emc2's website

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:37 pm

So, which is it, "yes it goes to the issue" or "yes he is being slow minded"?

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:39 pm

KitemanSA wrote:So, which is it, "yes it goes to the issue" or "yes he is being slow minded"?


Does your computer show bolded text?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:43 pm

The WB-8.1 navy contract does include evaluation of scaling for coil size and B field, so what B field increase would provide adequate B-11 fusion for concept validation, 3T? Would a B field of 3T imply SC coils?
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:47 pm

KitemanSA :D

MSimon, thanks.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:56 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:The WB-8.1 navy contract does include evaluation of scaling for coil size and B field, so what B field increase would provide adequate B-11 fusion for concept validation, 3T? Would a B field of 3T imply SC coils?


My understanding is that WB-8 is a copper coil pulsed machine. at .8T (peak) it may be enough for B11.

For continuous operation of a sub net power machine I'd go with 3T SC coils.

If I wanted net power I'd go for 10T @ 1 m bore. Or possibly 20 T @ .5 m bore. (same coil current - more intercepted area). At constant amp-turns B^4 R^3 scaling favors smaller machines. Now about those losses.....
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Postby Tom Ligon » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:05 pm

Wink,

Ultimately, the question is acceptable ion loss, but the energy balance of a Polywell is supposed to be very strongly dependent on electron loss.

Electron loss to the outer chamber walls ought to be a non-issue because the magrid is the only anode in the device, so improvments in the magrid to decrease losses are a great key to the operation. In principle, any electrons lost out corner cusps just come right back.

The question that has been raised is, would not ions follow the electrons right out the cusps? An ion outside the magrid is doomed to go to the walls. If this is occurring, it is a leak from the ion population, and it hurts the performance of the device. This is a fair question, but not one I think will be answered short of experiment. Is the loss trivial, acceptable, or deadly?

I see a lot of ports on the WB8 chamber illustrations positioned where instruments could analyze cusp losses.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:12 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:In fact, a factor of 3-5 could be made up by making the devices just a pinch larger. The success of the demo reactor will not be judged by a factor of 3-5. If it makes only 20 MW instead of 100 MW, but you know you can expand it 10% and make up the difference, no big deal. If a cubic WB-D comes in a little low, they know they have a few tricks left, including a dodec magrid.


Yes, I've made that point as well. The other scaling questions are so much more important, why screw around with a new geometry at this point when it isn't even an order of magnitude?

The WB-8.1 navy contract does include evaluation of scaling for coil size and B field,


They mean from WB-7 (.1T) to WB-8 (.8T). They're not building another machine with new coils, just modifying WB-8.

My understanding is that WB-8 is a copper coil pulsed machine. at .8T (peak) it may be enough for B11.


Nebel seems to think so. I'm not sure what the real challenge is though, since voltage is generally easy in IEC -- has anyone ever tried with a fusor? Is the reaction rate just too low to get detectable alphas in a fusor? I wonder if it could be done with WB-7. (My guess is density is too low for detectable alphas at those sizes.)

I see a lot of ports on the WB8 chamber illustrations positioned where instruments could analyze cusp losses.


When I saw ports at the cusps my first thought was "alphas!" I'm guessing .8T is enough to corral a good number of them in that direction, though I should really do the math.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

mvanwink5
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:33 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:The question that has been raised is, would not ions follow the electrons right out the cusps?


Thanks, I had forgotten that that issue had been raised, however, there are fewer + ions, the magrid is positive and should repel the + ions (as opposed to attract the electrons), and the positive ions are moving slower. Also, I had thought that + ion loss could be adjusted by lowering the injection rate and depopulating the well. So, it seemed to me that the issue was just a small nagging doubt. Still, testing is everything. And one more thing I would like to point out is that even though WB-8 is in process, WB-8 confinement is listed on the EMC2 web site under the "proven" row of achievements to date. So, I took that as a preliminary result report.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Postby Art Carlson » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:35 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:Tom, I am not understanding the doubts that the polywell is leaking like a sieve because the EMC2 site clearly states that the WB-7 tests validated the electron losses in WB-6. What am I missing?

Since we don't know what the electron losses were from WB-6, it doesn't help much to know that WB-7 "validated" them.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Postby Art Carlson » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:42 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:So, it seemed to me that the issue was just a small nagging doubt.

If I have any "small nagging doubt" (and I'm not sure I do), it is that my analysis might be wrong. If you look through the archives (and have the physics background to follow my arguments and calculations), you will find quantitative estimates of minimum energy loss rates that I think are robust. It is not a pretty sight.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:53 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:
Tom Ligon wrote:The question that has been raised is, would not ions follow the electrons right out the cusps?


Thanks, I had forgotten that that issue had been raised, however, there are fewer + ions, the magrid is positive and should repel the + ions (as opposed to attract the electrons), and the positive ions are moving slower. Also, I had thought that + ion loss could be adjusted by lowering the injection rate and depopulating the well. So, it seemed to me that the issue was just a small nagging doubt. Still, testing is everything. And one more thing I would like to point out is that even though WB-8 is in process, WB-8 confinement is listed on the EMC2 web site under the "proven" row of achievements to date. So, I took that as a preliminary result report.


It is odd that you forgot about that issue. I considered it to be the most important issue regarding the viability of the concept. (Once Art pointed it out a long time ago.) If electrons leak out the Holes, how do you keep the Ions from following them?

Recirculation of Electrons is fine, but Recirculation of Ions?

Dunno, seems like a deal killer to me.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:58 pm

Art, no disrespect, I understand that you have skill in the theory, but I don't believe R. Nebel is playing with words, but that is just me. Thanks for your reply.

Diogenes, it is not odd, it is just my failing. Perhaps if I had understood your objection better I would have remembered it. Still, I will wait for test results. Thanks for your thoughts.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:18 pm

Art, from past discussions you have had with R. Nebel I know he has great respect for you. Perhaps if you have doubts about what has been proven, you can just ask him. Just a thought.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:35 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:even though WB-8 is in process, WB-8 confinement is listed on the EMC2 web site under the "proven" row of achievements to date. So, I took that as a preliminary result report.
Yes but what is proven? That it's not feasible, or still unclear, or clearly feasible? It only means that they've proven their data collection ("confinement behavior and detailed diagnostics") works. The question is what the data says, and the website says nothing about that. Not even qualitatively.
Last edited by Betruger on Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:59 pm

Art Carlson wrote:
mvanwink5 wrote:Tom, I am not understanding the doubts that the polywell is leaking like a sieve because the EMC2 site clearly states that the WB-7 tests validated the electron losses in WB-6. What am I missing?

Since we don't know what the electron losses were from WB-6, it doesn't help much to know that WB-7 "validated" them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean Dr Bussard's comments e.g. on the Google talk are bogus?


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests