a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
OK, so what is a H/T?MSimon wrote: gave you a H/T ...
Hat Tip. It means I mentioned you as the source. In fact I link back to your post. Have a look.KitemanSA wrote:OK, so what is a H/T?MSimon wrote: gave you a H/T ...
Saw it. Thanks!MSimon wrote: Hat Tip. It means I mentioned you as the source. In fact I link back to your post. Have a look.
This is the appropriate next step to take in the development of polywell fusion. Even though the WB-7 experiments last summer were promising, polywell is still very much a speculative technology. We cannot expect the bureaucracy of the Federal government to fund it at a higher level than this.KitemanSA wrote:The details of the Jan 8 pre-solicitation are now available at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=1
It is all a little hazy. I thought the $200 million was for a whole program. i.e. intermediate tests to work out the engineering and then WB-100.Torulf2 wrote:$200 million, Is that the cost of build a WB100?
I thought it is $2 million. $200 is for develop it for electrical production.
Later in the paper he mentions two more small scale machines (WB-7, a "squared" coil truncated cube, and WB-8, a dodecahedron, which he wrote he expected ~5 times better output due to less pseudo, more sphericity.In his 2006 Valencia paper, Dr. Bussard wrote:It is thus NOT POSSIBLE to test at steady-state ALL of the physics working in concert, in a Polywell machine, in devices below about 1.5 m in size/radius. This fundamental fact, driven by the realities of mechanical and thermal engineering design and construction - to meet immutable constraints of the basic physics -, has made it impossible to reach the objective of a break-even fusion power machine at
the sizes and scales used in the U.S.Navy IEF program conducted by EMC2 since 1991. To achieve this objective, it has now been conclusively proven that machines in this larger size range must be used.
Since the cost of these scales roughly as the cube of their size, the costs for proof of net power is estimated to be in the range of $ 120-180M, as compared with the approximately $15-18 M that has been spent over the past 13 years in this program. This estimate turns out to be completely consistent with those made originally in the earliest studies (1987-91) ever done (by EMC2) for this concept and program, which estimated a cost to proof-of-breakeven (or net power) in the range of $ 50 - $ 60 M for DD fuel, and $ 120 +M for pB11, in 1992. Scaled to today‘s (2005) dollars, these numbers would be very much larger.