Fusion Project

Mixent Pty. Ltd. (mixent@bigpond.com)

Introduction. 2

Phases. 3

Costs. 4

Introduction

This document describes a project for the development of a small prototype fusion reactor, incorporating a completely new paradigm. This prototype would fit on a laboratory work bench and have an estimated power output in the kilowatt range. A commercial design might have a thermal power output of Gigawatts. It should however be emphasized that the theory behind this concept is not guaranteed to be correct, though we believe we can show that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, and even reasonable. Furthermore, given the extreme simplicity of the design, the low envisaged cost of construction, and the dire circumstances in which humanity currently finds itself, this is an experiment that we can’t afford to ignore.

Phases

Operational phases of the project are:-

Get the team together and up to speed.
Discuss possibilities with an eye to determining which of the two approaches would be most likely to work.
Refine the existing design.
Construct prototype.
Run tests and take measurements.
Modify design and modify or construct new prototype as appropriate.
Do more testing.
Take out patent applications.
Seek industry partners.

Costs

The cost of developing the prototype is estimated at between $100,000 and several million dollars. The prototype would have about the size and complexity of an electron microscope, and need not contain any expensive or particularly difficult to work with materials. Most parts would be “off the shelf”. A (very) preliminary design already exists.

It is possible that it may also be necessary to pay a license fee to a third party relating to part of the device, before it can be put into production.

Staffing

Expertise is required in the areas of:-

Ion-source &/or particle accelerator design & construction, with particular emphasis on vacuum technology design and construction.
Mechanical engineering design & construction.

Needless to say some individuals may combine multiple skills.

Advantages

Clean fusion power is the “holy grail” of those seeking a solution to the World’s energy problems. Due to the abundance of Deuterium in sea water (about 1 in 6800 Hydrogen atoms is a Deuterium atom), fusion energy would provide humanity with all the base-load power it requires for billions of years, if we continued to use energy at the current rate. The following table compares the device which is the subject of this project with the ITER fusion reactor being built in France.

Property	This project	Hot Fusion (ITER)
Required Investment	$100,000 – several million	Tens of billions
Target	Commercially viable fusion	Experimental reactor (not commercially viable)
Time frame	1 year or less (assuming full time participation by team).	decades
Fuel	Hydrogen	Deuterium + Tritium (from Lithium)
Target COP	1000?	~ 1
Method	Subtle (Catalyzed)	Brute force

I believe that this comparison makes clear that even if there were only a small chance of success, it is more than worth the attempt.

Technical

Theoretically the device has a maximum power amplification factor (Coefficient of Performance – COP) of over 1000, i.e. the thermal output power is over 1000 times the electrical power required to operate it. A factor of 1000 leaves plenty of room for some inefficiency in practice while still resulting in a commercially viable concept. It relies upon the Hydrino concept of Randell Mills MD (see Brilliant Light Power or my own variant thereof.

In its operation it would somewhat resemble muon catalyzed fusion. However the latter has an inherent efficiency of only about 20%. In other words the output power is only 20% of the input power, which is why, muon catalyzed fusion is not used in practice.

In contrast this device has an inherent maximum theoretical efficiency of over 100,000%, depending on which choices are made during implementation. How much of this is achieved in practice will largely depend upon the engineering expertise and experience that is brought to bear.

The device is essentially a “factory” for the rapid and cheap manufacture of very small Hydrinos on demand. These can then be combined with Deuterium ions to create a “miniaturized” HD molecule (or molecular ion), in which a tunneling fusion reaction may proceed rapidly due to the much decreased internuclear distances. Hence, a smaller molecule will result in faster tunneling, and a faster reaction.

The envisioned reaction would be:-

H2 + D → He³ + H + 5.49 MeV (carried by a fast proton, &/or fast electron)

or alternatively

H2 + D → Li⁴ followed by

Li⁴ → He³ + p

The D + D reactions can be kept to a minimum if the percentage of D in the fuel is kept low. Furthermore, just as in the Sun, the D is consumed to form He3 as soon as it is formed, because it is “swimming” in a “sea of H”, therefore has little or no chance of combining with another D.

Theory options

Possibility	Hydrino radius according to Mills’ theory	Hydrino radius Robin’s theory
Fast electron capture by Hydrino molecular ion?	a₀/137 (H-B11 feasible?)	a₀/15376 (anything feasible)
Fast electron capture by Hydrino?	a₀/28 (D-T feasible)	a₀/64 (H-D feasible)
No capture	Failure	Failure

There are some uncertainties in the theory. These can only be resolved by building a small experimental prototype. Once resolved, the prototype may be adapted accordingly to determine optimal operating conditions.

The table above shows various possible reactions. In this table a₀ represents the Bohr radius of the Hydrogen atom. The first row in the table represents the most desirable outcomes, the last row, shows the least desirable. Testing will show which row in the table is achievable. Of the two theories, Robin’s would increase the chances of success, should it prove to be correct.

It would also dramatically increase the variety of nuclear reactions that might eventually be utilized, and hence also the variety of fuels that might be used.