Helion Energy? Did they beat Tri Alpha? Scam?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Tidbit

Post by KitemanSA »

PolyGirl wrote:People, please!

The proper saying is "tidbit".
Only in the States. The Brits tend to use titbit.
Word Detective wrote:Dear Word Detective: The other day a co-worker said he had a little "tidbit" I might be interested in. Turns out it had something to do with the fact none of us were getting raises, which doesn't fall under the definition of "tidbit" in my book! Since I'm certain now I won't be going shopping for a new car, I really would like to know where in the world the term "tidbit" came from. --Chris Anderson, via the internet.

Jeez Louise, Chris, get with the program. Your co-worker was being "ironic" when he called news of your impending financial doom a "tidbit." This is The Age of Irony, remember? Saying the opposite of what you mean is cool. It also relieves you of taking anything seriously. So let a sly smirk be your umbrella as you walk to work, and if your boss passes you in his new Lincoln, well, that's sort of ironic too, isn't it?

I must admit that, had I been you, that little nugget of information would have ruined my entire day, at least, and I too would hardly have considered it a "tidbit," which is defined as a small piece of something, usually something pleasant. "Tidbit" is one of many everyday figures of speech in English that began as food terms. "Tidbit" originally meant a small, tasty morsel of food (from the English dialect word "tid," meaning "tender, soft, delicate," plus "bit," meaning "small piece"). "Tidbit" first appeared in English way back around 1640 in the "food" sense, and by about 1735 was being used to mean "a small, interesting piece of news or information" Later in the 18th century, "tidbit" came to be used for anything small or inconsequential.

Interestingly, although "tidbit" is rooted in the dialects of England, the variant form "titbit" is more commonly heard in Britain today and "tidbit" is largely restricted to the U.S. The "tit" in "titbit" apparently arose by analogy to such words as "titmouse" (a small bird), where "tit" is a very old term for a small animal or object.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

These guys do FRC at Redmond Seattle (have done for years)

http://depts.washington.edu/rppl/

part of these guys, research started out at UW Seattle main campus way back,

http://www.aa.washington.edu/research/facilities.html

FRC

http://depts.washington.edu/rppl/progra ... intro.html

Just keeping the record straight.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

At least its nice to know that the polywell IEC is not the only game in town.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

kurt9 wrote:At least its nice to know that the polywell IEC is not the only game in town.
That's a crazy thing to say. There are piles of fusion hopefuls. I've been meaning to get a list together of all the different types, past and current.

Some, most folks have never heard of. For example, I only came across 'galateas' a few months ago, because these things (that pretty much replaced tokamaks in the 50's) have only been known within Russia.

What comment should I make that Russia kept its tokamak research secret for several years, then announced it to the world while simultaneously [effectively] abandoning it and beginning research into galateas, which again have been pretty much kept secret?!! If you want to stop you enemies/competitors from getting the better of you, then I guess the easiest way is that you just feed 'em some duff information?!!!

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v13r03m88v4vu343/
A. I. Morozov1 Contact Information, A. M. Bishaev2 Contact Information, M. V. Kozintseva2, A. S. Lipatov2, V. I. Vasil’ev3 Contact Information and V. M. Strunnikov3 Contact Information
(1) Russian Scientific Center “Kurchatov Institute”, Kurchatov square 1, 123182 Moscow, Russia
(2) Moscow State Institute of Radioengineering, Electronics and Automation, Technical University, Pr.Vernadskogo 78, 119454 Moscow, Russia
(3) Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research Troitsk, Moscow oblast, 142190, Russia

Received: 30 April 2006
Abstract The experimental unit “Galatea-3” is briefly described. It consists of the coaxial plasma gun, the plasma guide and the trap-galatea “Trimyx” with three myxine. The parameters of plasma bunch in the plasma guide and in the trap are presented. It is shown, that plasma can be efficiently entrapped by the trap and spread out along it.Therewith the cross-section dimensions of the confined plasma configuration are found to go beyond the Ohkawa surfaces. Estimations show that the particles losses from the trap are on the order of the classic ones.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v13 ... pdf?page=1
The experimental unit \Galatea{3" is brie°y described. It consists of the coaxial plasma gun, the plasma guide and the trap{galatea \Trimyx" with three myxine. The parameters of plasma bunch in the plasma guide and in the trap are presented. It is shown, that plasma can be e±ciently entrapped by the trap and spread out along it.Therewith the cross{section dimensions of the con¯ned plasma con¯guration are found to go beyond the Ohkawa surfaces. Estimations show that the particles losses from the trap are on the order of the classic ones.

