CrossFire Fusor - Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion Reactor

Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion for Spacecraft Propulsion:
http://www.crossfirefusion.com

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Nuclear
• Fusion
• Reactor
• Atomic
• Energy
• Fusor
• Spacecraft
• Spaceship
• Space
• Shuttle
• Propulsion
• Global
• Warming
• Renewable
• Aneutronic
• Power
• iter
• tokamak
• mars
• moon
• propulsion

[mferreirajr]

Note: take a look at "Phase-shift Plasma Turbine" and "Relativistic Phase Displacement Space Drive" watch?v=GSkxPghXTCg

[Caroliano]

Is there any other place that we can discuss? This 500 character limit on youtube drives me crazy. Besides the prohibition on posting links...

[mferreirajr]

@Caroliano

I have the intention of building a workable prototype, but it must have superconducting magnets to make it closer to surpass the break-even point. Conventional electromagnets will consume much energy producing insufficient magnetic fields; hence, I will ever insist on it having superconducting magnets with at least 2Teslas 50 cm bore.

[mferreirajr]

@Caroliano

My problem is that I'm honest; I will not cheat someone else with a small-scale proof of concept supported by complex and nebulous calculations as it has been done by other fusion concepts. By the way, crossfire is already relatively well-scaled; it needs to be built and tested. The concept is to be as it is, simple, direct, no cheats.

Anyway, I'm very grateful to you for your advices.

[mferreirajr]

@Caroliano

I really don't understand why people insist on tiny tabletop version, even basic calculations prohibiting it. Testing it with DD for detecting neutrons, electrostatic acceleration by itself can produce fusion reactions emitting neutrons. Just taking in mind basic calculations, we can be sure that a small-scale version using conventional magnets will be a waste of time and money. I think, if we want a fusion reactor working, we need at least to respect the basic calculations.

[Caroliano]

@mferreirajr: Not sure if this is already your plans.

[Caroliano]

Then the hard part: try to get financing and support from somewhere: universities, FINEP, FAPESP, angels, etc, for your small-scale proof of concept.

After you get the money, build it, test it, tune it, and have good results, you may proceed to the next step. This may be already a full scale experiment, backed by the scaling laws you developed. Then, if you get Q>1, maybe a first in the word, it will be much easier to raise money to the next and most costly step: a complete prototype.

[Caroliano]

@mferreirajr: Qualitatively, all current fusion reactors concepts are fine... the devil is in details...

Well, here is my advice: gang together with one or two plasma physicists, make some more calculations and elaborate an small-scale proof of concept experiment. Something like 1/10th full scale, where you estimate that you can already get some neutrons out of D-D fusion. Try to hit some sweet spot in costs, cheap, where you don’t need superconducting magnets, etc.

PS: Fine with me.

[Caroliano]

@mferreirajr: yep, focus fusion people are betting on at least 20% efficiency on x-ray capture, or else they would need costly heat conversion equipament to reach real break-even, acording to their calculations (pending experimental confirmation of course).

At the same time, this is undeveloped/unproven technology, as no-one has ever needed to extract electricity from x-rays, even though science behind is quite standard. The same with alpha beam to eletricity.

[mferreirajr]

@Caroliano

Qualitatively, the crossfire concept is fine. Quantitatively, there are just the basics enough for defining the initial conditions for fusion. Maximum gain for p-B11 is by 70, if losses are prohibitive, crossfire is flexible, hence it can be tested with p-Li6/7, He-3, and in fact, even deuterium-deuterium.

Se você não se importar, preciso praticar meu Inglês.