it would require a lot less mass as well. Bussard's device is much more compact than the ITER approach, which takes a office building sized structure. A polywell device could be as small as a ordinary room.

In order to fuse two positively charged nuclei, it requires a force that is greater than the electrostatic repulsion to each nuclei. This explains the need for so much thermal input. The nuclei must be hot as the interior of the sun, and it has to be confined so that the atoms cannot repel each other, and thereby forcibly fused together. The fusion releases tremendous amount of energy that we'd all like to harness to run our contraptions. Not only hot, the plasma must be confined by some force. With the sun's mass, the enormous gravity well provides it. In lieu of this gravity well, another force must be utilized, since gravity is out, and that may well take a lot more energy.

Consequently, in order to achieve fusion, a way must be found that is much more energy efficient as well. The Focus Fusion device uses a characteristic of plasmas in order to achieve confinement. There is a phenomena called the "pinch", which is being employed. The "pinch" will enable the fusion. Focus Fusion is using a natural force, not unlike what gravity provides, in order to arrive at the desired conditions that will enable fusion. This is an economy as well, as the Focus Fusion device is also much smaller than a Tokomak device that ITER is employing in its fusion experiments.

But what about the success mentioned recently? These employ lasers. Light can exert pressure as well. Concentrated light, which is what laser are, will provide even more pressure. Therefore, a laser light in the form of a powerful laser device, will provide the necessary confinement so that fusion can occur. Light pressure doesn't produce much pressure. Concentrated light COULD. Evidently it does, since the experiment worked well enough to produce more energy than what it took to make the laser beam. The trouble seems to be what it takes to make a laser that powerful. Much more powerful lasers must be developed.

The Helion device is another possibility. It seems to use a combination of plasma and kinetic energy. The plasma is accelerated and smashed together. The device doesn't appear to be all that large. Perhaps it can work.

Since the devices use so much energy to produce the conditions, I'd speculate that this is a major reason why it is hard to produce net energy from a device. The devices must be smaller and more compact. Such a smaller device would minimize energy losses, or so I think. Just to maintain a large plasma in an office size building would require a lot more energy than in a device that is the size of a room. This would entail energy losses that have to be made up by the fusion reactions.

Besides the energy losses in producing the conditions for fusion, their are losses that occur from the conversion of fusion energy into electricity. These losses are the normal losses in producing energy, but there are others. There are Xrays that are produced from the nuclear reaction, for example. These losses have to be minimized as well. If all the losses can be minimized, a net energy device could then be feasible. There are those who say that they are close to acheiving that vision.

Are we really that close? That's another good question. If I were a betting man, the best bet would not be the laser device. But in the end, that may be the only one that could work. But it appears to be quite difficult to produce a laser that is powerful enough to do the job. In the end, the laser device may never produce a commercially viable process. As they say, time will tell.

Comparative fusion strategies

 

The recent announcement from the NIF in Collyfornia that they've reached fusion net energy allows an opportunity to discuss a few of the methods by which fusion energy is being pursued. (Phew!, what a sentence)

I've studied over a few of the strategies, and it seems to me that Focus Fusion has the best chance to succeed in the near term. The business which was hyped by the Brandon Administration isn't likely to achieve anything for decades. The accomplishment was put into perspective in the last post, not by me, but by the people at Focus Fusion.

Polywell Fusion was the first one I studied, and this was over 15 years ago. It took awhile for me to understand, or come about as close to understanding it as I am capable. The thing that was hard to grasp what the fact that it does not thermalize. Instead, it depends upon the equivalency of heat from charge potentials. To elaborate, the proton is positive, and the electron is negative. Instead of confining protons, the polywell concept confines electrons instead. This creates a deep "well" of charge potential, which the protons are sent into and "fall" into the well with enough energy ( in theory) to cause fusion to occur. It does seem like an elegant concept, and the US Navy did fund it for awhile. The inventor, Robert Bussard died, and the concept seems to have died with it.

In other words, I think that it could work, but it lacks a champion. There is an importance of a champion, who will pursue a concept until it is successful. Bussard didn't live long enough to see his vision to its fruition. There doesn't appear to be anyone of enough substance who could pick up the fallen torch, so to speak.

