Prev: Derivation of e=0,5MvvN(N-k) and explaining Doppler effect with f=c/wavelength, where c=c(mu, ep) + v
Next: COME SEE NUTBAG IARNROT WHO HATES THE US COMMIT AD HOMINEM FALLACY; 9/11 was not physically possible to be other an inside job. That neocon-pawn nutbaggery about ObL has been thoroughly disproven.
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
------------------
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Derivation of e=0,5MvvN(N-k) and explaining Doppler effect with f=c/wavelength, where c=c(mu, ep) + v
Next: COME SEE NUTBAG IARNROT WHO HATES THE US COMMIT AD HOMINEM FALLACY; 9/11 was not physically possible to be other an inside job. That neocon-pawn nutbaggery about ObL has been thoroughly disproven.