Chemical Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Sponsored links

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Fusion in liquid  (Read 4658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Coffee-fueled fusioneer
  • Very New Member
  • *
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Fusion in liquid
« on: January 24, 2016, 12:32:24 PM »

I have been pondering something, I had a neutron generating nuclear fusion reactor (registered as a particle accelerator) and I have a giant stack of calculations but it seems too easy, so I'm looking for a second opinion.

Fusion is currently achieved in a high vacuum, by injecting a tiny amount of deuterium, under a potential of many Kv to form He-3 and a neutron.  This seems strange to me.  Allow me to explain.

There has been proof that lightning strikes will create fusion reactions upon reacting with atmospheric deuterium, and as we all know, liquids are much tighter by default than any gas.  I have come across several 1000Kv impulse generators for a reasonable price.

I am also aware that common hydrogen, helium, and oxygen are readily available for fusion reactions, based on my studies of nucleosynthesis.  Under enough potential, wouldn't pure water promote much more "functional" fusion?  A fusor is also very limited for operating times due to the heat generated inside of the primary grid.

My experiment (before I killed my poor impulse generator) was to soak uranium ore in distilled water so any free atoms of the radioactive materials, such as radium, may dissolve in the water along with the helium produced by the alpha decay, then pass it through a fine filter to remove any particulate, and use this as my "fusion" medium.  It has already been proven that radium is an excellent ionizing material, from it's use in lightning rods.  Assuming there is just one neutron that ends up moderated by the water, and it finds one stray uranium atom, it would give it a massive boost for reactivity.  Fission products will only cause ionization, and make it even easier for the particles to navigate, as well as a further increase in temperature and pressure.

The primary engineering difficulty would be containing the pressure.  The water cannot be allowed to expand, and the greater the pressure, the more likely the fusion "should" occur.

If there are molten salt fission reactors, why not look into liquid-based fusion reactors?

So far the only "boosted fusion" reaction I have achieved was by injecting a small amount of radon into my fusor, along with a mixture of H-2, H-3, and He-4.  It was much more reactive, due to the ionization energy of the radon acting as a booster.  It could only be operational for under 10 seconds due to the temperature, as opposed to the typical 20 seconds.


  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Mole Snacks: +3/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
Re: Fusion in liquid
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2018, 11:11:10 AM »

If this thread was buried on 2nd or 3rd page, i would most certainly not bother relying. But, in reply to OP, i must say: "I LOLed". Might be worth while to lock this thread and file it in a circular file for good.


  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Mole Snacks: +243/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Fusion in liquid
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2018, 11:18:02 PM »

Liquid D-T has been demonstrated for fusion. It was the first setup at the General Fusion company, where electric actuators (instant heating?) made shock waves that ran to the centre of a sphere where the compression achieved fusion. As usual, neutrons were obtained, but no net heat.

Liquids and solids also serve for laser-driven fusion, precisely because they are denser than plasmas, yes.
And in striction machines: check the Z-machine at Sandia Labs.

Deuterium fusion in lightning: would you have a reference, please? I didn't expect fusion there, but neither had I expected X and gamma rays before reading it and re-thinking.

1H, 4He and 16O are extraordinarily difficult candidates for fusion. More protons per nucleus make fusion much more difficult because the repulsion increases, while enough neutrons to obtain 3He or 4He make fusion much easier. That's why D-D and D-T reactions are the prime candidates in all fusion setups on Earth, fusors and tokamaks equally. Stars of the main sequence can fuse 1H over complicated sequences, analogues of catalysts, some of which involve nitrogen and oxygen, but these reactions are quite inaccessible to Earthlings. As for the fusion of helium, carbon and oxygen to heavier elements, it happens in special stars under even harsher conditions. Not even a remote dream on Earth. The farthest-fetched thought here is proton-boron fusion in striction machines.

Uranium: I don't see its role in fusion.
Pages: [1]   Go Up

Mitch Andre Garcia's Chemical Forums 2003-Present.

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 20 queries.