What Bussard was to Polywell, Eric Lerner is to Focus Fusion. He has the qualities of a champion. If he has enough time to see this to completion, I think he can succeed. It is the human element that matters most. There are many potential paths to net energy from fusion, but nobody really knows which one is the best. It could well be that any number of ways may be successful, but the one that is pursued the longest and with the most persistence is the one that is most likely to succeed. The main obstacle in the way of Lerner is time and money. That is something that plagues us all, for we are only human.

Although money is important, a lot of money may not be necessary. The ITER project is using a lot of money, and probably is the least likely to succeed. It MAY succeed, but it is way too big, and is way too costly to be a practical machine. In my opinion, so is the NIF. It is currently the size of a stadium, and produces less net energy than it would take to cook a decent hot meal. Such a device is wildly impractical, and must be scaled down to something much more reasonable before it has any chance at all of being commercially viable. The Polywell could fit in a room. So could Lerner's Focus Fusion device.

There is another fusion device from a younger man, who is talking big. That would be Helion. The way that concept works is to crash two plasmas at high speed against each other. The fusion occurs, and then the plasma pulsates. The pulsation would create the conditions that would bring about an electric output. The plasmas are charged particles, after all, and if the plasma could be made to pulse, it can induce a current. Voila! A net energy potential could be closer than anyone thinks. It is not possible to say if he turns out to be the champion, but he is claiming to be close to net energy and a commercial device soon. We'll see.

