SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:
Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan*
An abstract of a poster presented at the Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology. – November 5-8, 1997; Palo Alto, CA
http://www.islandone.org/Foresight/Conferences/MNT05/Abstracts/Donoabst.html

Such article is the “modernized” version of my patent of invention FUSOGINO OF HYDROGEN, as written in 1981. Such article is about a sub-nuclear resolution microscopic accelerator just a few centimeters long and only a few nano-meter wide that might theoretically initiate individually controlled fusion reactions without requiring thermonuclear temperatures or confinement”

(but in 1981 there was not something as micro-sized accelerators…
thus I used, in the concept of normal protonic microscopic accelerators, in the drawings and description/summaries and explainings…). I also pointed out that it was absurd/unfeasible the concept of TOKAMAK in using PLASMA at huge pressure and temperature, as if in the core of our SUN STAR. When NUCLEAR FUSION could be done at modest (“cold”) fusion temperature (by organized collisions), and with RECYCLE of not fused particles (making a LOOP), and recovering particle energy (as direct electricity energy) from fused particles and also from not collided particles… That is in Patent of 1981/82.

TOKAMAK devices are like having DEVIL’s HELL next to GOD’s HEAVEN, living side by side, separated by a very thin silk wall: almost absolute zero degree Kelvin = Hell in one side and in the other side=Heaven having almost the inverse of zero degree Kelvin = infinite degree temperature=Sun….
Devil’s trap prevents Heaven to “work”, stealing all nobleness as they scape from Heaven…It is Devil’s trap for conventional Physics: slaved to Relativity…

Quote:
“(from Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan)”: Variations of these structures might be assembled to create an atomic scale particle accelerator capable of accelerating a tritium nucleus and a deuterium nucleus and accomplishing their collision with sub atomic, sub-nuclear, or even sub-proton, accuracy. Conventional fusion reactors are all based on confining the reaction products at a high enough temperature and pressure to achieve a statistical probability of enough high energy random collisions to induce a sustainable fusion reaction.
In contrast, individual atoms collided with sub-nuclear accuracy can be induced to fuse with only 51 KeV of energy.

.

That was exactly the concept behind the COLD NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS FOR HYDROGEN ISOTOPES and others TO FUSE in SPACE and on EARTH PLANTS, as SHOWN in ABOVE drawing with POWER PLANTS. For sure, if “light” radiation (as for making photossynthesis on Earth and planets and Moons) is not important, all radition generated from fusion is to be used to generate useful energy (electricity, thermal, light, etc.), not being wasted (as to space): as shown to space, in the figure shown above.

Quote:
“(from Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan…)”: Nuclear fusion with nuclear accuracy atomic scale accelerators does not require extremely high temperatures and confinement required by thermonuclear reactions:

Thermonuclear reactions take advantage of E=(3/2)kT. Thus, using a standard formula for deriving temperature from average molecular collision energy, assuming 10 KeV collisions taking place in a 1015 density plasma the temperature must be:
T=2/3(Joules)/1.38×10-23J/K
T=2/3(104 eV)(1.6×10-19 J/eV)/1.38×10-23J/K
T=77M degrees K

Thus we are moving toward “COLD” NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS:

Quote:
“(from Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan…)” The potential electrostatic repulsive energy of deuteron centers 3 nuclear radii from each other is 2.72×105 eV from a standard handbook.
E=kQ1Q2/R. Q’s are in coulombs and R in meters. k = 9×109
Thus 51 KeV will force deuteron nuclei to overlap closely enough to fuse. By comparison, Tokamaks have reached the equivalent of 20 KeV and the NOVA laser system has reached only 3 KeV particle collision energies.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - — – — – - – -

The Deuterium-Deuterium reaction is a good reaction to start with since it is well understood and creates less radioactivity then tritium deuterium reactions. Another disadvantage of tritium is that it must be made in a reactor using lithium and thus is not as common as deuterium.