PACS: 52.55.-s,52.55.Hc

Key words: plasma trap,plasma,magnetic con¯nement systems
1 The Introduction The traps{galatea (multipole magnetic traps) have been intensively studied up to the end of 70{th years of XX century [1], [2]. The traps in which the electric conductors ( named by \myxines") are imbedded in the plasma have been named by \Galatea" [3]. The traps with quadrupole and octupole magnetic con¯guration have been investigated, and it has been shown, that at the late stages of the plasma decay process (under the plasma density in the trap smaller than 1017m¡3) the di®usion is of a classical character. However after tokamaks advent these works have been stopped. The analysis of the situation, having turned out in the problem of the controlled nuclear fusion, leads to the conclusion that the magnetic balloons{ galateas, in which the plasma is surrounded throughout all sides by the magnetic barrier, are seemed as the most probable candidates onto the role of the ideal traps [3]. In the given paper the multipole trap{galatea \Trimyx", whose magnetic con¯guration di®ers from the magnetic con¯gurations of the traps, investigated in the works [1], [2], is considered. The particular attention is paid to the character of

Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, Vol. 56 (2006), Suppl. B
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Helion Energy? Did they beat Tri Alpha? Scam?

Post by Art Carlson »

kurt9 wrote:Interesting. I was the one who commented about them being shady in the "NextBigFuture". I was noting the lack of technical detail in their website and presentation. I was not aware that UofW was a hotbed of FRC research.
My contact has confirmed that John Slough is behind this. That by itself is enough to get it past my scam warning system. The details are certainly sketchy, but more are sure to come. (I know some other fusion experiments that release only scant information. Ahem.) I'll try to get back up to speed on FRCs and report what I find out.
kurt9 wrote:I believe Norman Rostoker's idea (Tri-Alpha) is also an FRC or some variant of it. I notice that Norman is also in his 80's. Hopefully, his partner, Hendrick Monkhorst, is as much the driver behind this as Norman Rostoker.
I am on record with several serious criticisms on Rostoker's concept. Monkhorst actually doesn't know that much about the plasma physics part. He's the radiation guy. I also had a bunch of criticisms of the radiation calculation, but Monkhorst convinced me, given the assumption made, that the ultra-low radiation levels claimed were reasonably plausible. (A number of things he taught me found their way into Wikipedia, but keep it under your hat - it's original research.)

Torulf2
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Then I see closer to the pictures at the Helicon paper its looks different from the PHD.
It seems to be two accelerators. It may work threw collision of two FRC-plasma in the burn chamber?

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

chrismb wrote:There are piles of fusion hopefuls. I've been meaning to get a list together of all the different types, past and current.
You should do that. I would be interested in seeing it.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Helion Energy? Did they beat Tri Alpha? Scam?

Post by kurt9 »

Art Carlson wrote: My contact has confirmed that John Slough is behind this. That by itself is enough to get it past my scam warning system. The details are certainly sketchy, but more are sure to come. (I know some other fusion experiments that release only scant information. Ahem.) I'll try to get back up to speed on FRCs and report what I find out.
It looks like its real. I stand corrected. Hopefully it will work. It would be nice if several methods of fusion turned out to be useful and a competitive marketplace of fusion power plants emerged.

Art Carlson wrote:I am on record with several serious criticisms on Rostoker's concept. Monkhorst actually doesn't know that much about the plasma physics part. He's the radiation guy. I also had a bunch of criticisms of the radiation calculation, but Monkhorst convinced me, given the assumption made, that the ultra-low radiation levels claimed were reasonably plausible. (A number of things he taught me found their way into Wikipedia, but keep it under your hat - it's original research.)
I've seen the sciencemag technical note. I've also seen the wiki stuff about the residual neutron flux and radiation that can come from a Boron-Hydrogen fuel cycle. I think I've seen this in other places as well, but I cannot recall.

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

How about timbits or two bits, Canuck english.
CHoff

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Post by pfrit »

choff wrote:How about timbits or two bits, Canuck english.
We have Timmys in the US now, though I rarely get any recognition of my Timmy mug.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Tidbit

Post by TallDave »

I'm not surprised. FRC is very promising.

