On Dec 8, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Yes, good point Robin.
BTW, Google is very helpful for this kind of calculations, try
Googling:
1e19 MeV per 10 s in kW
Michel
2009/12/5 <mix...@bigpond.com>
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:02:45
+0100:
Hi,
[snip]
For instance, the laser
welding nuclear fusion used by Arata and Zhang was only
300 watts and generated about 1019 to 1020 particles per 10
seconds.
...as I believe I have pointed out previously, this has to be wrong.
1E19 particles / 10 sec = 1E18 / sec. which in turn represents
1E18 reactions /
sec. If we assume a very modest 1 MeV / nuclear reaction, this
equates to a
power of 160 kW, which I very strongly doubt actually happened.
I take it you are talking about:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf
Which summarizes:
"These data were obtained using an input pulse with a pulse power of
10^19 watt/50-ps. The plasma temperature was 10^4 ev and the number
of generated particles was 10^13 per pulse. As shown in red color,
using an input pulse with pulse power of 10^15 watt over a 1-ps
period, the plasma temperature was 10^3 ev and the number of
generated particles was 10^5/pulse. This is the latest report for
thermonuclear fusion using ìgaseous deuteriumî as fuel. In contrast,
there is the Laser Welding nuclear fusion system using ìsolid
Pycnodeuteriumî as fuel. Our Laser implosion system used only 300
watt and generated about 10^19 to 10^20 particles per 10 seconds."
I wonder if there is a typo there or problem in translation. Seems
coincidental the laser pulse power is 10^19 watts. Hmmmm...
The laser puts out 10^19 watt for 50 ps, which is (1x10^19 W)
(50x10^-12 s) = 5x10^8 J. Astounding! That is enough energy in 50 ps
to provide 160 kw for 3,333 seconds, or about an hour.
The power stated as actually used was 10^15 W for 1 ps, or 1,000 J,
which only provides 160 kW for 6.7 ms. That is somewhat like using
an earth mover to weed a pocket garden. It produced 10^15 particles,
which at 1 MeV per particle is an energy output of 160 J, vs the
1,000 J applied.
Hmmmm... 160 J, 160,000 J/s ... strange numerical coincidence.
It looks like there may indeed be some typos.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