It would be, of course, be good to eliminate any radioactivity. The following reactions are reported to be completely Non-radioactive:

1H1 + 11B5 => 4He2 + 8.68 MeV. b

Boron 11 and 1H1 are the dominant isotopes and both are common.

Another possible radiation free reaction is:

2H1 + 3He2 => 4He2 (3.6 MeV) + 1H1 (14.7 MeV)

- – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – - – -

GENERATING AMOUNT OF POWER

The author of Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions In Atomic Scale Accelerators
Brian T. Donovan, shows the computation of how big show big the size of a
power plant based not on a TOKAMAK like concept (like of a CLOSED SUN) but on a collision of accelerated beams, generating an “OPEN SUN” (if in a
great vaccuum, as orbiting far away our Earth). It is made the design of a power plant able to provide 100 HP (100 kW) with consumption of .455 g of deuterium/day from 13 kg/day of sea water.

More or less the same ideas, concepts and PHILOSOPHY from the not so MODERN POWER PLANT from “FUSOGINO DE HIDROGENIO” (DEVICE FOR COLD NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS OF HYDROGEN, patent year 1982).
celsosavelli

http://www.geocities.com/celsoprofessor3ufpr/GENERATOR_NUCLEAR_COLD_NUCLEAR_FUSION_HYDROGEN_to_FUEL_and_HEAL_EARTHandPLANETS.jpg

Anonymous Coward Says:

December 18th, 2003 at 6:24 am
Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion
So, some facturing:
1.
Russian scientist S. Pereslegin appoint, than desinformation compain has before era aircraft construction (Afterword on Stanislav Lem’s “Summa Technologia”).

2.
My be such compain going now contra colf fusion.

3. By the way my be such type of discursion/attitude to Drexler is result publishing by Forsight Institute work about cold fusion:
“Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions: In Atomic Scale Accelerators” Brian T. Donovan, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Abstrac ts/Donoabst.html)

4.
File “Omega”: http://www.think-aboutit.com/omega/files/index.htm

It is reasonable to consider this to be a form of nanoassembly. One is generally assembling nanoscale precision pieces in a precise way. *But* it would be a mistake to consider this to be a true nanoassembler because it lacks the precise atomic (or small molecule) placement that assemblers are likely to require. Better examples of primitive assemblers would be DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and particularly the ribosome. They typically work with smaller molecules, generally have some error correction capability, etc.

I kind of thought that those who knew me could recognize me . . . i just hope they can distinguish me from other anonymous's; i actually just post like this becuase I'm lazy and at school. But, anyways, I take it you don't consider the new dna placing of nanotubes as a primitive assembler?

And if people look offended if you tell them they have not done their homework — you look them straight in the eye and quote:

Ok, lets review — if what you are have been doing doesn't work you have 3 possible courses — more, better and different. Eric's PNAS paper is now 22 years old (and we will not talk about Feynman's talk). EOC is 17 years old. Nanosystems is 11 years old. Nanomedicine VI is 4 years old.

While it is certainly great that we have a NNI and that there is lots of funding in the pipe for nanomaterials research — I still have congressional staffers telling me bills are getting tailored (e.g. the self-assembly "study") so that the science fiction aspects can be avoided in floor discussions. And yet we have important politicians attending the 100th anniversary of heavier than air flight (which was also supposed to be "impossible" according to the NY Times if I recall correctly).

It looks to me like "more" and "better" are only having limited success. In that case it may be reasonable to do "different" — and if that means actually telling someone to their face, preferably in front of other people, that they have not done their homework (when there certainly has been enough time for them to do it) might produce enough "shock and awe" that they might just consider solving that problem. Then we might get to the point where there aren't any "sci-fi" aspects to the discussion but the serious realization that there are simply some really difficult (landing a man on the moon) class of problems. But we have solved those before!

I'd go further and say that there is no need for a divisive approach, quite apart from it being counterproductive.

