Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,545   Posts: 1,598,995   Online: 870
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,075
    Tim: We very much agree. Unfortunately, with the personalities and almost religious fervor involved, I don't think we will find out anything useful about the process for a very long time. I just wish people would study the phenomenon without such fervent preconceived ideas. Maybe then we would determine what is going on, whether it is fusion, structural, or something else.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    570
    I knew Pons and Fleischman back in the mid 1980s, just a few years before the cold fusion thing.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post

    The cross section for DD fusion is not even on the graphs until 10 keV. Thats 100,000 K.
    Tim,

    Please do the calculation again. 100,000 K corresponds to 8.6 electron volts, not 10 Kev.

    Actually, it takes surprisingly little energy to get deuterons close enough for fusion to begin to be a significant process.

    Some years ago I looked at the figures. I don't recall what they were, except that they were in the low eV range, not the KeV range. The 8.6 eV figure is probably not too far off, probably within an order of magnitude.

    Alan
    Last edited by alanrockwood; 04-24-2009 at 01:34 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: corrected a word ("equation" was supposed to be "calculation")

  4. #24
    Struan Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lund, Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    914
    My mind is open on the original issue of fusion in metal lattices, Pd in particular. I see no fundamental reason why it couldn't work, the only real problem is the endless hype over possible applications. For example, I don't ever see it becoming a way of generating significant power, because you still have the fundamental problem of turning low level heat into mechanical work.

    That low-level energy inputs can be concentrated to produce localised keV energies is now well-established. Two of my favourite recent Nature papers involve making neutrons by gently heating a pyroelectric crystal, and X-rays from sellotape:

    "Observation of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal"
    B. Naranjo, J.K. Gimzewski and S. Putterman
    Nature 434, 1115-1117 (2005)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03575.html


    "Correlation between nanosecond X-ray flashes and stick-slip friction in peeling tape"
    C.G. Camara, J.V. Escobar, J.R. Hird and S. Putterman
    Nature 455 1089-1092 (2008)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07378.html

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by alanrockwood View Post
    Tim,

    Please do the calculation again. 100,000 K corresponds to 8.6 electron volts, not 10 Kev.

    Actually, it takes surprisingly little energy to get deuterons close enough for fusion to begin to be a significant process.

    Some years ago I looked at the figures. I don't recall what they were, except that they were in the low eV range, not the KeV range. The 8.6 eV figure is probably not too far off, probably within an order of magnitude.

    Alan
    Haha. Sorry. Left off the k in the keV. 100,000,000 K. That should be better. And its just order of magnitude - 11,000 K/eV, even though the real conversion is 11,604 K/eV. But what's a couple hundred degrees amongst friends.

    Fusion does not occur at 8.6 eV. Trust me on that one. Hydrogen ionizes at 13.6 eV. It's not going to start fusing at a lower energy.

    I've attached a graph of fusion cross sections for DD, DT, and DHe3. Sorry its a pdf. DT is the reaction of choice because it peaks at such a lower temperature. Fusion projects shoot for 20-40 keV.

    I'm sure there's something interesting going on in cold fusion experiments. Like I said, maybe even fusion. But as an energy source, you'd have to dump a lot of energy in to get a lot of energy out. Fusion doesn't spontaneously happen on a large scale, unlike fission.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Tim Gray; 04-24-2009 at 10:55 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Struan Gray View Post
    That low-level energy inputs can be concentrated to produce localised keV energies is now well-established. Two of my favourite recent Nature papers involve making neutrons by gently heating a pyroelectric crystal, and X-rays from sellotape:
    I think that's the sticking point for me. It needs to be more than localized for power applications. We've been generating fusion neutrons for years, but it needs to be large scale to get to the point where it can be stuck in a power plant.

    Shouldn't this topic be in the lounge?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,075
    The neutron generators in nuclear weapons utilize D-D and D-T reactions. The acceleration potential used to be on the order of 50KV, and a lot of neutrons were produced.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    570
    Tim,

    Is there an asymptotic formula that does a good job of correlating and extrapolating the data in the chart to low collision energies? Ideally this would be based on some kind of theoretical considerations, and not just an engineering correlation.

    As I think about this in terms of a collision problem (from a kind of hybrid view, but largely as a problem in gas-phase kinetics, with a smattering of over-simplified quantum theory thrown in) I see at least several significant factors. They are inter-related, but could be considered somewhat separately. 1) What energy is required to climb the coulomb hill. 2) How long do the nuclei spend near the turning point - probably significantly less than one vibrational period of a "conventional" diatomic vibration, so a vibrational period could be taken as a very conservative upper limit. 3) What is the probability of fusion as a function of internuclear distance - probably determined largely by tunneling. 4) What mechanisms are available for stabilizing the newly formed Helium nucleus, which will be in a highly excited state. 5) What selection rules and/or rates would govern stabilization. 6) What role does angular momentum play, since a direct head-on hit will be a low probability event.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    I don't know of what's out there for low collision energies.

    Just to give you an idea of the quantities involved, for thermonuclear fusion of DT, either magnetic or inertial, a triple product is used as a formula to estimate when you will have ignition, which is the goal. At this point, the energetic helium ash can deposit enough energy in the plasma to maintain continued fusion reactions. Anyway, the triple product is basically density * temperature * time. You need to keep enough particles together for long enough that are hot enough to fuse. You can reach ignition from different approaches. Inertial fusion jacks up the density at the expense of the time the atoms are held close together (confinement time). Densities are 1000 times solid densities, confinement times are extremely short (ns-us, not exactly sure). Magnetic fusion goes the opposite way, long confinement times (seconds) and lower densities (10^20 particles / m^3). Temperatures are roughly the same - 10's of keV.

    I just did a quick search ('low energy fusion cross section') and saw a couple papers out there which talk about the cross section down to about 4 keV. I didn't see anything much lower than that.


    nworth: I assume you have some experience with this stuff, noting your location

  10. #30
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgeek64 View Post
    The broadcast did miss alot . I wanted to hear more about the company they mentioned called Energetics Technologies.
    I checked them out on the web and it turns our it is an American company
    and their work has been replicated by the other 2 labs show in the story.
    Here is is a link to their website.
    www.energeticstechnologies.com
    Lol! - I wonder what company Mr OldGeek works for? Do a google: he has spammed this all over the 'net...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin