Re: [Vo]:Virtual inner electrode Fusor? (was Re: Chlorine photo-reactivity)

[Jones Beene]

Correction (followed by some semi-coherent musing ;-)

> at this range of potential (< 100 keV) 

...obviously that should be <100 "kV" not "keV"


...but anyway, moving on to original PF method of
powering a Fusor with a simple electron gun array,
here is an interesting paper which turned up - and
which might have relevance to maximizing irradiation
effects with coherent electrons:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0007/0007094.pdf

I am assuming that if a QM effect is (at least partly)
involved in the Fusor M.O. then electron coherence
(semi-coherence?) of the input would be one way to
maximize that effect... is a transference possible? 

http://books.google.com/books?id=tkvQQElkW1wC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22electron+coherence%22&source=web&ots=Qcwlwpj7JF&sig=5NrgYS82xew-qeYsXVp7On-DeS8&hl=en

Jones

Come to think of it (wrt "semi-coherence") and
first-off- if there is such a thing which results from
the interaction of a coherent input with a restrained
target] then that could enhance possible hydrino or
other LENR anomalies -- 

BTW - on a related subject: was anyone else wondering
exactly how R. Roy and Kanzius achieved what they
called a "polarized" RF emission, which presumably has
far better coupling to a liquid ? Is it a simple
grating effect?

Lots of things left unsaid in that paper  

Back to Fusors - It goes without saying that I am no
whiz at Hamiltonian mechanics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics

(and often am prone to as many hasty math errors as
hasty spelling errors) ...but it stands to reason that
for some purposes (i.e. powering a Fusor or a salt
water H2 generator) something "less than full
coherence" (i.e. semi-coherence) could still be
valuable, and much easier to engineer.

Re: [Vo]:Virtual inner electrode Fusor? (was Re: Chlorine photo-reactivity)

[Jones Beene]

--- Michel 

> > Either way will work.
 
> Are you sure? A ref to a fusor where the outer
> electrode is the more negative one would be welcome,

The Hilsch "improvement" to the original idea uses the
negative inner grid. 

Farnworth tried everything else, including an electron
gun(s) outside the chamber, with or without a
dedicated grid, to accelerate the negative charge.
Like Gow at Berkeley, PF at first used a cylinder for
containment, instead of a sphere.

There was also a 'mini accelerator'. As I understand
the situation, at this range of potential (< 100 keV)
there is a rather substantial advantage in
accelerating negative deuterium molecular ions (D2-)
instead of positive deuterons. Order of magnitude
advantage in current. He is one such reactor:

http://49chevy.blogs.com/fusor/images/396pxus3386883__fusor.png

Back to the 'virtual' electrode. As you know, when you
fire an array of electron beams into a plasma, as PF
did on occasion, the electrons do not go very far, so
in effect- THIS can be your virtual electrode, sans
grid (from the perspective of the inner volume.

The plasma tends to bifurcate in charge, like a
natural capacitor, depending on the polarity of the
outer containment. If your plasma is colder, and the
predominant species is (D2-)then you may want the
structure to be negatively charged (NOT grounded) and
an inner grid positive- to accelerate the ions. 

If you think that arrangement sounds
counter-intuitive, then you are not familiar with the
incredible nuclear reactor design of Kapitza, from the
60's. 

Kapitza is the famous Russian who also invented the
tokomak. He was able to achieve a virtual charge
separation, and fusion, in a charged *D2 GAS* near one
atm pressure! - no real plasma required ! Yes, this
muddies the definition of "plasma".

I wish I could find the url quickly for that one, but
it will have to wait unless you have time to look. It
may not be online as it preceded the breakup of the
USSR. 

I have often thought (in a bit of historical
revisionism) that if PF and Kapitza had gotten
together with decent funding in the 60's (impossible
at the time) they could have pushed a hybrid idea for
warm D fusion to breakeven. 

The breakeven would probably be complex, and have to
come from what happened to the neutrons -- after they
left the Fusor, (multiplication via subcritical U
fission) but who cares (nowadays)?

Jones