Fusion Project

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

 

 

Introduction. 2

Phases. 3

Costs. 4

Staffing. 5

Advantages. 6

Technical 7

Theory options. 8

 


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:-

 

  1. Get the team together and up to speed.
  2. Discuss possibilities with an eye to determining which of the two approaches would be most likely to work.
  3. Refine the existing design.
  4. Construct prototype.
  5. Run tests and take measurements.
  6. Modify design and modify or construct new prototype as appropriate.
  7. Do more testing.
  8. Take out patent applications.
  9. 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:-

 

  1. Ion-source &/or particle accelerator design & construction, with particular emphasis on vacuum technology design and construction.
  2. Fusion physics or stellar physics, and radiation monitoring.
  3. Electronic control systems design, construction, and programming.
  4. 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 www.blacklightpower.com 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 reactions would be:-

 

H + H + e- →  D + 1.44 MeV (all energy is carried away invisibly by the neutrino).

 

H + D → He3 + 5.49 MeV (carried by a fast electron from an IC reaction?)

 

The D + D reactions can be kept to a minimum if the percentage of D in the fuel is kept low, which is quite possible when the maximum theoretical COP is so high. 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.