Will the device described in this patent work? / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Will the device described in this patent work?

Move Thread

LAN_403

jpsmith123

Wed Apr 13 2011, 11:05PM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

Every so often, while looking for information on something, I come across a patent which catches my attention for some reason or another. The following linked patent regarding "Method and apparatus for accelerating charged particles", is one of those.

In this case, I don't see how the conceptual device described in the patent would actually accelerate any particles.

While over the years I've seen lots of patents that I believe won't work the way the inventor claims, this particular patent is interesting because the inventor apparently has some credentials. A quick internet search shows that (if it's the same person, that is) he has a Phd in physics; that he's presented papers at particle accelerator conferences; and that he was associated with a prestigious Russian research establishment.

In light of the inventor's apparent credentials, it makes me think that I must simply be wrong, or I'm missing something, or maybe some important details were deliberately left out of the patent?

Does anyone see how the device described can work as claimed?

Myke

Thu Apr 14 2011, 02:13AM

Registered Member #540 Joined: Mon Feb 19 2007, 07:49PM
Location: MIT
Posts: 969

This looks like it would work. It looks like a cyclotron with multiple accelerating stages per revolution in the magnetic field. The normal cyclotron has only two places where it's accelerated per revolution. I guess with more acceleration stages per revolution, you can get a faster rate of output ions but I'm not sure.

Dr. Slack

Thu Apr 14 2011, 07:16AM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

It *is* a multi-accelrating gap cyclotron, with the solid Dees replaced by electrodes defining the gaps between them, which then allows the use of more acclerating gaps round the circumference. More gaps allows a linearly higher beam current for the same chamber size. The only novelty expressed in claim 1 is for a plurality (ie more than one) of gaps.

I love the run-on claims. Claim 7 for instance, does this really add anything to the patent?

jpsmith123

Thu Apr 14 2011, 03:44PM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

When I first looked at this patent, I thought he was actually connecting the electrodes to a DC supply, which obviously wont work, since âˆ®Eâˆ™dl=0, or in other words in the static case no net work can be done on a charge as it circulates between the electrodes.

Then after looking at it more carefully, I saw where he said he's using pulsed dc - "synchronously applied to the charged particles"; which, to the extent it has any meaning (since he doesn't specify what kind of beam charge distribution we're dealing with, how the charge distribution arises, what kind of stabilizing/focusing forces are present to produce and keep it that way, etc.), seems completely ridiculous.

Generally speaking, since the particles (say electrons at relativistic speed) are making revolutions on a timescale measured in nanoseconds, the pulsing will have to be applied at high RF or microwave frequencies, so we're talking about applying say 50 kv, accurately timed, nanosecond pulses to multiple electrode structures having tens of pf of capacitance each, somehow synchronized to a beam with an unspecified charge distribution whose relativistic mass is changing with time?

In other words, in his narrative, he points out why a cyclotron will not accelerate electrons, for example, then he goes on to describe a conceptual device which not only would have the same fundamental problems as a cyclotron, but would also have many more problems and technical hardships trying to switch tens of kv applied to a capacitive load, on and off in nanoseconds since it is not a resonant device.

So I think you're right, Dr. Slack. He's describing something akin to a cyclotron, but which can't work for electrons for fundamental reasons, and in this case won't work for ions either since it would be essentially physically impossible or at least absurdly impractical.

Normally I would not even bring this patent up for discussion anywhere because it seems so absurd on its face - but given this inventors' apparent curriculum vitae, it boggles my mind...either I'm looking at something really, really the wrong way, or a Phd apparently with years of accelerator related experience and many peer reviewed papers under his belt for some reason spent time and money on a patent that a smart college freshman would realize is fatally flawed for obvious reasons?

Dr. Slack

Fri Apr 15 2011, 07:13AM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

It will work fine, for electrons or other charged ions.

All the problems you describe have been solved in other acclerators, or are non-issues.

Yes, the accelerating fields do need to be RF. In any practical accelerator, resonance *is* used to increase the voltage delivered to the electrodes. Nobody attempts to switch kV pulses

The bunching of particles sorts itself out, only the particles in the correct part of the bunch get accerlated, all the rest exit the confinment in short order. The particle injector is usually pulsed in synchrony with the acclerating fields, not the other way round, and for efficiency rather than to make it work at all.

The only novelty is the multiple gaps.

jpsmith123

Fri Apr 15 2011, 10:28AM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

Mods plese delete this.

jpsmith123

Fri Apr 15 2011, 11:21AM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

It won't work, Doc.

I'm embarrassed to say I spent a few hours thinking about it. Conclusion: It won't work as described, nor will it work even after modifying it (within reason).

For example in the case of electrons, it's easy to see that if you attempt to build anything resembling what he describes, you'll end up with a structure with significant radiation resistance that will radiate away lots or most of the megawatts of circulating power you would need to drive it.

The radiation issue notwithstanding, you cannot make a "cyclotron" for electrons, because of the problem with the relativistic mass increase causing loss of synchronism with the driving voltage (e rest mass = 511 kev).

The devil is in the details, and any patent that doesn't address these details is worthless, IMO.

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob