I am no patent expert, and I know there are many here with far better insight, but my understanding is that if EMC2 has been testing polywells with the standoff supported magnetic coils before Joel's patent application, they can claim prior art and continue their development. Further, as much of their work is behind the Navy veil, can we be sure their work is not covered already? Just saying...
Best regards
2011 IEC Confrence slide presentations are now up
There have been many cases in the past of patent law being used to bludgeon small startups for the benefit of large corporations. Typically a large corporation will contest the patent application of a smaller company in court. They know the longer the case drags out the sooner the small company will run out of money. This happens even though the small company originated the idea and did all the groundwork, a good book on the subject was 'Big Blue'.
In this case you have a small company that has been doing the basic research for 20 years but has total frustration dealing with the patent office. Now somebody else comes along and applies for a patent based on computer modeling.
Where the new patent may succeed is because it describes a large fusion energy machine with problems as opposed to a small one that doesn't. This sounds far more plausible to a patent examiner.
In this case you have a small company that has been doing the basic research for 20 years but has total frustration dealing with the patent office. Now somebody else comes along and applies for a patent based on computer modeling.
Where the new patent may succeed is because it describes a large fusion energy machine with problems as opposed to a small one that doesn't. This sounds far more plausible to a patent examiner.
CHoff
The electrostatic confinement applies to the ions only. The electrons are only contained by the leaky magnetic field. I'm not sure that is obvous from what you said. Recirculation of course is an electrostatic process (with magnetic focusing), but this is a side issue (a very improtant side issue) when considering primary magnetic confinement.mvanwink5 wrote:Dan,D Tibbets wrote:Remember, magnetic confinement is not very good.
Dan Tibbets
High B fields will provide high ion/electron densities and recirculation, provided by the electrostatic confinement, takes care of the leaky magnetic field. So, once again I don't understand why Joel's simulation is at relatively low magnetic fields and his patent examples use low magnetic field copper magnets. It would seem he is discounting the size advantage of higher B fields and goes for a large radii polywell instead.
Best regards,
As far as J Rogers assumptions, I'm guessing he chose a setup that was relatively easy to accomplish. Superconducting wires are still uncertain in a Polywell, at least a D-D Polywell that would have a high neutron flux. Bussard planned to use copper magnets in his Polywell breakeven demo. Probably because it is technically feasible (and possibly cheaper) to do it now, without waiting for hopefully adequate superconducting systems in 10-20 years.
Which brings up another issue that has been discussed here at times. Why this love affair with P-B11 fusion? It is certainly attractive. but from a evolutionary viewpoint, D-D fusion is way superior to any attempts at D-T fusion, it also would change the world, and is much easier and certain than P-B11 positive Q fusion due to issues with bremsstrulung, cross section, etc.
An optimist might speculate that insiders (if J Rogers is one of them) have gained enough confidence in the possibility of D-D fusion, that they are seduced into trying for the more sexy P-B11 fusion without first going through a first generation D-D reactors. J Rogers has assumed modest B field strengths, even with copper magnets. While perhaps conservative, it is also reasuring. There is room for improvements if needed or desired.
With cooper magnets the resistance / inductance has to be considered. While doubling the diameter of the magnet torus increases the internal volume 4 fold, the resistance is doubled, which means you need twice the cooling flow, and this takes up space in the magnet. M. Simon uses a wire fill factor of ~ 40%. I generally assume a doubling of the magnet (magrid) diameter allows for ~ twice as many windings of similar gauge wire. This means that a 3 meter magrid, would have 100 times the internal volume of WB6, which would allow for ~ 50 times as many amp turns, thus ~ 50 times as much B field.
[EDIT] The 50 X B field increase would be for room temperature copper coils. At liquid nitrogen temperatures this number may increase to ~ 400 times. So a 10 Tesla B field in a copper 3 meter Polywell may not be that challenging. The major concern may be the MWs (tens of MWs) of power needed for the copper magnets versus the 0 watts for superconductors (plus /minus relative cooling costs).
Two conciderations. First a 13 M diameter Magrid could have ~ 800 times as many amp turns. The space needed for cooling, insulation, etc. is considerably less demanding. Also, in WB 4 the minor radius/ crossection diameter was ~ 25% of the major diameter, while WB 6 was at ~ 17%. The magnets can be made thicker and in this example the internal volume would be doubled. WB4 operated at up to ~ 0.3 T and had room for water cooling. This was ~ 3 times that of WB6 So, I assume there is considerable room for improving on J Rogers magnet strengths. There are other considerations that effect the best compromise in the magnet minor radius, but that is another discussion.
PS: in a research reactor that may be run for only a few dozen seconds at a time, current superconductors may be much more attractive, though not necessarily cheaper than cooled copper magnets.
Dan Tibbets
Last edited by D Tibbets on Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA