Page 21 of 122

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:52 am
by rjaypeters
Thanks for the contract post. Pardon the asides:

I've had trouble with insomnia for many years; except for the relevant portions, the U.S. Navy may have provided a cure.

Similarly, gentles, read...no don't, just scan the rest of the contract. It is a wonder anyone does business with the U.S. federal government - and this is a small contract!

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:16 pm
by ltgbrown
yes, see line items 3 and 4.


I see the line items, but the costs are blank.

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:33 pm
by ladajo
Sorry,
See this:

https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis/deta ... ?id=238726

and the J&A:

https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file ... %20J&A.pdf

And I am still looking for the contract announcement where I believe they allocated the additional $4mil for line items 3 and 4.
We had it all laid out in a previous thread.

The break down was $8mil for WB8 and $4mil for WB8.1.

Edit: Corrected J&A link

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:35 pm
by ladajo
Duh,
It was right in front of me. Been a while since I looked at that stuff.

see: https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis/deta ... ?id=238726

for:

The address for EMC2 is 1202 Parkway Dr, STE A, Santa Fe, NM 87507-7253. Award includes an option for a Wiffleball 8.1 for an additional $4,455,077.


in the final para.

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:35 pm
by ladajo
'bout that time again.
Any bets this time on the report?

I say, "testing behind, fuel introduced, fusions produced, anticipate full power testing by May 2011, projection for WB8 project completion by July, 2011, with final report by September 2011."

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:42 pm
by Ivy Matt
"Second plasma achieved in February."

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:01 pm
by KitemanSA
What do you bet this one gets lost like the Apr-Jun report last year?

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:18 pm
by TallDave
I've been secretly hoping for "scaling favorability severely underestimated, facility vaporized during test in Feb, new team hired in Mar."

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:34 pm
by KitemanSA
I think we would have heard about that. :P

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:16 pm
by mvanwink5
First plasma November 1, 2010, so nearly six months of operation with plasma. I wonder if R. Nebel has had WB-8 up to full power yet, or if he is being methodical and won't know what it looks like at maximum for a while?

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
by Ivy Matt
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:49 am
by D Tibbets
mvanwink5 wrote:First plasma November 1, 2010, so nearly six months of operation with plasma. I wonder if R. Nebel has had WB-8 up to full power yet, or if he is being methodical and won't know what it looks like at maximum for a while?


I have speculated before about how much faster the data collection may be for this presumably magnet cooled machine. With WB6,7, the magnets would have to be cooled down while maintaining deep vacuums. The time between tests may have been a minimum of a few hours for the uncooled machines, and only a few minutes for WB8. . It also depends on the vacuum pumping. I suspect that even the vacuum vessel for WB8 is smaller than the large tank they had for WB6, so pumping time limits were probably also shorter- to clear the gas after each run.

I speculate that the first tests were plasma studies, magnet testing, gradual build up. Wiffleball tests, then lower B, lower Volt tests, and a few tests to near maximum B and Voltage tests. Then they probably backed of and did numerous tests as they gradually scaled up B and V levels. Finally, maximum B and V tests to try to squeeze out the most scaling information. With better controls, they might also significantly push the duration of tests- instead of a fraction of a millisecond, they might manage several hundred milliseconds. That would be very valuable in arguments about thermalization issues, more more truely steady state operation.

In, short they may have bee able to acquire critical information within a couple of months of first plasma. Provided the machine survives, they could then probably spend many months testing subtle effects as they twist the knobs.

Then again, they may be struggling with various problems, and be stalled.

Dan Tibbets

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:14 am
by choff
TallDave wrote:I've been secretly hoping for "scaling favorability severely underestimated, facility vaporized during test in Feb, new team hired in Mar."


There was one sim report a month or two ago that said scaling was only 3rd power of radius and breakeven would require a 150 meter machine. I would assume if scaling was 4th power we might then expect a machine of about 15 to 20 meters radius. That wouldn't fit in a submarine but might still be viable as a power source?

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:24 am
by hanelyp
Power scaling of R^3*B^4 is well established physics. Assuming the magnetic field is limited by current density in the magnets, B proportionate to R is a plausible engineering estimate. This leads to R^7 power. Assuming R^2 losses, R^5 power gain.

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:33 am
by Aero
hanelyp wrote:Power scaling of R^3*B^4 is well established physics. Assuming the magnetic field is limited by current density in the magnets, B proportionate to R is a plausible engineering estimate. This leads to R^7 power. Assuming R^2 losses, R^5 power gain.

The thing I don't get is the R^5 gain. This is what I see.

Code: Select all

R   R^7   R^2   R^7 - R^2   R^5
2   128        4      124       32
3   2187      9    2178       243
4   16384   16   16368      1024

Obviously I'm missing something, but I'm sure R^7 - R^2 /= R^5.