4 ms·

I'll take this opportunity, to scream my fusion startups name futilely into the wind once again, like a crazed crackpot. I have only a dim hope that it might re

I'll take this opportunity, to scream my fusion startups name futilely into the wind once again, like a crazed crackpot. I have only a dim hope that it might result in a closer look by someone able to evaluate it. http://www.ddprofusion.com http://www.ddprofusion.com

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Your link literally says nothing solid, and the video link is just a scatterplot of pulsating stuff. No offence but what actual scientific justification is there of this idea? (BTW I'm not qualified to judge, kust feedback. I hope if the idea's solid that you get backing).
- pontifier 6y ago
  The idea is built on very basic physics. There is nothing super complicated here. It's an inverted cyclotron built in a penning trap. Instead of all ions orbiting a single point, they all pass through that point. The scatterplot is from a penning trap simulator showing the motion of individual particles. What you are seeing is periodic implosions similar to the IEC fusion machines. Instead of compressing a pellet with lasers and getting one pulse, this design gives you many implosions for free once the motion is created. I HOPE it will work, but without ANY experimental data, nobody can say for sure. If it does work the payoff would be huge, and if it doesn't, the cost of trying it is relatively small. It seems like a fantastic bet to me, and that's why I'm trying my best to fund the initial experiment myself. That's the biggest hurdle, and also the most risky. Once that threshold is passed, if it works as intended, I should have no problem getting as much funding as I want while giving up a miniscule amount of equity. At the end of the day, results are all that matter. If it's not solid, then there's no point.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I'm in no position to judge this, may I suggest making available your models and simulations to the physics community - perhaps even start with https://physics.stackexchange.com/ https://physics.stackexchange.com/ and see what they say? If they blow holes in it at least you have some feedback from professionals to work with. Good luck!
jkinudsjknds 6y ago
These two sentences are the closest thing you have to a pitch > As you can see from the simulation above, this periodic motion is somewhat stable, and most collisions between ions should happen at the focus. Importantly, ions that collide at the focus without fusing are not lost, but should still be on a trajectory that will bring them back to the focus. There's nothing to explain why that's important, or what the magnitude of this effect may be. There's nothing to suggest you are qualified to design a reactor. There's nothing to suggest you're at all aware of the business model surrounding this. You'll need to figure that all out before someone would seriously consider giving you money.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Your link literally says nothing solid, and the video link is just a scatterplot of pulsating stuff. No offence but what actual scientific justification is there of this idea? (BTW I'm not qualified to judge, kust feedback. I hope if the idea's solid that you get backing).

pontifier 6y ago
The idea is built on very basic physics. There is nothing super complicated here. It's an inverted cyclotron built in a penning trap. Instead of all ions orbiting a single point, they all pass through that point. The scatterplot is from a penning trap simulator showing the motion of individual particles. What you are seeing is periodic implosions similar to the IEC fusion machines. Instead of compressing a pellet with lasers and getting one pulse, this design gives you many implosions for free once the motion is created. I HOPE it will work, but without ANY experimental data, nobody can say for sure. If it does work the payoff would be huge, and if it doesn't, the cost of trying it is relatively small. It seems like a fantastic bet to me, and that's why I'm trying my best to fund the initial experiment myself. That's the biggest hurdle, and also the most risky. Once that threshold is passed, if it works as intended, I should have no problem getting as much funding as I want while giving up a miniscule amount of equity. At the end of the day, results are all that matter. If it's not solid, then there's no point.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I'm in no position to judge this, may I suggest making available your models and simulations to the physics community - perhaps even start with https://physics.stackexchange.com/ https://physics.stackexchange.com/ and see what they say? If they blow holes in it at least you have some feedback from professionals to work with. Good luck!

jkinudsjknds 6y ago

These two sentences are the closest thing you have to a pitch > As you can see from the simulation above, this periodic motion is somewhat stable, and most collisions between ions should happen at the focus. Importantly, ions that collide at the focus without fusing are not lost, but should still be on a trajectory that will bring them back to the focus. There's nothing to explain why that's important, or what the magnitude of this effect may be. There's nothing to suggest you are qualified to design a reactor. There's nothing to suggest you're at all aware of the business model surrounding this. You'll need to figure that all out before someone would seriously consider giving you money.