A new suggestion, about the new big linear accelerator that is now being designed!!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next: looking
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 02:53 On Jul 28, 12:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 1:48 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Y.Porat wrote: > > > I have some new suggestions about > > > how to make that linear accelerator > > > (among the other missions ) -- > > > a base for a much more efficient Fusion reactor!! > > > yet it needs a spacial adaptation for that mission > > > and it has to be done right at the beginning of that > > > design . > > > (while that additional adaptation can better serve - even the other > > > missions as well !!!) > > > if they will address me - > > > i will deliver it to them > > > <giggle> > > > A little knowledge goes a long way. You should look up: > > A) What types of particles will be used in the linear accelerator? > > B) What types of particles are needed to induce fusion? > > > Then you could answer the crucial question: are they the same? > > > Hint: if they are not the same, your "suggestion" is useless. > > > Tom Roberts > > ------------------ > that is why i am talking about some > REDESIGN OF THE PROJEXCT > BEFORE IT STARTS > iow > to keep some open eyes and ears to as many suggestions that can be > no matter from whom they come > with no prejudices !!! > > after all > the budget there is AT LEST > 13 billions of public money !!! > and no need to** repeat** the "flop" of the > current LHC > Y.P > ---------------------------------------- You realize that if you DID use a linear accelerator to fuse some particles/atoms/whatever-you-think, it will probably generate less energy than it took to accelerate the particles for collision anyway.
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jul 2010 07:32 On Jul 28, 8:53 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 12:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 28, 1:48 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > Y.Porat wrote: > > > > I have some new suggestions about > > > > how to make that linear accelerator > > > > (among the other missions ) -- > > > > a base for a much more efficient Fusion reactor!! > > > > yet it needs a spacial adaptation for that mission > > > > and it has to be done right at the beginning of that > > > > design . > > > > (while that additional adaptation can better serve - even the other > > > > missions as well !!!) > > > > if they will address me - > > > > i will deliver it to them > > > > <giggle> > > > > A little knowledge goes a long way. You should look up: > > > A) What types of particles will be used in the linear accelerator? > > > B) What types of particles are needed to induce fusion? > > > > Then you could answer the crucial question: are they the same? > > > > Hint: if they are not the same, your "suggestion" is useless. > > > > Tom Roberts > > > ------------------ > > that is why i am talking about some > > REDESIGN OF THE PROJEXCT > > BEFORE IT STARTS > > iow > > to keep some open eyes and ears to as many suggestions that can be > > no matter from whom they come > > with no prejudices !!! > > > after all > > the budget there is AT LEST > > 13 billions of public money !!! > > and no need to** repeat** the "flop" of the > > current LHC > > Y.P > > ---------------------------------------- > > You realize that if you DID use a linear accelerator to fuse some > particles/atoms/whatever-you-think, it will probably generate less > energy than it took to accelerate the particles for collision anyway. ------------ since you asked a legitimate APPOSITE question I will try to answer 1 i have no idea about the new accelerator guess why because a guss no one at this moment knows what wil come out of it certainly to make some fusion in such a big monster -- is uneconomic!! many orders of magnitude uneconomic!! 2 my suggestion is to make it something more economic than say the Tokamak !!! 3 at this stage my suggestion is very abstract and obviously far from being ripe for instance it is clear to meeven right now that is is not enough to put those particle mirrors at the edges of it because while aprticles are recoild they scatter and there is a need to collect and condence them again to a narrow beam !! very authomatically and very quick !! 3 i have said yet noting about the fusion act or device that will do it i keep it for later but as you se (btw) i wonder if it is an unprecedented suggestion of mime i can hardly imagine that no one thought about it before !!!...) anyway as you see there is a lot to examine about it not only toexamine but add on it more and more about it really needs yet something has to be started and not repeat as idiot parrots exactly waht was already done and appaently failed!! th every fact that so soon after it was inaugurated the already thing aboutthe next monster it means they dont expect "too much" (in understatement ) from the existing accelerator so botom line for the best of my understanding and knowledge a linear accelerator that will have some ' recoil pistons ' at its edges ' will be ways more efficient for any purpous even just a little example example it might need a much shorter length and that is why i offer it for peer review as a start model !!! and new ideas and improvements are welcome not only to me !!!.... ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jul 2010 03:23 On Jul 27, 4:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have some new suggestions about > how to make that linear accelerator > (among the other missions ) -- > a base for a much more efficient Fusion reactor!! > > yet it needs a spacial adaptation for that mission > and it has to be done right at the beginning of that > design . > (while that additional adaptation can better serve - even the other > missions as well !!!) > > if they will address me - > i will deliver it to them > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- and now since i dont see any cleaver help i will do something myself and btw you can get a little lesson how a creative mind is working first i started with some 'wild abstract idea then is a second in a critics thought done by my second personality -- i find a problem: if we take to above apparatus as suggested my recoiling (say electrons but it could be protons as well !!) ---- --will collide with the coming ones )**not at the location i wanted them to collide** ie in random locations !! so what can be a solution for that ???... lets try this the accelerator has to be designed as a ***two way road'' ** not a 'one way road' and even that is not good enough1 it has to be built and designed as follows from 3 parts along it: two side parts as a 'two way road' the middle part (the collision part that should be actually very short relative to the others ) *(*as a one way road** !!! how about that?? and i ddint say yet anything specific about the special fusion design !! (:-) TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 09:18 Your mirror will only work if the motes are Fermi liquid--that is, crýoghenic. But as I said, a HP fusor is way better than a HT or Hv fusor. -Aut
From: Y.Porat on 1 Aug 2010 11:10
On Aug 1, 3:18 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Your mirror will only work if the motes are Fermi liquid--that is, > crýoghenic. ----------------- i ddint say anythig about what should be that 'mirror i said it should be a 'particle mirror ' it is as for now just an abstract idea it should be found out what will make the best job ----------- But as I said, a HP fusor is way better than a HT or Hv > fusor. > ---------------- i must admit i ddint bother to find out waht are those HT Hv HP reactors can you explain and why do you think the HP is better i agree that my HP writer machine is good .. > -Aut -------------- BTW did you understand my suggestion about the sections that are one way 'roads' and two ways roads ?? anyway thanks for your remarks ATB Y.Porat ------------------ |