ladajo wrote:No, that is not Nebel's proof, but your conclusion.
Show me.
I can not be bothered to go find it myself. You lost that respect after I repeatedly provided you resources you completely failed to look at or attempt to analyse. For now, you are nothing but a yapping mouth emitting empty words. The burden is yours.
Ladajo, please leave me alone.
There is a link of certain article. From which you can read the conclusion of Dr. Nebel that 2-stream electron-electron instability is not issue for Polywell due to large angular momentums of backgorund electrons.
What do you want? Would you like explanation? Ok. this is well known Landau damping.
But ions in Polywell will not have initially angular momentums. Do youi want explanation. This is Polywell's main concept working only initially.
And if you need explanations of so easy things I need not your respect at all.
Last edited by ladajo on Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
That is not what I am asking.
I point out again that you claim that Nebel researched 2 stream in Polywell and concluded that it is not an issue. And you go on to claim based on this that Polywell IS a beam machine.
I have simply asked you to prove what you say. You have failed.
Show what Nebel said and did or remain a yapping mouth with empty words.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
ladajo wrote:That is not what I am asking.
I point out again that you claim that Nebel researched 2 stream in Polywell and concluded that it is not an issue. And you go on to claim based on this that Polywell IS a beam machine.
I have simply asked you to prove what you say. You have failed.
Show what Nebel said and did or remain a yapping mouth with empty words.
Fact of investigation of 2-stream proves that Dr. Nebel also considers Polywell as beam-plasma machine.
It is difficult to speak with you. As we are can during months argue the same: "Beam machine", "not beam machine". Nebel does not says "not beam machine". But says that electron-electron 2-stream is not issue thanks to Landau damping. But not electron-ion.
And you and other Polywellers hold your expectations on density increasing.
I say he did not "investigate" 2 Stream. I say he only said it was not an issue.
I want you to show me the basis for your statements and conclulsions.
Is that so hard?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
I don't expect to persuade Joe the idiot, but for any others actually trying to learn something:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
hanelyp wrote:The toroidal component of the tokomak magnetic field varies as 1/major radius.
Toroidal component is created by bent around solenoid or set of short solenoids. What ypu can say about mag-field of solenoid? varies as 1/major radius? Wrong.
A =straight= solenoid has a uniform magnetic field, as long as you stay away from the ends. Bending the solenoid into a torus increases the current density on one side, and thus the magnetic field on that side.
hanelyp wrote:The poloidal component, assuming a uniform current density through the torus, will increase in proportion with minor radius.
Wrong. As this is magnetic field of long current filament that varies as 1/minor radius.
And are you sure on "a uniform current density through the torus"?
Assuming a uniform plasma current density, the magnetic field is proportional to the minor radius while inside the plasma. It is not a narrow filament of current, but the whole bulk of the plasma as a conductor. Only outside the current carrying plasma does the poloidal field drop by 1/r.
hanelyp wrote:I don't expect to persuade Joe the idiot, but for any others actually trying to learn something:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
hanelyp wrote:The toroidal component of the tokomak magnetic field varies as 1/major radius.
Toroidal component is created by bent around solenoid or set of short solenoids. What ypu can say about mag-field of solenoid? varies as 1/major radius? Wrong.
A =straight= solenoid has a uniform magnetic field, as long as you stay away from the ends. Bending the solenoid into a torus increases the current density on one side, and thus the magnetic field on that side.
hanelyp wrote:The poloidal component, assuming a uniform current density through the torus, will increase in proportion with minor radius.
Wrong. As this is magnetic field of long current filament that varies as 1/minor radius.
And are you sure on "a uniform current density through the torus"?
Assuming a uniform plasma current density, the magnetic field is proportional to the minor radius while inside the plasma. It is not a narrow filament of current, but the whole bulk of the plasma as a conductor. Only outside the current carrying plasma does the poloidal field drop by 1/r.
From where are you and others taking such assumptions?
With the help of which logic make such statements?
I should learn from you?
Uniform plasma current density? Where is that? Have you ever heard about for example skin-effect, bootstrap current, etc?
Magnetic field inside plasma that is strongly diamagnetic by its properties? You can calculate such fields? Yes, I talk about mag field outside the plasma.
ladajo wrote:I want you to show me the basis for your statements and conclulsions.
Is that so hard?
Yes, it is difficult. "Beam machine" or "not beam machine"
Do you want that I would explain you Landau damping mechanizm, phase velocities, etc.? I can not. Sorry.
Joseph, I know you can't explain anything. That would require that you actually research, understand, and cite references for what you are concluding.You have proved conclusively you cannot do that, repeatedly.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
ladajo wrote:Joseph, I know you can't explain anything. That would require that you actually research, understand, and cite references for what you are concluding.You have proved conclusively you cannot do that, repeatedly.
I can not explain because explanation is mutual process. I can not explain anything to man who are saing "no beam machine" while there are beams in Polywell.
Regards,
hanelyp wrote:The poloidal component, assuming a uniform current density through the torus, will increase in proportion with minor radius.
It is known that an alternating electromagnetic field is damped within a conductor, and not only the field but also the resulting electric current is concentrated near the surface of the conductor. This is called the skin effect.
Self Generated “Bootstrap” Current Contains Magnetic Fusion Plasma
The tokamak is a toroidal magnet configuration used to confine plasmas for the development of fusion energy. It relies on the magnetic field produced by a toroidal current flowing in the plasma for confinement of particles and heat. The most common and technically simplest method for driving the plasma current is magnetic induction. However, inductive current drive is inherently pulsed and therefore incompatible with the steady operation of a power plant, which is highly advantageous for the economy of fusion power. Other current drive methods, based on injection of a beam of energetic particle or a powerful beam of microwaves have been developed. These current drive methods are highly versatile and are compatible with the steady state operation, but are not suitable (sufficiently efficient) to drive all the current.
An entirely different approach is to take advantage of a self generated plasma current, the so called “Bootstrap Current”. The fraction of the plasmas current that can be driven by the “Bootstrap Current” increases with increasing plasma pressure. Higher plasma pressure naturally results in a higher rate of fusion power, which in turn heats the plasma to sustain the high plasma pressure. Therefore scientists try to find magnetic configurations with the highest plasma pressure for a given confining magnetic field. The greatest challenge of achieving a high bootstrap fraction plasma is to find a self consistent equilibrium such that the profile of the bootstrap current is nearly identical to current profile required to confine the plasma.
ladajo, from the errors Joe is making, it looks to me like he is referencing various sources, but failing to understand what he is reciting. Therefore he applies what he has read incorrectly. He seems prone to applying special cases outside their scope of validity. Also, as others have observed, he reacts to correction as if he were the genius and the rest of us idiots. I've concluded that he is beyond instruction.
hanelyp wrote:ladajo, from the errors Joe is making, it looks to me like he is referencing various sources, but failing to understand what he is reciting. Therefore he applies what he has read incorrectly. He seems prone to applying special cases outside their scope of validity. Also, as others have observed, he reacts to correction as if he were the genius and the rest of us idiots. I've concluded that he is beyond instruction.
Hehe.
Two simple questions:
1. where is the uniform current distribution in TOKAMAKs?
2. Where you saw the talk on inside mag distribution in plasma devices? If to recall that plasma is strongly diamagnetic and as a rule pushes out power lines outside. Have you ever read about frozen-in power lines?
ladajo wrote:That is not what I am asking.
I point out again that you claim that Nebel researched 2 stream in Polywell and concluded that it is not an issue. And you go on to claim based on this that Polywell IS a beam machine.
I have simply asked you to prove what you say. You have failed.
Show what Nebel said and did or remain a yapping mouth with empty words.
Fact of investigation of 2-stream proves that Dr. Nebel also considers Polywell as beam-plasma machine.
It is difficult to speak with you. As we are can during months argue the same: "Beam machine", "not beam machine". Nebel does not says "not beam machine". But says that electron-electron 2-stream is not issue thanks to Landau damping. But not electron-ion.
And you and other Polywellers hold your expectations on density increasing.
I've only seen the abstract so I don't know what is in the body of the paper. Dr Nebel was working with POPS effects in fusor configurations~1998. I don't know if he had any knowlege of the Polywell at that time. Certainly he was not involved in the EMC2 project at that time..
Concerning direct conversion, it is an extremely widely used and successful process. I am referring of course to ion rocket engines, Cathode ray tubes, etc, etc.
An ion gains kinetic energy from a set of electrodes or space charge. The reverse, the gaining of potential energy by decelerating ions (or electrons) is the exact same process, only in reverse You cannot have one without the other. I don't think anyone will claim that classic TV didn't work. Also, I suspect similar processes are used in many vacuum tubes. This was one of Bussard's complaints. Many modern physicists suffer from a training blind spot. They have little understanding of vacuum tube practical technology. Much of the Polywell principles are founded on established vacuum tube technology.
Changing direction of a charged particles does not generate (or consume) energy (other than some inefficiencies/ processes like cyclotron radiation or bremsstruhlung radiation). Certain manipulations may be desirable or necessary in certain systems like a tokamak, but again a reminder that the Polywell is a much different machine. The magrid is an already proven direct energy converter, at least if you accept that electron circulation is real. I think the real question with direct conversion is not whether it is possible, but whether it can be done efficiently and practically. In the Tokamak, the diverter may fall under this consideration. Just diverting edge plasma flow in a tokamak is going to be very difficult as the heating of the diverter structure will be severe. I have seen one paper that proposed applying direct conversion aspects , not just as a power harvesting effort, but to cool the plasma before it contacts the diverter, thus sparing it from much of the heating problems.