Home Nuclear Fusor

[Superfusion]

Okay so i am taking big interest in chemistry now. Mainly because it goes with physics and astronomy. I plan on doing lots of background research and scouring through equipment but i want to scale this up and build a nuclear fusor for research, learning and pure fun. Not to mention how big a thing it will add to my resume. I ask for other peoples help and knowledge as i go through this project. This will take A LOT of background research in order to successfully complete this feat. I am sure that in the process i will learn a lot about chemistry, physics and quantom physics in the process and its well worth it all. Thank you for any future knowledge and advice.

 

Kagen.

[hypervalent_iodine]

A few things.

 

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

 

2. It won't add anything to your resume if you're trying to pursue a job in chemistry.

 

3. Don't do it. There are plenty of backyard chemistry experiments you can do at home that are much safer and just as amusing. You should ask someone like elementcollector1 or jump on IRC and see if UC/Thor is about. Both of those guys are hobbyist chemists, do a lot of chemistry at home and a pretty good at it. UC also has a YouTube channel you might find worth watching. I don't remember it off the topic of my head, but I'll add it later when I remember / have asked someone who knows it.

[ecoli]

would it even be possible to build a backyard fusion reactor? David Hahn's breeder fission reactor would be difficult enough, but fusion is still a huge technical challenge for the world's top engineers and scientists now.

[Xittenn]

Aside from the fact that this makes for a terrible first project, it is a very interesting project and researching the idea would probably prove both informative and quite enjoyable. If I were to suggest a starting place for research I would recommend to begin with vacuum tubes. Looking over the fusor it would seem the reaction essentially takes place on the plates of a vacuum tube so learning how to manipulate these energies and how the electron stream is formed to begin with will be very helpful to your knowledge.

 

Living on the edge is living dangerously, but it never hurts to exam the structure on paper which is always best to do before hand anyway. And as for the resume, education looks good on a resume, blood stains a neutrons don't--no one will give a damn honestly, and in this respect the paper work would be far more valuable and impressive.

[John Cuthber]

would it even be possible to build a backyard fusion reactor? David Hahn's breeder fission reactor would be difficult enough, but fusion is still a huge technical challenge for the world's top engineers and scientists now.

Of course it's possible. It has been done by quite a number of people.

Here's a video with some references.

Edited April 4, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Superfusion]

So what is it exactly that i can do? Can i get a few good backyard experiments that i havent seen a trillion times?

[swansont]

would it even be possible to build a backyard fusion reactor? David Hahn's breeder fission reactor would be difficult enough, but fusion is still a huge technical challenge for the world's top engineers and scientists now.

The huge technical challenge is getting more energy out than you put in. If you waive that requirement, it's much easier to accomplish.

[Superfusion]

The huge technical challenge is getting more energy out than you put in. If you waive that requirement, it's much easier to accomplish.

 

 

While my objective was not to breakeven in energy production when i built my fusor, It was only to complete the feat and collect the education picked up along the way. But hearing that enough i guess i will do easy backyard experiments instead. But yes, This is the dilemma when it comes to nuclear power. If we can achieve better than break even it would revolutionize energy because this can be done repeatedly and is a renewable source of energy. As long as hydrogen exist i believe we will be capable of producing such energy. If hydrogen did cease to exist for some reason then we would die from any of the following.

 

A. Die from lack of water unless we found a way to break free of needing water.

B. Die from lack of sunlight and energy being produced because the sun wouldnt have fuel.

C. Many other things that would end the universe as we know it with lack of hydrogen.

 

So as long as the universe as we know it exist this source of energy would be reliable considering we could produce positive net energy from the reaction.

[Enthalpy]

A fusor would be a funny project, and at the fusion rate it achieves, you won't end like David Hahn.

It has been done often but is still a demanding entreprise for a beginner. You need vacuum seals, high voltage and so on.

 

Hydrogen abundance implies deuterium can be isolated with a significant effort. Tritium, which is necessary for tokamaks like ITER, is not available from the Ocean. Sorry.

[John Cuthber]

Actually any fusor that works will give you more energy out than you put in. However the figures are likely to be something like 1KW in and 1.0000000000001 Kw out.

