Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: NAWCWD LRAF Spreadsheet

Post by ladajo »

Maui wrote:
RHarris wrote: As Northstar pointed out, this new contract will be as a "Full and Open Competition" award rather than sole source. This tells me that they feel that whatever the scope of work is, it will be mature enough that a company without EMC2's extensive research experience can pickup where the current contract leaves off.
I'm a little confused about how the RFP relates to the quote about EMC2 continuing "basic research to develop an operational Plasma Wiffleball 8 device." Does this mean the RFP work will be done in parallel to the work EMC2 is currently doing?
This new one is sole source. I do not see where they will not stay sole source if they go for 8.1. I think it is just an artifact of the placeholder. I really think they will stay sole source. If they go for DEMO, then it may open up to a new construct, where EMC leads a team. But, so far, ONR sees EMC clearly as sole source for all work.
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)

RHarris
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: Cary, North Carolina, US

Re: NAWCWD LRAF Spreadsheet

Post by RHarris »

ladajo wrote:This new one is sole source. I do not see where they will not stay sole source if they go for 8.1. I think it is just an artifact of the placeholder. I really think they will stay sole source. If they go for DEMO, then it may open up to a new construct, where EMC leads a team. But, so far, ONR sees EMC clearly as sole source for all work.
There are two "new ones" were discussing. The first is the LRAF spreadsheet which says "we think we might issue a new contract" and the second is the extension to the existing contract to do work on the ion guns.

I sent an email to the Office of Small Business Programs at NAWCWD (who published the LRAF) to see if they had an update on the timeline and award type of line 316. I'll let y'all know what I find out.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

I think it will be, "oh, we just ended up modding the exisitng contract instead."

Standing by.
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)

Ivy Matt
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: NAWCWD LRAF Spreadsheet

Post by Ivy Matt »

ladajo wrote:If they go for DEMO, then it may open up to a new construct, where EMC leads a team.
DEMO is the proposed successor to ITER. EMC2 seems to be calling their demonstration reactor "WB-D".
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: NAWCWD LRAF Spreadsheet

Post by mvanwink5 »

ladajo wrote:
Maui wrote:
RHarris wrote: As Northstar pointed out, this new contract will be as a "Full and Open Competition" award rather than sole source. This tells me that they feel that whatever the scope of work is, it will be mature enough that a company without EMC2's extensive research experience can pickup where the current contract leaves off.
I'm a little confused about how the RFP relates to the quote about EMC2 continuing "basic research to develop an operational Plasma Wiffleball 8 device." Does this mean the RFP work will be done in parallel to the work EMC2 is currently doing?
This new one is sole source. I do not see where they will not stay sole source if they go for 8.1. I think it is just an artifact of the placeholder. I really think they will stay sole source. If they go for DEMO, then it may open up to a new construct, where EMC leads a team. But, so far, ONR sees EMC clearly as sole source for all work.
Here is the wording the Navy is using
This sole source acquisition is in accordance with FAR 6.302-1. EMC2 is the original developer of the Plasma Wiffleball approach. EMC2 owns the intellectual property rights to the developmental device and possesses an existing body of experience on the Plasma Wiffleball 8 that makes them uniquely and solely capable of further investigative work on the device. EMC2 also has a unique body of knowledge regarding the operation and performance of the Plasma Wiffleball 8, which will allow them to continue the basic research to develop an operational Plasma Wiffleball 8 device.
Best regards
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

During the course of the contracted study several anomalies related to how electrons were fed into the device were discovered. These anomalies must be characterized and solutions created if the device is to be made functional.

To solve these anomalies, the additional effort will require the incumbent contractor to further their studies by employing independently powered electron gun arrays operating at up to 10 kilovolt (kV) to inject high energy electrons onto the Plasma Wiffleball 8 core and control the WB formation process.

Additionally, a separate pulsed power system with minimum 100 amperes current rating will be utilized to power the electron gun arrays.
I wonder how much developmental effort is going into solving problems that are only characteristic of a pulsed experimental machine, that will not be relevant to a continuously operated machine? Further, in my mind at least, until a machine is operated and tested in a continuous mode, room for other significant issues would seem to be left unknown. We really are a long way from really knowing anything using this controlled cost risk process.
Best regards
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

RHarris
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: Cary, North Carolina, US

Post by RHarris »

Here's the response I got back from Derrick Hu at NAVAIR:
I found out an option on the contract was exercised to extend the period of performance to 3/31/2014. Therefore, we will not know any follow on information until sometime next year.
I asked a followup question to see if this is the notice that was posted on the FBO website yesterday, but my guess is that it is.

There were two options in the 0125 contract - one to build WB8.1 with PB11 as the fuel (SOW 3.2) and one to upgrade the ion guns (SOW 3.3). From the FBO website, it sounds like they're doing the 3.3 option first.
3.3.1 The contractor shall develop an enhanced ion drive system that is compatible with Wiffleball 8.1 and projected future wiffleballs. The ion drive system shall be capable of injecting protons (ionized Hydrogen), and ionized Boron 11. The ion drive system shall be capable of generating ions in sufficient quantity to fully fuel the wiffleball fusion machines.
// Does a happy dance :D
Last edited by RHarris on Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

mvanwink5 wrote:
During the course of the contracted study several anomalies related to how electrons were fed into the device were discovered. These anomalies must be characterized and solutions created if the device is to be made functional.