Scientists and engineers are best convinced by letting them see, think, and decide for themselves. Force feeding doesn't help at all, and is likely to create personal resistance which is then very hard to wipe away. Combine demonstration with information and a small amount of subliminal advertising to generate some "That's neat, and I don't want to get left behind" factor, and there's a good chance that science-based people will get on the train of their own accord.

The power of demonstrations is immense — we are still in the grip of the IBM xenon atom demo, after all these years. We need many more such high profile examples, marking the way and showing progress towards MNT. Papers describing physical demonstrations like Hla's biphenyl mechanosynthesis and mechanical cleavage of iodobenzene could be abstracted into short presentations for popular access, and are hugely more convincing than mere words.

Cold Fusion
So, some facturing:
1.
Russian scientist S. Pereslegin appoint, than desinformation compain has before era aircraft construction (Afterword on Stanislav Lem's "Summa Technologia").

2.
My be such compain going now contra colf fusion.

3. By the way my be such type of discursion/attitude to Drexler is result publishing by Forsight Institute work about cold fusion:
"Non-Statistical Fusion Reactions: In Atomic Scale Accelerators" Brian T. Donovan, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Abstrac ts/Donoabst.html)

4.
File "Omega": http://www.think-aboutit.com/omega/files/index.htm

5.
File "Orion" http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/orion.htm

6.
About demolition of WTC to say/visualisation ten yeasrs.
By the way in project "AI_NANO" exist devision "Methological problem of XI.IX". On base of attack on WTC concerning hyper hystorical block (in Greece "eonic").
Very interest in this exelent work
Frank R. Ankersmith Narrative Logic. A Semantic Analisys the Hitorian's language.
This work made for analizyng of very danger situation of Russia. May be this theory will be usefull for analizing corner nanoepoche and|or new energy.
A.V.

7.
Some attempt understanding deep intention of DARPA made in project AI_NANO in "DARPA-Questionary" and "DARPA-Russian Dictionary": http://astachine.narod.ru

A.V.

NEMS|N-A 1. Why NEMS not nano-assambler? 2. In nonothings main is idea of artificial intelligence/life. Having this idea possible create strategy, concentrate force and receive result. 3. Will have NEMS/nano-assmbler full-controlled complexite/full understanding? 3.1 Namely which system class of nano-assembler? 3.3 What write Bertalanfi about nono-assembler?

And it isn't even worth discussing this with most people (chemists, physicists, etc.) because… they haven't read the literature necessary to have an informed conversation. All you can do is walk up to every government, military or academic you run into at these conferences and ask them a set of questions like the following… If they can't answer these questions then it is perfectly reasonable to inform them that they don't know squat about nanotechnology and that they ought to go do their homework.

Could you please explain to me why this is a wise course of action? It seems to me that it will offend a lot of very smart and very knowledgable people very quickly. I don't see how it accomplishes anything positive. At a guess, I'd say it was likely to discourage interest in the literature you mention.

Robert writes:

If they can't answer these questions then it is perfectly reasonable to inform them that they don't know squat about nanotechnology and that they ought to go do their homework.

Well put, but now extrapolate from that observation to yield a figure of merit for current PR action.

If the 4-point RJB MNT Clueness Validation Suite is applied to all relevant government minds, what proportion of result sheets will show ticks in all four boxes? Let's be extraordinarily generous and optimistic and say 0.1%, because it is just barely possible that 1 person in 1000 who is in politics may have had the technical background from a previous life and the time and inclination in the current life to delve into those 4 works of engineering and understand them.

Then take that 0.1% and factor in the likelihood that this particular politician is still the idealist from his or her political youth, instead of the party line supporter or self-serving powermonger or tool of big business that is the reality of current day politics. There's not much light between the figure you get and zero.

The question then is why bother trying to inject all this PR effort into a national political system when it simply cannot yield dividends, realistically. There is ample work for MNT devotees, promoters, and educators in the global arena, talking to scientists, engineers, industrialists and venture capitalists. It's a worldwide opportunity — including the US, but not treating it as a US issue. That, I submit, is much more fertile ground than banging one's head against unhelpful political systems.