If you are using one to warm the room then it's an improvement on an ordinary heater, but only slightly- very slightly.

[Enthalpy]

Dear John Cuthber, I recognize here your keratotomomania...

 

Efficiency uses to compare the useful production with the costly expenses, and not the energy input and output - as you perfectly know but pretend to ignore for the sake of your answer...

 

If one really wanted to compare total input and output, he would need to include the loss of potential nuclear energy included in the atomic masses of D, T and He, and then the efficiency would be exactly 100%.

 

Which would also need to catch the energy of any emitted neutrino (since D-D produces an unstable neutron), a technology still immature.

[mindless]

I haven't seen anyone try ultra high pressure electrolysis of heavy water. All you would need is a platinum cathode, surrounded by a metal anode (the container) at 2mm separation, a high pressure container full of heavy water and a voltage just less than breakdown voltage applied. The overvoltage and overpressure would be immense if the container were totally sealed... A separate electrolysis in a domed area in the container could be used to bring up the pressure so that the breakdown voltage in the water between the main electrodes was increased. You could try discharging a capacitor bank at a million volts through an electrolytic cell as described. Even if you didnt get fusion you would get some mega bangs! If you could pulse your megavolts at less than 2 microsecs dielectric breakdown would not occur:

http://www.sandia.go...PRSTAB_2009.pdf

Here is an interesting site:

http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col.htm

but I would want to blast the electrodes with a mega discharge - well, just because I like bangs!

Edited May 9, 2012 by mindless

[John Cuthber]

Dear John Cuthber, I recognize here your keratotomomania...

 

Google doesn't.

What do you think it means?

[imatfaal]

keratotomania could I suppose be defined as an all consuming desire to surgically correct short-sightedness

[mindless]

Further to my last post I feel a bit guilty about recommending discharging a capacitor bank charged to a million volts through water in a sealed metal container, even in jest. It should not need saying but THIS IS EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS. THE DEVICE WILL EXPLODE AND IS LETHAL.

[Enthalpy]

Keratotomomania was just meant as a synonym for hairsplitter.

OK, no fun, sorry.

 

...ultra high pressure electrolysis of heavy water... 2mm separation... discharging a capacitor bank at a million volts... at less than 2 microsecs dielectric breakdown would not occur:

http://www.sandia.go...PRSTAB_2009.pdf

 

The Pdf report from Sandia tells MV and µs but through thicker water, like 0.1m or 0.4m. But never mind, D-D fusion needs only a few 10kV, leading to a water thickness like your 2mm.

 

I don't really grasp why you want to increase the pressure prior to the discharge. A short event would leave water at its inital density which isn't bad. If you plan to increase the density several fold, no container will hold the pressure; this would be a dynamical process (=an implosion), and under these conditions, you obtain a conductive plasma, no more insulating water.

 

Up to now, attempts to accelerate D or T ions by an electric field to smash them against T or D, even at the density of a solid, did easily produce fusion but failed to produce more fusion heat than the electricity consumed. Instead, promising processes use a high temperature at D or T or both, with some containment method, that allows to use the thermal energy of the atoms over many collisions, so that the energy investment may eventually pay off.

[mindless]

Increasing the pressure would increase the yield. Using platinum would allow adsorption of the Deuterium and so increase yield. A working device (pigs might fly!) would have thousands of small containers fed into the back of your fusion powered spaceship in sequence.

[wierdfish95]

Okay so i am taking big interest in chemistry now. Mainly because it goes with physics and astronomy. I plan on doing lots of background research and scouring through equipment but i want to scale this up and build a nuclear fusor for research, learning and pure fun. Not to mention how big a thing it will add to my resume. I ask for other peoples help and knowledge as i go through this project. This will take A LOT of background research in order to successfully complete this feat. I am sure that in the process i will learn a lot about chemistry, physics and quantom physics in the process and its well worth it all. Thank you for any future knowledge and advice.

 

Kagen.

 

well uranium can be found in many places as it is actually quite common, all you need is a giger counter

http://www.amazon.co.uk/RADEX-RD1503-Radiation-Detector-Version/dp/B00051E906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342679056&sr=8-1