Talk-Polywell.org

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:32 pm**

It's not a bad idea, it's certainly an easier play than economic fusion reactors. But I wouldn't invest, Lerner tends to overpromise. Heh, I wonder if their timeline still has them at net power last year?

Yes, they had all sorts of problems. At least we all know what they are, because they are talking about it rather openly. Still would not invest in it either, but I do feel a strong liking for both Lerner and the device. So I wish them lots of luck and enjoy reading their updates.

Heh. Yes, he was so good at it, he spotted all kinds of problems that don't even exist in non-LTE devices, much like what happened in his original FRC objections in Science Mag.

Well, then there should be even less reasons why Helions device should not work, right? If even Art, who allegedly sees problems that are not there, cant see any problems, then it has to be good

Expert predictions of this sort have a very poor track record generally, so I expect outside of obvious and noncontroversial physical objections, only empiricism will decide a winner -- and the most likely outcome is that in 10 years we're still waiting for that checkered flag.

Well Slough says that he only needs 3 years, or less and I would believe him. He already has a device that does give a rather high (still below 1) Q, he "just" has to scale it up to proof net power.
His current device has very good experimental results that do show that he has a good chance of success. I actually think that he is underpromising.
I still would not invest, unless I had a lot of money that it would not matter whether I loose it on a punt like that.
IMHO Bill Gates or some other billionare like him would fit that sort of investor.
Paul Allen invested in Tri Alpha and they are not as far as Slough from what we all know (as little as it is).
That said, I really hope that Slough gets the funding. He is very realistic with his expectations and he does have a plan B (fusion- fission- hybrid for energy and for burning nuclear waste).

Edit: I want to add one more thing about Helions plans:
Even if they overestimated/overpromised on the scaling laws. The projected size of their device is still so small that they could easily scale it up again to reach a reasonable Q.

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:31 pm**

I'll give a response to the paper posted above when I am in front of my 'proper' computer, which looks interesting and has some good [and not so good] points, but I just want to nail this fallacious argument that appears time and time again here:

Skipjack wrote:Even if they overestimated/overpromised on the scaling laws. The projected size of their device is still so small that they could easily scale it up again to reach a reasonable Q.

It is nonsense to suggest that a thing will work providing the claims are high enough. If it falls below its claim, it may well fall at the point of 'not working at all'.

I've seen this argument here for polywell and Rossi recently and whatever else in the past so often.

No, no and NO again! This is NOT a logical statement. It's like saying "my crazy money-making machine scheme produces a billion dollars a year profit and, hey, even in the worst case and I am wrong by 6 orders of magnitude you're still gonna make a thousand buck, right!?!"

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:05 pm**

Chris, the only thing that is debatable is the scaling laws and even those look pretty solid from experiment.
I also said "overestimating". I did not mean that they were falsly assuming that there was any scaling at all with size.
I should maybe have said "slightly overestimating", to be more precise, because some people seemingly enjoy pulling an argument out of thin air, if it suits them.
I do however think that Slough has a pretty good shot at it. I have not seen anything more credible yet, have you?

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:38 pm**

As Rick once pointed out, the problem with extrapolating from small machines is that the fastest loss mechanism dominates, and too often a different mechanism is faster at different radii, so small machine results tend to be overly optimistic.

But I wish them the best of luck. The sooner something does work, the better off we all are.

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:51 pm**

In that NBF link they discus direct energy recovery through back emf in coil windings, something made theoretically possible by the pulsed operation.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:02 am**

Their current machine is not THAT much smaller than the proposed device (IIRC it is half the size). That does not mean a big scale up. I also think that they have alreadey confirmed the scaling laws with previous tests.

Posted: **Wed May 18, 2011 7:51 am**

No formal update yet, but apparently one is expected later this week.

However, there is some good news as a preview: after a rebuild in which, among other things, new spark plugs and switch plates were installed in the FF-1 device, it has finally been fired at 45 kV. The significance of that voltage is that it is supposed to be able to achieve a peak current of 2 MA with deuterium, which is supposed to be sufficient for LPP's purposes. If the device continues to fire reliably at that voltage, reliably achieving that peak current, there should (crossing fingers) be no more obstacles to performing the next steps:

* Determine the optimum fill gas pressure using deuterium.
* Introduce new, shorter electrodes, and optimize parameters for heavier gases (using helium and nitrogen).
* Switch to using a hydrogen-boron fill gas and achieve fusion with it.
* Demonstrate the scientific feasibility of energy production by firing a shot that generates 33,000 Joules of fusion energy.

See here for the last milestone update, which was January 5 of this year.

Posted: **Wed May 18, 2011 8:06 am**

Thanks for the update.
According their Tweet it looks like they are really excited from what they are finding. I am curious.

Posted: **Wed May 18, 2011 11:39 pm**

chrismb wrote:I'll give a response to the paper posted above when I am in front of my 'proper' computer, which looks interesting and has some good [and not so good] points, but I just want to nail this fallacious argument that appears time and time again here:

Skipjack wrote:Even if they overestimated/overpromised on the scaling laws. The projected size of their device is still so small that they could easily scale it up again to reach a reasonable Q.
It is nonsense to suggest that a thing will work providing the claims are high enough. If it falls below its claim, it may well fall at the point of 'not working at all'.

I've seen this argument here for polywell and Rossi recently and whatever else in the past so often.

No, no and NO again! This is NOT a logical statement. It's like saying "my crazy money-making machine scheme produces a billion dollars a year profit and, hey, even in the worst case and I am wrong by 6 orders of magnitude you're still gonna make a thousand buck, right!?!"

I actually agree with chrissmb

on this point for DPF, but for different reasons. I don't understand the physics, but I have heard that the DPF will only scale up a limited amount. That is why the optimistic fusion outputs will be ~ 5-10 MW range. If the scaling predictions are not reached, there is not much wiggle room. I have the impression that this also applies to FRC, at least for advanced fuels.

The Polywell seems to have much more wiggle room becuse of the claimed scaling laws, though I do wonder how large it can grow before thermalization issues are unmanageable, even if annealing works.

Dan Tibbets

Posted: **Wed May 18, 2011 11:42 pm**

Dan, I was talking about Sloughs FRC device here, not the DPF.
Slough does not do advanced fuels either, just TD. His device is basically cheating its way past all the problems toks have. It does not really solve them, just mitigates them.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 1:09 am**

Skipjack wrote:Dan, I was talking about Sloughs FRC device here, not the DPF.
Slough does not do advanced fuels either, just TD. His device is basically cheating its way past all the problems toks have. It does not really solve them, just mitigates them.

This is a hoot:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sloughs+ ... nt=firefox

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 2:37 am**

This is a hoot:

Not sure what you are trying to tell me with that?
To me Sloughs work looks solid. More solid than anything I have seen coming from the Polywell, or the Tok, or the DPF front. And I am not the only one with that opinion.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 4:22 am**

Skipjack wrote:
This is a hoot:
Not sure what you are trying to tell me with that?
To me Sloughs work looks solid. More solid than anything I have seen coming from the Polywell, or the Tok, or the DPF front. And I am not the only one with that opinion.

TP is the top reference on the subject.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 11:52 am**

I am still not sure what you point would be Msimon...

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 4:33 pm**

Skipjack wrote:I am still not sure what you point would be Msimon...

If you click thru on the link you get a Google page that is the search results for "FRC". On that search result page, "Fire Retardant Clothing" is the first AD for FRC, and the top several links are to Talk Polywell (TP). Seems WE are heavier into FRC than they are!

That IS a hoot!

Talk-Polywell.org

Lawaranceville E-Newsletter