Keep in mind, if FRC gets a lot of attention that could be good for Polywell too. It's a ten trillion dollar market.
PolyGirl wrote:People, please! The proper saying is "tidbit". :lol: Regards
Polygirl
It does sound a bit painful the other way.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

kurt9 wrote:
chrismb wrote:There are piles of fusion hopefuls. I've been meaning to get a list together of all the different types, past and current.
You should do that. I would be interested in seeing it.
Ask, and ye shall receive;

I've been meaning to kick off this list for a while. As I've researched this subject to gain my own understanding of whether any practical solutions exist for fusion energy, I've come across so many experimental fusion attempts that all extant lists of fusion experiments seem hopelessly wanting and out of date. I hope that many of the ones below might be quite unknown to the reader (and might encourage further study and reading on them) as they don't appear to have been authored into any singular list before. There are vast swathes of literature and factoids to be found behind each and every one of these titles.

Enjoy!:


PIONEERS:

Beam-target (Olliphant, 1934)
Magneto-electrostatic toroid trap (ATOLL, Artsimovich)
Convergent shock-waves (Huemul, Argentina)
Project GNOME (Carlsbad)
Toroidal z-pinch (ZETA)
tokamak (T-1 to 10, Kurchatov Institute)


MAGNETIC:

High beta tokamak (HBT-EP)
stellarator (Wendelstein W 7-X)
Compact stellarator (NCSX Princeton [cancelled])
reversed field pinch (RFX-Mod Italy)
spheromak (SSPX Lawrence Livermore)
spherical tokamak (MAST)
tandem mirror (Gamma-10 Japan)
Galatea (Tornado)
Galatea [magnetic suspension] (Levitron)
accelerated FRC (TCS-U)
LDX
odd-parity RMF


INERTIAL:

Laser Inertial (NIF)
Heavy Ion fusion (HIFAR Lawrence Berkeley)


Z-PINCH:

Pulsed z-pinch (Saturn, Sandia)
Staged Z-pinch (ZOT)
Wire array Z-pinch (Z-machine, Sandia)
High density Z-pinch (MAGPIE Imperial College)
Inverse Z-pinch


ELECTROSTATIC:

Fusor (Fusor, Farnsworth)
IEC (fusor, hirsh-meeks)
Polywell (WB-1 to 7, Bussard)
IEC (POPS)
IEC, plasma electrode (PoF, Sanns)
IEC, beam/spherical capacitor (STAR, Sesselmann)


OTHER/COMBINATORIAL:

Flow Pinch (ZAP, Uni Washington)
CT Accel (CTIX, UC Davis)
magneto-kinetic (PHDX, Plasma Dynamic Lab)
magnetized target (AFRL, LANL)
magneto-inertial (OMEGA laser, LLE, Rochester)
levitated dipole [superconducting] (LDX, MIT, PSGC)
Maryland Centrifugal (MCX)
Sheared magnetofluid/Bernouilli confinement (MBX, Uni Texas)
Penning fusion (PFX, LANL)
plasma jets (HyperV, Chantilly)
magnetised target fusion with mechanical compression (General Fusion, Burnaby)
Field-reversed colliding beams (Tri-Alpha)
multi-beam accelerator (MIGMA)
Piezo/Lithium tantalate (UCLA, Putterman)
sonofusion (ORNL, Taleyarkhan)
LENR/electrolysis cell (need I say the names!!)
Muon catalysed fusion (Berkeley, Alvarez)
Focus fusion (DPF, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Lerner)
Rotating lithium wall (RWE, Maryland)

Notes;
1) I have included one meritous example of each of the fusion methods. Some have many examples, some have just one. There is no order of merit or likelihood of success, etc., implied.
2) I have included methods that I feel differ from all the others in some particular distinct mechanistic way that might conceivably enable stable fusion in a unique manner to the others. A debate can be had over whether, e.g., a tokamak and a spherical tokamak should have separate entries and I am happy to delete examples of what come to be considered 'the same type' where it is correctly argued - but it's my list so ultimately I decide!
3) I have included only *actual physical experiments* that are in the public domain, that have been built in the past or are currently in use or assembly, and are also backed up by either a) numerical simulation, or b) measurements of fusion products. (I've included LENR and sonofusion as results of fusion products have been reported in peer reviewed press, which is a sufficient standard of evidence for this list.)
4) This is my list, and thus my ©copyright, which I state simply so it doesn't get reproduced elsewhere with the addition of someone's 'spark-in-a-bottle' experiment. (Though that would already be included in 'pulsed z-pinch' anyway.)

I will maintain this list in its own thread on; http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn= ... 1241252795

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

Thanks. I have read about a few of these. However, I have never heard of most of them.

Torulf2
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Should not the ”Penning fusion (PFX, LANL)” go to ELECTROSTATIC:?

Post Reply