To solve these anomalies, the additional effort will require the incumbent contractor to further their studies by employing independently powered electron gun arrays operating at up to 10 kilovolt (kV) to inject high energy electrons onto the Plasma Wiffleball 8 core and control the WB formation process.

Additionally, a separate pulsed power system with minimum 100 amperes current rating will be utilized to power the electron gun arrays.
I wonder how much developmental effort is going into solving problems that are only characteristic of a pulsed experimental machine, that will not be relevant to a continuously operated machine? Further, in my mind at least, until a machine is operated and tested in a continuous mode, room for other significant issues would seem to be left unknown. We really are a long way from really knowing anything using this controlled cost risk process.
Best regards
Remember we are talking about WB-8, a machine that burns D-D, and its energy out is heat. Pulseing it at a high but variable rate should make control of the heat output much easier than heat control of a continuous machine. To hot, slow the cycle rate, to cold, spead it up. Now you're not concerned with fuel efficiency or even fuel flow control so long as the reaction is maintained. The optimum cycle rate depends on how efficient it is at pulling off the heat, the balance of plant, in other words.

Oops, cross posted with RHarris. Maybe we are talking about WB8.1.
Aero

bennmann
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Post by bennmann »

RHarris is a gentleman and a scholar. Next time I drink it will be a cheers to you!


Onward to a technical question for the forum:
Presuming one doesn't have an ion gun capable of inserting boron yet, how might one put boron into the WB8? Powdered and "puffed" like they did with the D+D gas? I am very curious....

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

bennmann wrote:RHarris is a gentleman and a scholar. Next time I drink it will be a cheers to you!


Onward to a technical question for the forum:
Presuming one doesn't have an ion gun capable of inserting boron yet, how might one put boron into the WB8? Powdered and "puffed" like they did with the D+D gas? I am very curious....
IMO neutral gas puff is ideal regardless. otherwise, you're got to get electrons through the mag field by themselves. this is a lot easier to do if they're linked to a charge-cancelling particle with high mass. such as say, oh, i don't know, a boron nucleus? this allows them to sort of "tunnel" through the confinement field, or at least close to it, before the em-force rips them apart (i.e. ionizes them), turning them into plasma, at which point the electrons will see the mag field and the protons will see the electrons.

and the thing about neutral gas puff is it requires very fine controls, which get easier and more practical the larger the machine gets.

all in all, they'd be stupid not to, IMO. and that's one thing they're certainly not.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Lots to chew on from a couple of short paragraphs. A fan-boy's speculation is that scaling (both power output and input) may be favorable, while electron injection through the cusps may be more problematic than anticipated. That is good because if the scaling is as predicted, the root requirements/ predictions may be confirmed and expanded from earlier research. The idea that a positively charged magrid is enough to accelerate and input electrons from low voltage E-guns through the cusps may need modification. Whether the magrid would be positively charged, or at ground or somewhere in between is intriging. It may be both a push and pull solution. I'm guessing that if more power (volts) is required, there will be a increased power input cost, but the confinement may still be good enough (or perhaps even better?) for profitability. Shoot, it may even be an issue with anticipated direct conversion interactions.

There is some hint that perhaps growing and controlling the Wiffleball may be challenging.
But, in Bussard's words-" the physics is proven, now it is an issue of engineering".

As far as power , my rough calculation based on twice the radius and up to ~ 8 fold increase in B, and ~ 40A current in WB6 at high beta .Input scaling is B^0.25 + r^2. So WB8 may require
(~ 40A * 8^0.25) + (40A *2^2) = (40A*1.7) + (160A) = ~230 A if at the same voltage.
That they are aiming for 100 A suggests that the input electron costs may be significantly better than WB6 predictions. Perhaps WB7.0 and 7.1 results showed a lower base line current requirement (perhaps they only needed ~ 15 amps or less of current -vs- the ~ 40-45 amps in WB6. IF that is the case, the input costs may be less than originally thought. While the injection and control knobs may be more finicky, as the machine grows.
Remember that thermalization issues become more prevalent as the radius increases because the MFP/ r ratio increases(at the same voltage). And the B scaling density increase also leads to faster thermalization of the electrons. This and a fist full of other issues may make for a very complex relationship between various parameters.

So, as said above, the physics may be very encouraging, while the engineering/ operational issues are becoming more obvious.
Comparing this to Tokamaks, the research to evaluate and characterize the challenges may take a few years and a few 10's of millions of dollars, while the Tokamaks require several 10's of billions of dollars and several decades to characterize and possibly overcome the challenges.

I'm fairly confident that Tokamaks can make positive Q fusion from a physics viewpoint (they are very close already). The engineering - operational challenges are another matter.
I am now cautiously optimistic that the Polywell may have satisfactorily demonstrated the fusion and scaling physics, while the engineering issues remain challenging. The big difference is the cost (in both time and dollars) of furthering the engineering studies and workarounds for problem areas.
[EDIT] This exemplifies Bussard's engineering/ development cost scaling predictions. Cost ~= Radius cubed. If a Polywell ends up being ~ 1.5 to 2 meters in radius, it is ~ 1/10th the radius of ITER and costs are ~ 1000 times less (again in both time and money)

PS: Above cogitating about the power supplies may be misleading. They may be talking about steady state power supplies, while earlier WB8 work (as with WB6 and 7) may have been capable of delivering more power than my assumptions, but only through brief discharges from capacitor banks. Eliminating these labile power intermediaries would allow for much tighter control.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

A couple of comments on the two posts preceding mine.

Boron can be delivered as a gas, decoboranes, etc. Basically a compound of a bunch of hydreogens stuck on a few borons. Issues of deposition of the boron/ boron compounds may be an issue. The decaboranes are also (moderately?) toxic. Deuterium is almost nontoxic. All you have to worry about is smothering yourself or blowing yourself up.

Ionization of neutral gas can supply a lot of secondary electrons, especially boron with a Z of 5. The 2007 pattent application mentions the consequences of this, even mentioning that it might be a problem of too many electrons. The alpha fusion ions may carry away more positive charges than the electron losses can balance against- it would be a run away increase in the electron to ion ratio, at least in theory. The building coulomb charge would of course limit this, but it illustrates another relationship that may need to be adjusted for .
As far as injection of energetic electrons, the the secondary electrons start their lives at low energy (ionization cross section peaks at ~ 100 eV) They contribute little to the depth of the potential well. They have to be heated by further collisions with the hot electrons, I once was uncertain how they were heated , as I thought that the secondary electron numbers might be similar to the injected electron numbers. But, actually the secondary electrons are ~= to the number of created ions (adjusted for Z). And as the ion lifetimes are perhaps 100 times greater than the electron lifetimes, the injected (or recirculated) electrons outnumber the secondary electrons by ~ 100 to 1. Thus the average temperature of the injected and secondary (from ionization) electrons will be close to the temperature of the injected electrons.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

RHarris wrote:Here's the response I got back from Derrick Hu at NAVAIR:
I found out an option on the contract was exercised to extend the period of performance to 3/31/2014. Therefore, we will not know any follow on information until sometime next year.
I asked a followup question to see if this is the notice that was posted on the FBO website yesterday, but my guess is that it is.

There were two options in the 0125 contract - one to build WB8.1 with PB11 as the fuel (SOW 3.2) and one to upgrade the ion guns (SOW 3.3). From the FBO website, it sounds like they're doing the 3.3 option first.
3.3.1 The contractor shall develop an enhanced ion drive system that is compatible with Wiffleball 8.1 and projected future wiffleballs. The ion drive system shall be capable of injecting protons (ionized Hydrogen), and ionized Boron 11. The ion drive system shall be capable of generating ions in sufficient quantity to fully fuel the wiffleball fusion machines.
// Does a happy dance :D
I don't think they are doing the ion guns. The write clearly indicates e-guns. I think they simply modified the 0125 contract to include mroe work on e-guns and electron injection, to include addressing the comments in the recovery.gov latest report.

All in all, I am encouraged. They are pressing ahead. More money, more time, more in depth. Although it is not what we have hoped for, it is to be expected. This is a complex machine in its function, and this implies that there will be some growing pains for sure. We are just seeing some of that I think.

The bigger question is how long they will need to sort it, and will it try the patience of the navy too much. For now, seems like support still exists enough to up funding, and extend the timeline. That is a good thing. If things were risky, I doubt they would do both, or possibly either given the ever more austere funding environment.

Just thinking out loud. And thanks again for RHarris and his backup/initiative.
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)

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

re: ion guns - weren't these the subject of new work/additional contracted items sometime early last year?

re: electron guns/electron anomalies - could it be that a successful wiffleball is actually working against us (as well as for us) - possibly cusp plugging also - is actually preventing sustainability of the wiffleball - too hard to keep it 'fed' through the tiny holes?

re: pulsed power - i recall we discussed such a regime at length some while ago - iirc, the consensus was that pulsed mode was unable to meet the required/economic overall gain.

purely thinking aloud here. anyone with better understanding, please set me straight.

all in all however, i cant imagine a situation where they'd be going ahead with such detailed additional work, UNLESS the device was otherwise 'on-track' to successful Q>1 extrapolation.

to-boot - information seems to be 'opening up' ever so slightly - which makes me more optimistic than i have been for a very long time.

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

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:Well, I think we just got more information today than we did the last two years or so combined. Unfortuantely, the information is not quite as positive as we all would have liked. Problems are never a good sign and these do look like rather severe problems to me.
What are the opinions by others on these? Tom, can you join in and comment now that this cat is out of the bag?
I have done a lot of R&D in my electronics work. Sometimes you can solve the issues. Sometimes you can't.

Any management that doesn't expect problems doing R&D is incompetent. POPS is a dead end evidently as a standalone since no one has picked up on it AFAIK.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply