Hi Lou, Even if the experimenters claimed to achieve 400,000 neutrons per second - which they said is possible in that sized unit (but they did not claim to have achieved it themselves) - this represents possibly five orders of magnitude too few for breakeven. I am not doubting their measurement or even their estimate of what is possible.
Even without the neutron generator, to reach the several hundred watt level of input needed as P-in for the ultrasound, it would be true that many orders of magnitude more neutrons are needed, depending on how the neutrons are converted to heat and then to electricity. What value of energy are you assigning to a free neutron? IOW 400,000/sec sounds like a lot but it isn't really in terms of conversions into electricity. A fission reactor typically requires 10^13 neutrons per cm^2 for operation - and there are lots of square centimeters in a reactor, but of course, there is lots of heat too. But cross comparisons can be done. More details would need to be known on the conversion scheme. Thus, they could be further than five orders of magnitude away but if they wanted to engineer them for use in a subcritical fission reactor, where there is a substantial "multiplication factor" for neutrons - then that might be more interesting. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Jones, If the experimental outputs were properly measured, I am not as pessimistic as you are. Maybe the neutron generator could be removed in a self-sustained mode, for example. Also, the tritium could be used in an after-burn fusion reactor. Bubble formation might be increased with nanoparticle seeding, etc. In any case, if the results are correct, the peer-review process needs its own review. -- Lou Pagnucco Jones Beene wrote: > This is interesting - especially in that it validates Rusi Taleyarkhan > claims. > > Shame on you Purdue ! > > OTOH as of now - the device is grossly inefficient and the mention of > having > a route to self-power is ridiculous. It would take at least 10,000 linked > reactors like this one to get near breakeven. Scale-up is a bitch, as they > say. > > A Farnsworth Fusor is less complicated and can get as close to breakeven > without the costly neutron source but it too is going nowhere. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > I forgot to include the text description link: > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/137767342/Sonfusion > >> The following presentation from India describes (what appears to be) a >> successful sonofusion experiment. >> >> The essential apparatus involved are: >> >> - Pyrex flask. >> - Deuterated acetone >> - Vacuum pump. >> - Piezoelectric crystal. >> - Wave generator. >> - Amplifier. >> - Neutron generator. >> - Neutron and gamma ray detector. >> - Photomultiplier. >> - Microphone and speaker. >> >> The neutron generator produces 6 microsecond bursts of 14.1 MeV neutrons >> which collide with acetone to expel carbon and oxygen nuclei. >> >> The fusion appears to be conventional. >> >> 2.54 MeV neutrons are detected - the signature of D-D fusion. >> Neutron arrivals are coincident with photons from bubble collapse. >> Tritium is produced. See: >> >> SONOFUSION >> http://www.scribd.com/doc/137766520/sonofusion >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