Report December 30, 2022

---------- Forwarded message ---------

Report December 30, 2022

View this email in your browser Report December 30, 2022 Happy New Year to All! Summary:  Success! Switch Tests End, FF-2B to Fire in January Independent Team Confirms Cosmic Non-Expansion, Debate Grows NIF Advance Builds Support for Fusion Wefunder Campaign Ends, New Campaign on the Way Success! Switch Tests End, FF-2B to Fire in January LPPFusion's testing of switch designs has ended successfully this month with the achievement of a switch configuration that cures the problems we have encountered since 2019. The tests showed that we have eliminated random pre-fires, surface flashovers, late and non-synchronous firing, excessive soot production, excessive current oscillations and the notorious negative voltage pulse. The switch pair has demonstrated repeatable synchronous firing with 5 ns (billionths of a second.) While we were not able to meet our initial goal of 32 synchronous shots in a row, we're convinced that is due to limitation of the test set-up, not of the switches. This success will lead to a resumption of firing in January of our FF-2B experimental fusion energy device.   In November, we demonstrated that the new dual switches could pass a greater current than the single switches. However, the greater current turned out to be too much for our spare test capacitor, which failed. Fortunately, we were able to locate a smaller, used but suitable capacitor within days and got back to testing after only a few weeks down. We upgraded our test bed to include coils of wire acting as a resistor. These coils limit the current and harmlessly dissipate energy (see Fig.1).  We also attached old plasma focus electrodes into the circuit and pumped the vacuum chamber down to better simulate the actual firing conditions of the FF-2B device.   Our first week of firing with the upgraded testbed started tensely as we were plagued with loose connections and similar gremlins. But the coils functioned exactly as calculated to reduce the currents to safe levels for the capacitor. We were able to systematically test various combinations of design configurations suggested by Research Scientist Dr. Syed Hassan and Chief Scientist Eric Lerner.   On December 13th, we achieved success, with one configuration yielding 8 shots in a row with the switches firing with an average difference of only 5 ns, well within our goal of 10 ns. Examination of the switch interiors confirmed that the surface breakdowns that had plagued earlier switch designs, and the random pre-firing and soot production that they caused had disappeared. The cracking of the outer Lexan insulator which we had seen on earlier designs had also disappeared. There was also strong evidence that current oscillations were smaller than previously. However, oscillations are a product of the interaction of the switches and the entire device circuit, so we can't be sure they have been reduced far enough for good functioning until we go back to firing FF-2B. Figure 1. The upgrade testbed includes cable coils (red circles of wire) to limit current to safe levels for the new capacitor (barely visible under the switches in the foreground). The switches are the thick disks underneath the plastic housings of the trigger heads. The vacuum chamber is the golden-colored cylinder in the background. We were at first concerned that we encountered some shots when only one of the pair of switches fired, after the initial good run of 8 shots. But we concluded that this was due to the non-optimized functioning of the external circuit and the lower level of current in the new set-up. When the current and voltage rose fast enough, both switches maintained the current throughout the pulse. However, when the current fell, due to variability in the external circuit, the current flickered out in one switch. We don't see this being a problem when the switches are installed on FF-2B, as in that case a much faster rise in current and voltage always occurs. The situation is similar to that of a garden hose: at low pressure the stream will wiggle back and forth but at high pressure, it will be steady.   Based on the tests and the new switch configuration we have ordered parts for the full 16 switches to go on FF-2B. While waiting for the parts, we intend to carry out some control shots using the old single switches. We expect these tests in January and February will lead to advances in FF-2B's performance and fusion yield, kicking 2023 off to a good start. Independent Team Confirms Cosmic Non-Expansion, Debate Grows In a big step forward in the developing revolution in cosmology, a group of researchers based in Russia and the UK have independently confirmed that, as they write, "the first JWST observations of high-redshift objects cannot be explained by the expanding-Universe model". In a paper published December 1st in the peer-reviewed journal Galaxies, Nikita Lovyagin of St. Petersburg State University and his colleagues came to the same conclusion as did LPPFusion's Eric Lerner and colleague Riccardo Scarpa that the size of the galaxy images obtained with JWST contradicted the prediction of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis that objects should look larger at greater redshifts. Instead, the paper showed that the image sizes were just what would be expected for a non-expanding universe, as Lerner and Scarpa had predicted prior to the JWST image releases.   This is an extremely important development in the debate over the validity of the Big Bang that was set off by Lerner and Scarpa's analysis and the initial widespread publicizing of this analysis in Lerner's popularized article "The Big Bang Didn't Happen" in IAI News. An essential step in validating any scientific discovery is replication by independent groups of researches and the Galaxies paper is the first published replication of Lerner and Scarpa's work on the JWST data. As such it adds a great deal of credibility to the evidence against the dominant Big Bang model and undermines efforts by Big Bang supporters to dismiss the evidence as the work of a single heretical group or individual.   Like Lerner and Scarpa, Lovyagin and colleagues compared the angular size of galaxy images (their apparent size on the sky), using multiple data bases to plot how angular size change with redshift, and thus with increasing distance (see Fig.2). While Lerner and Scarpa had compared only the brightest and therefore largest galaxies, Lovyagin and team compared all galaxies, so got a larger scatter in size. But they reached the same conclusion: the JWST images at the highest redshift continued the downward trend in angular size with distance expected in a non-expanding universe and showed no sign of the sharp upward trend towards larger apparent sizes predicted by the expanding-universe theory. Figure 2. Two ways of viewing the same conclusions: The graph on the left, from the new Lovyagin paper plots the angular diameter of ALL galaxies observed against redshift, showing the decline predicted by the non-expanding universe hypothesis. On the right, Lerner's own latest unpublished plot, based on JWST data show that the linear size of the brightest galaxies remains the same with redshift, as predicted with the same non-expanding hypothesis.    The Lovyagin paper does not directly reference Lerner and Scarpas' recent work on the JWST data, but does cite Lerner's 2018 paper on the same subject based on Hubble Space Telescope data. Lerner has contacted the authors to explore possible collaborations. This independent confirmation will no doubt feed the growing public debate over the validity of the Big Bang hypothesis. Already, the debate, bubbling on the web since August, is spilling into prominent general-circulation publications for the first time. In the December 17 issue of Spectator magazine, University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank has replied to Lerner. Spectator is the oldest continuously-published weekly, starting in 1828. Although it is not massively circulated, it is prominent in the UK, especially in Conservative Party circles, with Boris Johnson serving as editor on his way to becoming Prime Minister. Dr. Frank ignored Lerner's key point about image size, but did acknowledge another big problem for the Big Bang in JWST data: the galaxies observed seem to be too old for the Big Bang. Their spectra indicate they have a lot of older stars, which tend to be redder, far too many for their hypothesized age as just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Frank writes that this is "like going to a nursery to visit your newborn and finding a room full of teenagers." However, Frank concludes that the Big Bang is still in great shape and that the correct conclusion is that, to paraphrase him: " Gee, those babies grew up awfully fast!"  Spectator prevented Lerner from posting a comment on Frank's article, but the debate is continuing. The in-person debate of Lerner with astrophysicist Claudia Maraston and Julian Barbour is now available online, although at the moment only to IAI subscribers. We'll share it when we get a free link. NIF Advance Builds Support for Fusion As fusion fans no doubt have heard, on December 5th the National Ignition facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California achieved a major fusion advance with its giant laser. We at LPPFusion join in congratulating the three thousand researchers and staff at NIF on their achievement. What exactly has been achieved? The December 5th shot for the first time achieved plasma net energy: more fusion energy out of the plasma than was put into the plasma by the laser. The laser focused 2.1 MJ (megajoules) of energy onto a tiny pellet of deuterium-tritium fusion fuel. The fusion yield was 3.1 MJ, a doubling of NIF's previous best yield, achieved last year, of 1.6 MJ. This is certainly a significant advance, as getting more energy out of the plasma that goes into it is a necessary step toward practical fusion energy generation. However, as much reporting has correctly emphasized, this achievement is quite different from the ultimate goal of the fusion energy research effort: device net energy. This is when more energy comes out of the fusion generator than is drawn into it from the grid. So, device net energy is thus the ratio of the total system energy out divided by total energy in, not just the plasma net energy. We at LPPFusion refer to it as "net energy" or "wall-plug efficiency" and we strive to deliver a device where a total energy out of the device is larger than the total energy in.  However, the language in media uses unclear terms such as Q for total fusion yield where Q is often just a plasma net energy, and not a total wall-plug efficiency measure. For NIF's latest shot, 300 MJ was used to run the lasers, almost 100 times more than the fusion energy produced. This 1% "wall-plug efficiency" is still a record, surpassing the previous record of 0.6% set by the JET tokamak device, located in the UK. NIF's giant laser approach is not likely to close the gap in wall-plug efficiency any time soon. Lawrence Livermore's own leadership estimated that it will take 30 years for their approach to produce commercial fusion energy.   However, we at LPPFusion join the rest of the fusion research community in viewing the NIF announcement as helping the whole field, mainly in public perception. The new advance, despite its limitations, drills through the popular narrative that there is no progress in fusion energy and that records set 20 years ago never get surpassed. The US government's trumpeting of the NIF's results help to ensure that fusion energy will from now on be included in the options available to shift from fossil fuels' energy sources. Overall, this will certainly aid LPPFusion as well as others in getting the needed funding.   Interestingly, this advance may prove to be a "last hurrah" for the purely inertial confinement approach that NIF has used. In this approach, no magnetic fields confine the plasma, which just does not have time to expand during the fusion burn. But NIF was unable to replicate its record shot of 2021 and may not be able to replicate the December 5th  shot as well. To overcome this super-sensitivity to nanometer flaws in the fuel pellet, NIF researchers have done initial experiments using a hybrid laser- magnetic confinement approach. They run current through a thin coil of wire around the pellet (see Fig.3) and then use the laser to compress the resulting magnetic field. This hybrid approach has promised to be more repeatable than the pure inertial confinement and may well be NIF's future.   At LPPFusion, we hope to catch up with and surpass NIF's achievement of 1% wall plug efficiency. To do so, we will transition from deuterium to our final pB11 fuel, and we hope to do that soon. Stay tuned! Figure 3. In recent experiments (not the Dec. 5th record one) NIF researchers used this hybrid pellet with a solenoidal coil to supply an initial magnetic field. When hit with laser light (purple) the pellet contracted rapidly, intensifying the magnetic field and briefly helping to contain the hot fusion plasma. Wefunder Campaign Ends, New Campaign on the Way The LPPFusion 2022 Wefunder campaign closed on December 9th, with a total raised of $316,520 from 386 investors. We thank all who invested! Unfortunately, the campaign did not meet our full goals for it. The campaign only raised half as much as we did last year, from fewer than half as many investors. To a large extent, this reflected the 45% fall in US total crowdfunding investments for all companies from last year, a product of the global economy's impact on small investors. Together with the $81,000 grant from Focus Fusion Society, the reduced Wefunder round left us well short of our goal of $100,000 a month in the past six months. To catch up with this goal, and surpass it, we are planning to restart very soon crowdfunding on the StartEngine platform, reaching a new audience of over a million investors. We have also received interest from a number of potential larger investors. We will be trying out some new ideas to better publicize our work. The good news that we're sharing in this report should help reassure wary investors of our progress! Accredited investors can still invest in our Reg. D round at the same $200/share price, with a $5,000 minimum. View this email in your browser LPPFusion Address: 128 Lincoln Blvd., Middlesex, NJ 08846-1022 Phone Number: (732) 356-5900 Fax: (732) 377-0381 To contact us directly: Current Investors - eric@lppfusion.com Prospective Investors - jeff@lppfusion.com Questions, Donations - fusionfan@lppfusion.com Subscribe for Monthly Donation Copyright © *|2021|* *|Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc.|*, All rights reserved. You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Thoughts on the current scene, in the year 2022 ending soon

