Enhancement of Nuclear Fusion in Plasma Oscillation Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is clear written. It presents an interesting and promising concept. It is based on valid physics but, I am afraid, does not take important phenomena into account.

As I understand it, the idea behind the work is to obtain a quasi-neutral plasma of positive and negative ions, and then to make this plasma oscillate with a large amplitude. The goal is to obtain electric fields strong enough to help overcome the potential barrier. Unfortunately, you cannot freely choose which physical phenomena will take place and which will not. Below are examples of phenomena that may prevent the expected operation of the rotary chamber.

A - Strong electric fields will de-ionize the weakly bound negative ions. This phenomenon is equivalent to the well-known ionization by strong electric fields.

B - Positive and negative ions oscillating in the counter-phase will collide, thermalization will take place. Then the increased temperature will end the life of the negative ions.

In my opinion, the manuscript is still interesting and may be published, but please provide the discussion of points A and B in a dedicated section placed before the Conclusions. Both points may question the feasibility of the project.

The manuscript should be carefully reread and corrected. There are some typos and minor omissions scattered in the text. For instance, in lines 51 and 52.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (see attachment for revised manuscript with changes stated below)

Point 1: The manuscript is clear written. It presents an interesting and promising concept. It is based on valid physics but, I am afraid, does not take important phenomena into account. As I understand it, the idea behind the work is to obtain a quasi-neutral plasma of positive and negative ions, and then to make this plasma oscillate with a large amplitude. The goal is to obtain electric fields strong enough to help overcome the potential barrier. Unfortunately, you cannot freely choose which physical phenomena will take place and which will not. Below are examples of phenomena that may prevent the expected operation of the rotary chamber.

A - Strong electric fields will de-ionize the weakly bound negative ions. This phenomenon is equivalent to the well-known ionization by strong electric fields. 

*Response 1:  We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s questions and suggestions and have inserted two paragraphs to clarify our concepts. A new dedicated section “Consideration of Side Effects” in section V is created following the suggestion of the first reviewer. This first paragraph of this new section contains an explanation of the differences between the optimization of fusion outputs and ionization. The first paragraph reads, “Conceptually we have found that the high-frequency oscillations are compatible with fusion events which take place in space-time of 10’s femto-seconds and femto-meters. However, these electric fields are not optimal for ionization which requires temporal and spatial scales of 10’s nano-seconds and nano-meters. The ionization of atoms and molecules depends on the amplitude and frequency of the exciting electric field. The velocity of the ionizing electron is proportional to eEt/m where t is either the period of the oscillation or the mean free time between collisions. whichever is smaller. We have chosen high densities of 10²⁶/m³ for neutrals and 10²³/m³ for ions in order to have high-frequency oscillations. The amplitude of velocity oscillations is only 10% because what is important is the collective behavior by many ions together. The Poisson equation governing the electric field depends on only the coherent motion of many ions and not on their temperature. Therefore, we can be judicious in the choice of plasma parameters to focus on increasing the fusion output.

Point 2:  B - Positive and negative ions oscillating in the counter-phase will collide, thermalization will take place. Then the increased temperature will end the life of the negative ions.

In my opinion, the manuscript is still interesting and may be published, but please provide the discussion of points A and B in a dedicated section placed before the Conclusions. Both points may question the feasibility of the project.

*Response 2:  See response to point A in Response 1 above. The second paragraph of the new section V is the response to point B. It points out that the temperatures of all species are strongly anchored in the temperature of the “bulky” outer electrode whose temperature is well-controlled. The large number of neutrals also helps to anchor the temperature and lowers the recombination rate. Because the high electric field is derived from the Poisson equation which depends only on the density of charges, our concept prevails. The production of negative hydrogen ions is favored due to this anchoring of temperatures. The attachment of electrons to hydrogen is also an exothermic process with a shallow potential well.  The second paragraph reads, “Secondly the temperatures of all atoms, ions and electrons in our rotating system are the same, because they are all in thermal contact with the heated (1900^oK) “bulky” outer electrode. Multiple emitters of electrons formed from LaB₆ (Lanthanum Hexaboride) maintain a significant (10²³/m³) population of negative charges of electron and negative ions. Our thesis of providing negative charges to lower the Coulomb barrier comes from these hot surfaces which are also cooled by circulating water lines to a desired temperature below the melting point of metal. As a result, the high-frequency oscillating electric fields, or the recombination will not affect the average temperature of this outer structure. While MeV fusion particles produced in this region do impart energy to this outer electrode. the heat is carried out by designed water circuits and contribute to the overall output of this fusion system. The consequence of maintaining low temperatures below 0.75 eV is the production of negative hydrogen ions by electron attachment to atomic hydrogen; this is an exothermic process.”

Point 3: The manuscript should be carefully reread and corrected. There are some typos and minor omissions scattered in the text. For instance, in lines 51 and 52.

