Talk-Polywell.org

Very nice Kiteman thank you.

I think you had pointed out some issues with the number of fusions per neutron on an earlier post, which I should probably dig up and correct, but this should be within an order of magnitude (and of course there's a wide margin of error in the fusion estimate anyway given the small number of neutrons).

When I did the calc, I had found reference to the coverage percentage for the detectors. I don't recall exactly what it was but it was something like 4000 neutrons per detected neutron. I really don't remember the number now, but when I did the calculation I got just about .1mW. When I used his 1E9 fusions per seco0nd, I got closer to .6mW. I should post that calc some time.

KitemanSA wrote:Talldave's post with prettier spacing.

Code: Select all

Machine,  Tesla,  power ratio,  fusions,  eV /fusion,  ev produced,	 joules /eV,   watts
 WB-6       0.1       1        1.00E+09    1.25E+07       1.25E+16            1.6E-19      0.00200 
 WB-8       0.8     4096       4.10E+12    1.25E+07       5.12E+19            1.6E-19      8.19200 

It's 8W of power at .8T (asuming size remains the same). I guess I could have just done .002W * 4096 but I thought I should start over from the fusions/sec just to be sure.

[/quote]

And that is not including any gains from increasing the electron drive energy (volts), nor does it incorperate any change in geometry. Optamistic gains from those may increase output by as much as 100 fold (up to ~30 x from increasing voltage, and up to 3-5 x from higher order polyhedra). They are going to have to start paying attention to neutron exposures.

Dan Tibbets

TallDave wrote:Is it possible we're misreading the 100 milliwatt number? I think they must have have meant megawatts.

I agree, it really seems to be a typo. Why would an advanced WB9 be designed to be less powerfull than WB8?

And what applications could they have in mind for a 100mW machine? I can't really say it HAS to be a typo, but it sure seem like it.

100MW is tantamount to an at least break-even design, isn't it? WB-9 is explicitely designated as "fusion demonstrator". How could WB-8 be 100MW if WB-9 is the fusion demonstrator?

Betruger wrote:100MW is tantamount to an at least break-even design, isn't it? WB-9 is explicitely designated as "fusion demonstrator". How could WB-8 be 100MW if WB-9 is the fusion demonstrator?

From the way it reads to me, WB-9 is supposed to be the version made using improvements from WB-8.
* WB-7: test/verification of concept.
* WB-8: proof of concept.
* WB-9: demonstrator.
* WB-10: prototype production model?

The report shall address the conceptual
requirements for a polywell fusion reactor capable of generating approximately 100mW.

I find it hard to imagine that they would refer to a 100 milliwatt machine as a "reactor". From wikipedia, "A nuclear reactor is a device in which nuclear chain reactions are initiated, controlled, and sustained at a steady rate". So, if we're going by the actual definition of "reactor", this is almost definitely a typo. Also, WB 8.1 should be capable of 100 milliwatts or more (as others have pointed out), so why would they want a report on how to do something that was just demonstrated? The report would just say, "see WB8.1".

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote: https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... _CDRLS.pdf

This is a list of paperwork rqmts and delivery schedules. Monthly progress reports are required.

Conceptual dwgs and models. Scientific papers. - as required.

I suspect they were last time. Doesn't mean we can see them. But one can hope.

But OMG did you see the inventory? Talk about detailed minutia for the techno-cats on this forum.

Time to PLAY!

Yeah! I'm going to take a half day and look at it and see if I can figure out what is going on.

KitemanSA wrote:

TallDave wrote:Is it possible we're misreading the 100 milliwatt number? I think they must have have meant megawatts.

I agree, it really seems to be a typo. Why would an advanced WB9 be designed to be less powerfull than WB8?

And what applications could they have in mind for a 100mW machine? I can't really say it HAS to be a typo, but it sure seem like it.

Having slept (fitfully) over this one night, I can see how WB9 could be "100mW". If it were a steady-state machine at 100mW net, that would be amazing too.

KitemanSA wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

TallDave wrote:Is it possible we're misreading the 100 milliwatt number? I think they must have have meant megawatts.

I agree, it really seems to be a typo. Why would an advanced WB9 be designed to be less powerfull than WB8?

And what applications could they have in mind for a 100mW machine? I can't really say it HAS to be a typo, but it sure seem like it.

Having slept (fitfully) over this one night, I can see how WB9 could be "100mW". If it were a steady-state machine at 100mW net, that would be amazing too.

The 100mW may just be a nominal number for contract purposes. It also avoids giving the game away i.e. what are the real reactor constants.

The statement of work talks about the wiffleball being "MG insulated". What does that mean?

deane wrote:The statement of work talks about the wiffleball being "MG insulated". What does that mean?

Magnetic Grid

If 100 mW is a typo be on the lookout for a correction.

OTOH the number may indicate that they have to build a shield building because neutron counts are starting to get significant.

If they are already contemplating WB-9 there may be money for long lead items. Meaning they may be contemplating an engineering overlap to maximize the use of the brains.

Aero wrote:Let me make it a little easier for us to get on with the interesting discussions by posting the documents linked in the solicitation. But don't assume that I have found everything of interest, so someone else should follow the links in case I have missed something. It wouldn't be the first time.

Statement of work (51 pages, good stuff) - https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... R-0044.pdf

Contract Data Line Items (3 pages I don't understand) -https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... _CDRLS.pdf

Inventory list (13 pages of good stuff) - https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... y_List.pdf

From the last page of contract Items:

http://www.igbt.cn/admin/productfile/1S ... R17KE3.pdf

I count 79 of them bought. That seems like a lot at $335 a pop.

And I count 16 of these:

http://www.dynexsemi.com/assets/IGBT_Mo ... 5-F000.pdf

Stuff was bought to get WB-7 up to 20 KV. - page 7 of the PDF

NEMA MW16-C wire - rated for 240 deg C and intermittent overload.

http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFi ... atings.pdf

On page 6 - 26 coil casings for WB-7. Should be good for 2 machines plus a spare. Ordered? Sept 2007.

If they were modifying the second set for cooling while using the first set in WB-7 it is more than possible WB-8 will be up and running in short order.

MSimon wrote:

deane wrote:The statement of work talks about the wiffleball being "MG insulated". What does that mean?

Magnetic Grid

But what is it insulating, or being insulated from?