Re: Thermonuclear power plant (request for assessment) BSF

[Y.Porat]

On Feb 3, 1:05 am, Mike Deeth <bbbbbbubb...@y-a-h-o-o.com> wrote:
> My patent was published at the USPTO less than two weeks ago.
> I'm anxiously awaiting feedback, but, so far, nobody seems to
> know it even exists. I would really like to hear what you guys
> think. My website contains all the patent specifications and
> drawings. Please take a look:
>
>    http://home.centurytel.net/bubbles/bubbles.htm
>
> I think I'm ready to begin running computer simulations, but I
> would prefer that an expert in the field look at what I have
> before I invest a lot of time in what might end up being a wild
> goose chase.
>
> I used to have an account on the Department of Energy's
> supercomputers (NERSC), for the purpose of conducting
> scientific research, e.g. bubble implosion simulations for my
> invention. The DOE normally does business with large research
> labs and universities, so I was quite pleased when they, for
> the first time ever, setup an individual account, just for me.
> That was about two years ago, and, unfortunately, I never got
> around to writing any code, so my account went dormant.
>
> I'm hoping that someone in this newsgroup can either point-out
> an obvious flaw in my invention, or give me a thumbs-up, so I
> can confidently pursue a simulation. :-)
>
> Thanks

-----------------
please show us the theoretic base for energy gain
quantitatively
we can assume that what is needed is a dramatic
energy gain

ie

the input elements (all of them)
the output elements (all of them)

and theoretic energy gain-- starting in theory !!
2
additional input energy needed

3
energy losses of heat of the machine itself
4
what is the output contamination products
the degree of danger of it
and how to handle them

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

[Mike Deeth]

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:94efc262-5457-4968-b00e-
c83c87...@j15g2000yqb.googlegrou
ps.com:

>> Thanks
>
> -----------------
> please show us the theoretic base for energy gain
> quantitatively
> we can assume that what is needed is a dramatic
> energy gain
>
> ie
>
> the input elements (all of them)
> the output elements (all of them)
>
> and theoretic energy gain-- starting in theory !!
> 2
> additional input energy needed
>
> 3
> energy losses of heat of the machine itself
> 4
> what is the output contamination products
> the degree of danger of it
> and how to handle them
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------
>

Y,

The following two paragraphs are taken directly from the patent
application: http://home.centurytel.net/bubbles/bubbles.htm

[0089] The gain resulting from uniform heating can be estimated
as [Gain] = [17.6 MeV / 9.6 keV] *[burn efficiency] *[laser
coupling efficiency]. Here the 17.6 MeV fusion energy released
by a DT reaction is divided by the thermal energy of two ions
and two electrons at 1.6 keV, 4(3/2)1.6, and then, even if we
plug in the much lower values of burn efficiency (~.3) and
laser coupling (h =0.1), taken from an old ICF source, we still
get a gain of 55, which is much more than the gain of 30
required for large scale commercial power production.

[0090] But we can expect much higher gains. Large and dense
targets can be optically thick, so that DT ignition occurs at
temperatures as low as 1 keV, well below the ideal ignition
temperature of 4.3 keV. Such low temperature ignition more than
compensates for the disadvantage of whole fuel heating. On top
of that, recent advances in laser diode technology make 75%
electrical-to-optical efficiencies typical, and, unlike the
situation in ICF, where the fuel instantly flies apart, BSF’s
fuel cannot disperse, so a larger percentage of the fuel should
burn. In fact, the burn efficiency for non-cryogenic, high-
gain, room temperature, high-pressure gas, volume ignited
targets, according to results from Lawrence Livermore National
Lab in 2008, should be 50% or greater. If we use the more
realistic values of h =0.5 and Burn=0.6, then Gain = 550.

In addition, the previous calculation does not include blanket
multiplication (the energy released into the blanket as the
result of tritium breeding, 6Li + n -> 3H + 4He + 4.78 MeV),
estimated to be between 1.1 and 1.2, so the gain would be a
little higher.

During operation, the plant consumes deuterium and lithium,
while producing helium.

For a 1 GW plant, the unrecoverable heat loss from the metal
sphere would be less than 1%, as calculated in the patent,
paragraphs [0476]-[0478].

Fusion takes place deep inside the blanket, so there are no
activation issues.

Thanks.

Mike