*Response 3: We have made the appropriate changes below in the revised manuscript (attached): 

1. Change "discussion" to "conclusion": lines 38 and 203
2. Correct symbol "alpha": line 52
3. Correct symbol "eta": line 53
4. Correct "L" to symbol "lambda": lines 167 and 168
5. Correct the unit "mm" to "um": line 168
6. Correct "p" to symbol "pi": line 184
7. Change (29) to (30): line 187
8. Change (31) to (32): line 195
9. Change (30) to (31): line 196
10. Move the equation number (21) to the same line: line 158
11. Change "gather" (MS-Words does not like it) to "bunch": line 122
12. Change "U" from Italic (look strange in this fond) to non-Italic: lines 47, 69, 72, 81, 85, 94, 99, 100, 101, 105, 132, 174, 186, 191
13. Change "w" to "omega": line 153 (one of reviewers caught this one) and line 182
14. Inserted two new paragraphs, subtitled “Consideration of side effects” as section V to precede the “Conclusion” in section VI. A sentence has been added in the introduction to acknowledge section V.
15. The grammar in lines 224-225 has been corrected to read “; this is an exothermic process.”
16. Change first word of Conclusion from “The” to “A”
17. Change “t” to symbol “tau”
18. All sections are now numbered with Roman numbers to conform with text.
19. The two last sentences of Conclusion (lines 238-240) have been changed to “Some of the experimental results which motivated the present theoretical concept have been published [13]. A more complete summary of experimental work will be forth coming. This change is prompted by the second reviewer.
20. Added a new references #13 in the References section (Wong, A.Y. and Shih, C.C. “Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals”; https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.11068 ; Wong, A.Y. et al “Enhanced D-D Fusion Rates when the Coulomb Barrier Is Lowered by Electrons”: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12988.).   Moved the previous reference #13 to #14.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:
---------------------

In this basically case study paper the authors study the plasma oscillations of two opposite-charge species (H- and B+).

The performed calculations are standard and routine in the field. The article does not bring essentially any new knowledge in this area, it can only attract the reader as a case study.  The analytical results are supported experimentally ([1908.11068] arxiv.org) and these experiments will be reported in a separate work, as mentioned by the authors at the end of paper (Line 210).

The introduction is too general to be useful and the bibliographical glossary contains no more information than can be found in any standard reference.

Specific minor comments:
------------------------------

1) Line 52 - missing symbol for Sommerfeld constant

Line 151: Here should be the greek letter omega instead of "w"

Missing the vertical spaces between text and formulas.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (see attachment for revised manuscript with changes stated below)

Point 1: In this basically case study paper the authors study the plasma oscillations of two opposite-charge species (H- and B+). The performed calculations are standard and routine in the field. The article does not bring essentially any new knowledge in this area, it can only attract the reader as a case study.  The analytical results are supported experimentally ([1908.11068] arxiv.org) and these experiments will be reported in a separate work, as mentioned by the authors at the end of paper (Line 210).

The introduction is too general to be useful and the bibliographical glossary contains no more information than can be found in any standard reference.

*Response 1:  While we agree with the reviewer that this is a case study, we wish to point out that achieving fusion has been a very challenging effort; no real breakthroughs have been made for 70 years. A new case study with a simple concept to lower the Coulomb barrier might advance in a small step towards a Clean-Fusion scenario.

We are including more references to our past work already published in ArXiv journals.   We have added a new section titled, “Consideration of Side Effects” (section V), that contains an explanation of the differences between the optimization of fusion outputs and ionization (paragraph 1). We also point out that the temperatures of all species are strongly anchored in the temperature of the “bulky” outer electrode whose temperature is well-controlled (paragraph 2). Negative hydrogen ions which only exist in a low-temperature environment play a unique role of being catalysts and reactants in this case study.

Point 2: Specific minor comments:

Line 52 - missing symbol for Sommerfeld constant

Line 151: Here should be the greek letter omega instead of "w"

Missing the vertical spaces between text and formulas.

*Response 2:  We have made the appropriate changes below in the revised manuscript (attached): 

1. Change "discussion" to "conclusion": lines 38 and 203
2. Correct symbol "alpha": line 52
3. Correct symbol "eta": line 53
4. Correct "L" to symbol "lambda": lines 167 and 168
5. Correct the unit "mm" to "um": line 168
6. Correct "p" to symbol "pi": line 184
7. Change (29) to (30): line 187
8. Change (31) to (32): line 195
9. Change (30) to (31): line 196
10. Move the equation number (21) to the same line: line 158
11. Change "gather" (MS-Words does not like it) to "bunch": line 122
12. Change "U" from Italic (look strange in this fond) to non-Italic: lines 47, 69, 72, 81, 85, 94, 99, 100, 101, 105, 132, 174, 186, 191
13. Change "w" to "omega": line 153 (one of reviewers caught this one) and line 182
14. Inserted two new paragraphs, subtitled “Consideration of side effects” as section V to precede the “Conclusion” in section VI. A sentence has been added in the introduction to acknowledge section V.
15. The grammar in lines 224-225 has been corrected to read “; this is an exothermic process.”
16. Change first word of Conclusion from “The” to “A”
17. Change “t” to symbol “tau”
18. All sections are now numbered with Roman numbers to conform with text.
19. The two last sentences of Conclusion (lines 238-240) have been changed to “Some of the experimental results which motivated the present theoretical concept have been published [13]. A more complete summary of experimental work will be forth coming. This change is prompted by the second reviewer.
20. Added a new references #13 in the References section (Wong, A.Y. and Shih, C.C. “Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals”; https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.11068 ; Wong, A.Y. et al “Enhanced D-D Fusion Rates when the Coulomb Barrier Is Lowered by Electrons”: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12988.).   Moved the previous reference #13 to #14.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx