Talk-Polywell.org

I am concerned. One of the main remaining questions has been loss factor scaling. One of the loss mechanisms is thermalization. This is supposed to be countered by high hot electron flow thru the system.

Perhaps there has been more thermalization than hoped and thus the need for more electrons.

Maybe Rider was right. Shudder!!!

Yes, I am kinda worried too.
Lets hope that this is not the case.

I'll try to be optimistic and assume that the loss is due to a not yet perfect geometric design and not by an excessive thermalization.

Is good to see that they are still publishing some updates anyhow!

I am actually optimistic. I think it is a good thing. For one, I am really happy they reported. I did not expect it.

As far as it goes in the larger context, I think it is good as it shows that they have installed the ability and are currently driving the unit to deeper wells. That is a big deal, and the whole point to get to PB&J. I am happy.
They have installed bigger E-Guns to get to higher potentials, and it is working (so far).

Very cool.

During 4Q of 2011, EMC2 has modified the electron injectors to increase the plasma heating. The higher plasma density in WB-8 prompted the need for higher heating power. We plan to operate WB-8 in high beta regime with the modified electron injectors during 1Q of 2012.

Bottom line is testing is heading into the final stage, beta greater than 1.

Regarding the language about plasma, I have no theoretical background in that area. Plunging ahead with that in mind and asking for forgiveness, if the plasma could be treated like a gas, then P/T = k* Density, or a higher plasma pressure means a higher plasma temperature for the same density. So, talking about plasma heating just means they are trying to get the wiffleball pressure higher for the same electron density.

Does that make any sense?

Best regards

they just need to heat a larger number of atoms. the heating power needs to rise in proportion to the number of atoms to keep them heated to the same temperature.

elementary mathematics here, boys.

This part however, does not make me happy:

Final Project Report Submitted Yes

Maybe we just got the last update via Recovery. Given that we know from FPDS that they have received all funds.



Just keep watching, just keep watching, just keep watching... (to the music of Finding Nemo)

ladajo wrote:As far as it goes in the larger context, I think it is good as it shows that they have installed the ability and are currently driving the unit to deeper wells.

I see nothing in the report that suggests "deeper wells". More plasma IN the well, yes. Deeper well, no. This merely says they have been driving at low beta and now will drive toward High beta for the same well.

ICBW.

mvanwink5 wrote: Bottom line is testing is heading into the final stage, beta greater than 1.

By definition, beta > 1 = blow-out, no? Why run to blow out? They need to drive at beta=.99 for a longer time.

IMHO.

KitemanSA wrote:

ladajo wrote:As far as it goes in the larger context, I think it is good as it shows that they have installed the ability and are currently driving the unit to deeper wells.

I see nothing in the report that suggests "deeper wells". More plasma IN the well, yes. Deeper well, no. This merely says they have been driving at low beta and now will drive toward High beta for the same well.

ICBW.

Does not bigger better E-guns mean more ability to drive the well? If you "stuff" more e- in the hole, does it not become more negative? And "heating" to me speaks to "volts". With fair enough consideration to youtr thoughts that they are trying to make up for losses. But that said, they do not seem to be thinking they will not reach high Beta.

Maybe they also found that with the ten fold increase in B field, they could not drive the plasma to sufficient pressure to reach B=1 (Balanced). This again I take as a good thing.

ladajo wrote:This part however, does not make me happy:

Final Project Report Submitted Yes

Maybe we just got the last update via Recovery. Given that we know from FPDS that they have received all funds.

D'oh, hadn't noticed that....

We have seen that final report checked "yes" before, however, I still have hope of a further update, basically fingers crossed. On the other hand, I have my doubts that anything concrete will be revealed before November 2012 (just my own conspiracy theory).

I am just happy they have come this far without running into a fatal flaw.

ladajo wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

ladajo wrote:As far as it goes in the larger context, I think it is good as it shows that they have installed the ability and are currently driving the unit to deeper wells.

I see nothing in the report that suggests "deeper wells". More plasma IN the well, yes. Deeper well, no. This merely says they have been driving at low beta and now will drive toward High beta for the same well.

Does not bigger better E-guns mean more ability to drive the well?

Unless there has been a total re-design of concept, the depth of the well is not controlled by the e-guns per-se, but the static charge on the MaGrid. The e-guns may just need to be larger to MAINTAIN that well.

ladajo wrote:If you "stuff" more e- in the hole, does it not become more negative?

Not if you stuff more D+ into it too. You need more flow to get more PLASMA and thus higher BETA, not more depth.

ladajo wrote:And "heating" to me speaks to "volts". With fair enough consideration to youtr thoughts that they are trying to make up for losses. But that said, they do not seem to be thinking they will not reach high Beta.

Again, high beta does not mean more depth. It means pressurizing closer to the edge of the current depth.

ladajo wrote: Maybe they also found that with the ten fold increase in B field, they could not drive the plasma to sufficient pressure to reach B=1 (Balanced). This again I take as a good thing.

Concur. But still not "depth" related.

I would accept as a reason to prevent LOSS of depth, but still no implication of deeper well.

ICBW and I hope I am!

Skipping the first entry about hiring...

12/31/2009:
The main focus of this quarter was the design, procuremnet [sic] and construction of equipment for the new WB-8 Polywell device. Theoretical work was also intiated [sic] to build the computational tools required to analyze and understand the data from WB-8

9/30/2010:
WB8 is fully under construction, progress made on Theoretical modeling of the Polywell.

12/31/2010:
WB-8 device construction is completed. The first plasma was generated successfully on Nov. 1, 2010.

3/31/2011:
As of 1Q/2011, the WB-8 device operates as designed and it is generating positive results. EMC2 is planning to conduct comprehensive experiments on WB-8 in the next 9-12 months based on the current contract funding schedule.

6/30/2011:
As of 2Q/2011, the WB-8 device has demonstrated excellent plasma confinement properties. EMC2 is conducting high power pulsed experiments on WB-8 to test the Wiffle-Ball plasma scaling law on plasma energy and confinement.

9/30/2011:
As of 3Q/2011, the WB-8 device has generated over 500 high power plasma shots. EMC2 is conducting tests on Wiffle-Ball plasma scaling law on plasma heating and confinement.

12/31/2011:
During 4Q of 2011, EMC2 has modified the electron injectors to increase the plasma heating. The higher plasma density in WB-8 prompted the need for higher heating power. We plan to operate WB-8 in high beta regime with the modified electron injectors during 1Q of 2012.

For me, this paints an interesting picture.
First, the system has demonstrated excellent ion confinement. That's good. Electron recycling and losses are not mentioned at all as a subject of research. Instead, scaling wrt confinement, and plasma energy are being researched. Apparently, confinement was somewhat better than expected, leading to higher plasma density than expected. Alternatively, the theoretical understanding led to the desire to drive the system outside original parameters. I favor the former explanation over the latter.

If by "heating" one means "thermalization" then the requirement for bigger guns would seem to suggest the notion that they're trying to understand the limits of the system, rather than attempting to use thermalization to achieve some other goal (stated goals have always been along the lines of 'research' rather than 'achieve fusion breakthrough'). On the otherhand, if by "heating" one is meant to understand that the ions are not being held at the appropriate energy level, then I have to wonder how they're achieving their confinement levels. The latter seems more likely to me even with the change in wording from "energy" to "heating".

Besides not researching electron losses, they have also made no mention of measuring the mono-energetic properties of the plasma or being concerned about that. WB-8 was built to answer some of the questions that WB-7 raised. Given the topics for their research, that would seem to have something to do with scaling, confinement, and plasma energy levels. Is it possible that something besides e-potential well depth is aiding confinement, that what ever that is is interfering with ion energies but NOT causing thermalization, and that it was unclear how this effect might scale? If so, it seems like there might be a bump in the road.

What I don't like about that train of thought, though, is that it fails to support the causative agent identified in the last update -- that somehow the plasma density increase required an increase in plasma energy/heating. It's this connection which I don't understand. Maybe a smaller whiffle-ball means there's a lower distance over which the ions accelerate, necessitating a steeper potential well?

-Dave

KitemanSA wrote:Unless there has been a total re-design of concept, the depth of the well is not controlled by the e-guns per-se, but the static charge on the MaGrid. The e-guns may just need to be larger to MAINTAIN that well.

Ah, that sort of makes sense. If you have a denser plasma, that means you need more plasma to fill the interior and hence more e- charge.