Talk-Polywell.org

So any further thoughts on starting a Helion or FRC forum or subsection?

Solo wrote:So any further thoughts on starting a Helion or FRC forum or subsection?

I would vote to have a seperate section. The concepts are somewhat different. FRC is not qusispherical or dependant on electrostatic ion containment, or recirculation as I understand it. But, there are are shared areas, like direct conversion, possible fission- fusion applications, aneutronic fuel speculations, direct conversion, pulsed versus steady state operation, plasma stabilities (or it's lack), variations from traditional Maxwellian conditions, engeenering concerns, etc, etc. Assuming there is not another site dedicated to FRC fusion, it cant hurt to host it on the Polywell site. Certainly debates and arguments about this potentially alternative approach would broden the understanding of fusion. Especially as there is not much flow of new information about the Polywell, and it is certainly more on topic than global warming or the evils of Democrats versus Republicans.

Dan Tibbets

I agree. It ought to be here in this site, but as a separate category. Have a separate category called "FRC".

Besides, it looks like the polywell now has sufficient funding to determine if it will work or not. We can build up momentum to get John Slough's concept funded. Although I am optimistic, I am not 100% convinced polywell will work and any version of fusion power is certainly desirable. Even if we are stuck with D-T reactions, the heat generated from this can be used to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuel for transportation. We will need this no matter what.

Wouldn't be better to do something about the wikipedia article first? It's rather scanty at present. To say the least.

And a nice google lecture wouldn't make any harm either...

Solo wrote:So any further thoughts on starting a Helion or FRC forum or subsection?

Forwarded to Joe. We'll see what happens.

chrismb wrote:

TallDave wrote:

chrismb wrote: Does it!!!?!?! What results are these, then? Not saying there aren't any - but I'd like to see 'em to believe 'em.

We'd all like to see them, but by now you should know there's a nondisclosure agreement.

As said before, that excuse doesn't wash as any one of us could write to the USN and request the details. They may refuse, but as far as I'm aware, they've not been asked.

I say again, does anyone want me to ask the question, I've no compuncting not to do so, or maybe no-one wants to actually know the answer!?

I do!

Unless someone can post a good reason not to, I'd say, "Go for it!"
Allow everyone two days to post that good reason not to, then ... Just do it, if that's what you still want to do.

Munchausen wrote:Wouldn't be better to do something about the wikipedia article first? It's rather scanty at present. To say the least.

That's a very good idea. The advantage of a forum is that it allowed or even encouraged to slip over into original research, but there are an immense number of established facts could find a home in Wikipedia. At some point you might be accused of being unbalanced if you have loads more info on FRCs than on takamaks, but that glorious day is still far in the future. Finally, on a forum it is easy to build up snippets of information before worrying about reliable sources and such, but you can achieve much the same effect with a page that is hosted by Wikipedia but "off-line".

In fact, I like the idea so much, independent of whether we open a sub-forum here or a new forum somewhere else, that I have gone ahead and created such a page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Art_C ... RC_article

I invite you to get to work! After all, it's Wikipedia, so you don't even need an account to edit it.

Some of the things I would eventually like to see in the FRC article:

* typical parameters
* past and present experimental programs
* past and present reactor designs, engineering advantages
* MHD stability
* transport theory
* empirical scaling of confinement time (tau ~ flux * B^2)
* translation experiments
* why FRCs have been looked on with skepticism
* some of the physics, like the dependence of beta on x_s, and adiabatic compression
* heating and direct conversion through magnetic pumping

Something I would like to see is:

* A good, comprehensive explanation of the basic principles of this contraption. Preferrably one that is understandable to the layman.

* Some good SciFi graphics to enhance the hype

Torulf Greek has proved his worth on the latter task in the past. If provided with some good input, he will most certainly move on to even nobler deeds.

An enthomologist from Göteborg that is also a fusion enthusiast is certainly a strange bird.

I would be an even more odd person myself so I don't really see how I could contribute.

Thanks Munchausen.
I will do watt I can for helping in this.
I can make the illustrations you want. Pleas tell me what you needs and show me if there are sketches or pictures I want to se them first.

http://www.helionenergy.com/Helion_Pres ... n-Web2.pdf

I like this

While the Fusion Engine aims to generate energy using fusion alone, it can simultaneously
produce fuel for fission without the need for isotopic enrichment, drive hybrid reactors, allay
proliferation concerns, and reduce and burn nuclear waste.

It is perhabs not the smartest of questions,but may I ask:

As I understand it, the field reversed configuration does not mean the entire apparatus but that yellow onion that is created at both ends of it.

Torulf made an illustration of it in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=487&start=30

Is that right? What is that yellow onion? Why is it a good thing to have?

Munchausen wrote:http://www.helionenergy.com/Helion_Pres ... n-Web2.pdf

It is perhabs not the smartest of questions,but may I ask:

As I understand it, the field reversed configuration does not mean the entire apparatus but that yellow onion that is created at both ends of it.

Torulf made an illustration of it in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=487&start=30

Is that right? What is that yellow onion? Why is it a good thing to have?

First let me point out an error in Torulf's drawing. The field on the axis changes direction depending on whether it is inside or outside the toroid. The field just inside and just outside of the boundary of the plasmoid is in the same direction.

You're right, most of the machinery is just there to make, hold, and manipulate the plasmoid, the thing that reminds you of an onion. The important thing about the plasmoid is that the field lines are closed. If you start anywhere inside the plasmoid and wander along a field line, you will wind up back where you started. This makes for good confinement of the plasma. (Cusp machines, like the polywell, and mirror machines also use magnetic confinement but are based on different principles.)

The important thing about the plasmoid is that the field lines are closed. If you start anywhere inside the plasmoid and wander along a field line, you will wind up back where you started.

Plasma=gas heated until the nucleus is stripped of its electrons. There are only charged particles in it.

Plasmoid= a stable piece of moving plasma? Created by magnetic fields that arises from the movements of the charged particles?

Are the arrows on the red entity in the centre of the yellow onion depicting the flow of mass in this particular plasmoid?

Munchausen wrote:Plasmoid= a stable piece of moving plasma? Created by magnetic fields that arises from the movements of the charged particles?

Right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid

A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields.

Munchausen wrote:Are the arrows on the red entity in the centre of the yellow onion depicting the flow of mass in this particular plasmoid?

No. The yellow arrows are magnetic field lines. The big blue arrow is electric current = -1 X flow of electrons relative to ions. (Except for the error in direction I pointed out before.)
Actual mass flow is not an essential feature of an FRC, but the creatures do tend to start spinning. There may also be poloidal rotation (like a smoke ring) depending on how you create it.

Here in Sweden we had a referendum in 1980 that ended in the decision that in 2010 all nuclear power should be decomissioned.

2010 is next year and here we are. More dependent on nuclear power than ever before. Some major users of electricity are pushing really hard to be permitted to build even more reactors.

However, I have gotten by some material from the campaign that preceded the referendum of 1980. The general impression one gets from it is that the politicians and the public believed that by now, fusion power would be ready for introduction.

A nuclear engineer has told me of an episode when the swedish fusioneer prof. Bo Lehnert lectured about fusion energy to some politicians. Lehnert showed some graphs on various parameters just to give the impression that fusion was close to achieve its objectives. All he needed was some money and little more time.....

After the lecture the nuclear engineer and his colleagues were given the opportunity to have a closer look at the graphs and calculations. It was soon discovered that Lehnert had used logaritmic scales just to make a good impression.

He was in fact many many orders of magnitude away from achieving anything useful at all.

As far as I understand it, it will not take a huge research effort to see if the field reversed configuration is worth having. Even a small country like Sweden can do it.

Convincing the politicians it is worth putting money into such a discredited field is something different.