There hasn't been much posting of late, and in particular, the situation in Ukraine. Information may not be reliable, so there seemed to be little point of discussing it. However, some broad strokes may be ascertained with a certainty approaching 100%. Those are these: the war is ongoing, the USA is somehow involved fairly deeply, and the Russians don't seem to be winning, but the outcome is uncertain.

Then it could be examined here on the "home front". Biden isn't popular, but is holding on. The Congress is divided, and the GOP is definitely divided. Hard to compare with Russia, though. Russia is said to be "authoritarian", but what does that mean anymore? Isn't the USA just as much so? If Putin whacks his political enemies, then how is it different than what is occuring here? Stuff that would never have happened in a previous time is happening now in America. The once "shining city on the hill" doesn't look so shiny now. Not much patriotic fervor in the air.

The elections do not inspire confidence. This is hardly any difference than in foreign lands that once were considered "authoritarian". Saddam Hussein's Iraq had "elections", for crying out loud. "Elections" mean nothing if there aren't free nor fair. The "elections" we have here cannot said to be free if they cannot be verified, and the powers-that-be will not allow an open and fair process to determine the truth of the matter. The recent court case in Arizona pretty much seals that. There won't be a fair election if said fair election unseats the powers-that-be. Kari Lake should have won her lawsuit if the laws were followed and the facts were recognized. Neither of these occurred. Free and fair elections are now a thing of the past in Arizona, and in other places in this country now. It is only a matter of time before there won't be any freedom left anywhere in America.

We aren't in a shooting war with Russia yet, but that could still occur. It seems that the powers-that-be are hellbent on a war. They are pushing Putin to the very wall. It is clear that they want Russia to become just another one of their possessions.

It seemed in years gone by that America stood for freedom. Ukraine is not a free country. Neither is America anymore. Why then are we called upon to support this war? For what do we risk war? To "free" an unfree society? How can that be taken seriously when it isn't practiced here nor in Ukraine?

The recent election in this country wasn't much of a choice. The powers-that-be run both parties. There is no real difference between the two. Anybody who differs with the powers-that-be will be canceled out. Their talons are going deeper and deeper into all of us, yet we are called upon to support it. I say NO. I say HELL NO.

The remaining "patriotic" contingent is awfully quiet. If a shooting war DOES break out, who will man the armed forces? The recruitment effort is lagging a bit. Seems like nobody really wants to fight for "massa". Maybe the homos will, but what kind of army would that be? Maybe they could fight with machines, but what if the "education" system won't produce the kind of people who can run them, nor make the machines any more?

Just my opinion, for what it is worth. The powers-that-be are picking a fight that they don't seem very interested in winning. If they don't find somebody who is willing to fight, they are in a lot of trouble. But like Rhett Butler said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Just wondering how many people really do give a damn.

'Tis the season

 

Today is Christmas, so ho-ho-ho... It's been awhile since I last posted. Nothing else really out of the usual, though.

Or if there was, it wouldn't be mentioned here. Generally speaking, all is reasonably well, all things considered.

But it really isn't all about me, I hope.

One thing that I did today was to go out and get some vittles. It's been cold, like it is in many places in the country, and I was getting a bit stir crazy. It didn't occur to me that everywhere would be closed. Everybody is observing the holiday, it seems. To me, that is rather striking. This may not be a Christian country anymore, but it seems that everybody is taking the day off.

So I didn't get anything to eat, except what I've got around here. Don't want to tattle on myself, but I get a little tired of my own cooking. My culinary skills are rudimentary, cuz I don't exactly like to cook. It DID surprise me a bit that nobody seemed to be open today. Not even Mickey D's. Geez, I'd figure one of those Godless corporations would have been out there seeking the almighty dollar today, but nope. Whataburger was closed too. Oh no!

It might seem a bit Scrooge-like for me to expect people to be working today. Well, to tell the truth, I think 'ol Scrooge might not have been the bad guy that was portrayed. Anyway, he came out okay in the end.

I know one thing, this cold weather is a drag. One good thing about it is that it keeps the bugs in check. Hurray for that.