Talk-Polywell.org

huh?

The plasmoid boundary should be at the zero field surfaces.
Right?
Are the current direction right?
I’m grateful for info for make the picture right.

.................................................

In Sweden we have some research from Bo Lehnert about a reactor called EXTRAP. Bo Lehnert vas the man how introduced plasma rotation in tokamak, the method how suppressed lots of instabilities and made the big progress of JET possible.

The Swedich involvement in the JET was hardly criticised by Erik Witalis how wanted Sweden to go for plasma focus.

The most ironical thing in the Swedish energy politics are the origin of the anti nuclear movement. In the late 60- was some progress in Soviet for the tokamak. Hanes Alfen how got Nobel price for the MHD theory said that we soon should have fusion power. He wanted to stop the development of the fission power and start a big Swedish tokamak program. But the nuclear establishment stopped it.
Instead Alfen begun to oppose the nuclear power. He persuade the environment movement about the danger of nuclear power. The environmentalist had before that been pro nuke.

Torulf2 wrote:The plasmoid boundary should be at the zero field surfaces.
Right?
Are the current direction right?
I’m grateful for info for make the picture right.

No, there are two point field nulls on the axis at each end of the toroid (X-points), and there is a circle around the axis in the middle of the toroid where the field is everywhere zero (O-point). The current direction is consistent with the direction of the internal field, but then the external field needs to be reversed.

It might help if you think about how these things are made, and why they are called field-reversed configurations. A bias field is applied to a neutral gas in the "negative" direction. Then the gas is "pre-ionized" to freeze in that negative field. Then the field is reversed, i.e. a strong field is applied in the "positive" direction. The frozen-in negative field lines "re-connect" with the newly created positive field lines to form the toroid.

Perhabs theese explanations could be added to dr. Carlsons wikipedia-article?

May it be possible to combine the latter one with an animation from Torulf?

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.

A bias field is applied to a neutral gas in the "negative" direction. Then the gas is "pre-ionized" to freeze in that negative field. Then the field is reversed, i.e. a strong field is applied in the "positive" direction. The frozen-in negative field lines "re-connect" with the newly created positive field lines to form the toroid.

Thanks Art. I will correct this and post the new picture as soon I come home.

Is this right?

Torulf2 wrote:Is this right?

Looks good!

Any information on funding available?

100k a year I believe.


http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/misc/NIAC_ROI.pdf

I think it deserves more.

jmc wrote:100k a year I believe.


http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/misc/NIAC_ROI.pdf

I think it deserves more.

Isn't the purpose of the Helion Company to attract private funding? Any hints on that?

I don't have any questions, but if at the end of the tour you could scream "POLYWELL!!" over and over until security drags you out that would be appreciated.

TallDave wrote:I don't have any questions, but if at the end of the tour you could scream "POLYWELL!!" over and over until security drags you out that would be appreciated.

Certainly appreciated, but hardly beneficial.

CROSSED THREADS HERE!

Back to topic: The FRC must of course be a very long shot. Just like all the other inventions in this area.

If there were water tight proof that it worked it would have all the money it needed and even more.

There is probably a reason to why the US government has chosen not to bet on this horse.

I disagree with your physics version of efficient market hypothesis: that everything worth inventing has been invented and that anything that hasn't been funded isn't worth funding.

Science at the level of individual plasma devices is a very specialized area, often even fellow plasma physicists don't really understand how rival fusion concepts outside their area of expertise they work in. If you apply for funding for FRC research and there isn't an FRC man on the funding panel but instead just a few tokamak physicists they won't completely understand what your talking about and probably won't give you funding.