Page 11 of 32
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:45 pm
by chrismb
TallDave wrote:Are you even being serious anymore? You think all the energy is going into background neutrals??
It usually does - especially in an IEC device.
Where did you think it went, all that input energy?
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:47 pm
by TallDave
chrismb wrote:TallDave wrote:Are you even being serious anymore? You think all the energy is going into background neutrals??
It usually does - especially in an IEC device.
Where did you think it went, all that input energy?
Because other IEC devices have
grids. They aren't full of electrons, and they operate in backgrounds. Polywells are, and don't.
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:50 pm
by chrismb
TallDave wrote:chrismb wrote:TallDave wrote:Are you even being serious anymore? You think all the energy is going into background neutrals??
It usually does - especially in an IEC device.
Where did you think it went, all that input energy?
Because other IEC devices have
grids. They aren't full of electrons, and they operate in backgrounds. Polywells are, and don't.
There are as many electrons in a fusor, at any one time, as there are [deuteron] ions - just like a Polywell, actually!
If it were otherwise, Gauss would have something to say about it.
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:52 pm
by TallDave
There are as many electrons in a fusor, at any one time, as there are [deuteron] ions - just like a Polywell, actually!
In the system, yes. Zipping around inside a magnetic bottle ionizing neutrals, no.
Polywells do work in stricter vacuums than fusors. I don't think they quite need to be 10^-22 torr.
Bussard wrote:Typically, for no = 1E13 /cm3 (i.e.
ptorr = 3E-4 torr), veo = 1E9 cm/sec (Ee = 100 eV), and
sigmaizn = 1E-16 cm2, the cascade e- folds with a time
constant of about 1E-6 sec (one usec). Thus all of the
neutral gas is ionized and the system is filled with low
energy electrons in only a few usec.
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:31 pm
by MSimon
chrismb wrote:TallDave wrote:There isn't any background matter to heat in a Polywell.
You're living in a fantasy world thinking this kind of stuff.
So you mean it's gonna operate at 10^-22 torr?
These are the sorts of ideas that idealistic inventors dream up, then wonder why their invention didn't work.
Problem is, you won't need many loose neutrals to spoil the party, cos once
just one gets shunted by a fast ion, then that fast ion is no longer very fast, then you've got two not-full-speed ions, and then 4, and then xxx.. This is thermalisation, and Polywell will not resist it. Polywell's only hope is that this, supposed, annealing process will somehow pull up those slowed ions back to full energy, a process that I am not holding my breath to see.
The only way you can avoid thermalisation is to ensure there really are no neutrals floating around at all, and I presume you do understand that this is just a fantasy.
10^-100 chris. Except at the center where it is 10^100. Lots of power. Wooo hoooo.
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:46 am
by DeltaV
I love this kick-ass stuff.
I don't understand it, but I'm just a country boy.
[Edit] That was just the beer talkin'. I'm sober now. 11 days to FOIA. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick....
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:27 am
by MSimon
Chris,
I was thinking about my sarcastic post (!0^100) and came to the conclusion that there may be a regime where all the conflicting rqmts. will produce net power. The question then is - can such a regime be realized.
Tom Ligon often refers to the balance of rqmts to make Polywell work.
So your argument is not with theory. It is with realization.
Maybe we will know more in a few (11 and counting) days.
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:41 pm
by KitemanSA
TEN
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:20 pm
by chrismb
MSimon wrote:
I was thinking about my sarcastic post (!0^100) and came to the conclusion that there may be a regime where all the conflicting rqmts. will produce net power. The question then is - can such a regime be realized.
So your argument is not with theory. It is with realization.
I think that is a fair observation.
I cannot think of a single plasma discharge experiment that has ever worked as the theory expected it to. In a manner of speaking, I theorise that the theory won't work (!) but will be something else.
Will it be better or worse? As you say, we wait....
It has held me in good stead in life to presume the worst scenario/outcome and plan to deal with that. It is for this reason, perhaps, that I am seen as being 'down' on Polywell, even though I would still like to see it succeed. I guess the 'conflict' comes because, as you say, people hope for the theory and I worry on the realisation.
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:58 pm
by MSimon
People long to see such a simple device as a fusor working. As the grid is the only thing people can physically see in a fusor, so they blame that for it "not working".
Grid losses are the accepted reason fusors can not do net power. There may be additional reasons. Why look into them if the grid kills you before you start?
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:12 pm
by KitemanSA
NINE
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:58 am
by DeltaV
Don't forget the NIST, ISO, EPA, NAFTA, UL and UNESCO write-ups. Those take time too.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:43 am
by chrismb
MSimon wrote:People long to see such a simple device as a fusor working. As the grid is the only thing people can physically see in a fusor, so they blame that for it "not working".
Grid losses are the accepted reason fusors can not do net power. There may be additional reasons. Why look into them if the grid kills you before you start?
God is the accepted reason for why the Universe exists. That doesn't mean its true.
A right to vote is the accepted reason why democracy is considered "free and fair". That doesn't make it true, does it!?
I cannot do this faith-based debate. Present your case, don't present the opinions of others because I cannot debate the reasons that other people have this opinion if neither you nor I know what those reasons are.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 am
by KitemanSA
EIGHT