emc2's website

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:13 pm

And on a related web site, the Recovery site should be getting it's quarterly update in a few days. They are still showing the 31 Dec 09 report data. Soon.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Re ... =Contracts

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:12 am

I looked at the Google Streetview for the address. Is that EMC2 or something else? I thought I could make out "NAVAL" in a sign on the building.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:03 pm

Looked more like "National" to me. Isn't that "Column" emblem somehow connected with the Nation Registry of Historic Landmarks?

CharlesKramer · Post by **CharlesKramer** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:51 am

choff wrote:Relative scale. Photo of WB7 looks straight out of sci-fi...

FIREFLY:

Wash: [about River] Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science-fiction.

Zoë: We live in a spaceship, dear.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:50 am

MSimon wrote: If I wanted net power I'd go for 10T @ 1 m bore. Or possibly 20 T @ .5 m bore. (same coil current - more intercepted area). At constant amp-turns B^4 R^3 scaling favors smaller machines. Now about those losses.....

One important point about a dodec machine is that for the same coil design (B field and radius) the machine radius is a factor of 1.61 larger, so power will be a factor of 4. If geometry gives us a factor of 3 to 5, then we get a gain of 15 to 20 for just six more coils. Cusp numbers are greater but the B field should more than compensate, no?

Intercept area isn't supposed to be an issue for B11 iirc.

What about those losses?

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:26 am

freaking, another WB planned to be built?

What's WB-8 supposed to test?
Scaling laws right?

so then, what's WB-8.1 supposed to test?

MirariNefas · Post by **MirariNefas** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:48 am

Burning p-B11

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:03 am

really now? WB-8.1 is for testing burning pB11? I find that a bit hard to believe, I thought they would deal with the easier fuel before dealing with that.

They got that much confidence in the design?

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:20 am

Robthebob wrote: They got that much confidence in the design?

WB-8 is in progress (the easy fuel) and WB-8.1 money comes after it's successful. Good news is when we see the WB-8.1 authorized.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:28 pm

Robthebob wrote:really now? WB-8.1 is for testing burning pB11? I find that a bit hard to believe, I thought they would deal with the easier fuel before dealing with that.

They got that much confidence in the design?

That much confidence? I don't know. A fan boy intrepratation would be that yes they do have that much confidence. The advantages of an aneutronic reactor with direct conversion is great enough that if early results are promising, then going directly to that developement path may be attractive from a Navy standpoint. Also, the demonstration of P-B11 fusion- especially with potential for net positive energy production would be extreamly impressive and would allow considerable bragging rights.
It seams that EMC2 may end up in a race with LPP (DPF approach) for those potential bragging rights.

[EDIT] I might ad that the Tri- Alpha team might have asperations in this direction. Concidring that there are appearenly at least several other research centers persueing FRC fusion, they might find it benificial to open up their currently highly secret research results (if any?) for busness reasons.

Then again, these fringe approaches to fusion (at least from a funding perspective) may go the path of "cold fusion"- interesting physics, but no practical applications. That would still leave the approach where you beat on the side of a drum with a hammer..

Dan Tibbets

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:10 pm

I wrote:And on a related web site, the Recovery site should be getting it's quarterly update in a few days. They are still showing the 31 Dec 09 report data. Soon.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Re ... =Contracts

Well, ok, maybe not so soon. Here it is about 4 weeks into the next quarter and still no quarterly report. Hmmph.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:59 am

KitemanSA wrote: Here it is about 4 weeks into the next quarter and still no quarterly report. Hmmph.

Reporting is a month after the quarter closes unless they are late, so should be just 5 more days.

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:32 am

I have a decent amount of faith and hope for polywell. Even then, a device to try to do pB11 before the stones are set for DD is at best ballsy.

Sorry I forgot, what type of fusion are they doing right now? Is it DT or DD?

cuddihy · Post by **cuddihy** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:21 pm

Robthebob wrote:I have a decent amount of faith and hope for polywell. Even then, a device to try to do pB11 before the stones are set for DD is at best ballsy.

Sorry I forgot, what type of fusion are they doing right now? Is it DT or DD?

DD

I'm glad I missed this thread in March -- quite a lot of excitement because of a website typo!

BTW, I would not be suprised if the Navy intends to minimize released results until they have a demo reactor funded and underway.

Maybe the results here explain some of the recent changes to the NASA space policy, including the 5 year hiatus in launch vehicle design while "breakthrough" technology research is done...

Tom Ligon · Post by **Tom Ligon** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:43 pm

The whole time I've known EMC2 the work has been DD, never DT.

Tritium is pretty dangerous stuff, and has strict licensing requirements. Even labs that intend to use DT for power production frequently do their preliminary work with DD. The reaction rates are far lower, but that simplifies their safety requirements. They will probably even dilute the fuel with hydrogen to further drop the rate. They can easily calculate what they would have gotten with DT.