Added volume only helps a LOT if magnet strength can be kept constant.Tom Ligon wrote:Part of the idea of building a dodec at the same scale as WB-7 was to see if the improved reaction rate matched what the model said would result from being closer to spherical. The improvement was supposed to be something like 3-5 x better. That would then guide the design choices in the 100 MW demo.
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.
If WB-D makes 100 W instead of 100 MW, then you have a problem.
emc2's website
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yes. They looked like stiffeners to me. Which would figure if they are using a 10T SC magnet.Tom Ligon wrote:Simon, did you notice several rectangular features on WB-D? Waveguides, I suspect. While some of the CF fittings are plenty large to accomodate them, I note their absence on the basic WB-8 chamber.
Also - have you considered that with a fixed magnet current they may actually get more power out of a smaller (within reason) machine?
B goes up linearly with a reduction in linear size. Reaction rate goes up as B^4 volume declines as R^3. So power goes UP linearly with size reduction with fixed (at the wire of the windings) field strength.
And if alphas are going through the doughnut holes you don't have to hold the open space at 80%.
Last edited by MSimon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Sorry, I misspoke. Publication 78 lists ALL tax exempt organizations that are recognized by the IRS. There is a nifty on-line search capability. You are welcome to see if you can find it while I couldn't.IntLibber wrote: There are other forms of non profit organizations, not just 501c(3).
Last edited by KitemanSA on Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. B.'s WB8 plan called out a "higher order polyhedron" which pretty much left the icosidodecahedron. Dr. N.'s WB8 is trun-cube by contract.billh wrote:I thought it was interesting that both WB-8 and WB-D are still cubic. Wasn't there some speculation awhile back about whether Rick might try a dodecahedron design with WB-8?
Dr. B.'s plan was to re-build WB6 to validate the prior work and have it reviewed by an expert panel. Upon a good review, the plan jumped into a ~$200M , 100MW demo project which had in its early stages the building of two more SMALL scale machines; WB7 (a RECTIFIED cube vice trucated) and WB8 (the "higher order polyhedron). As far as I know, though I have not read ALL his posts, Dr. N. has never proposed doing anything but bigger, better WB6s. This is much like MSimon by the way.mvanwink5 wrote:It is just a guess, but my guess is that without a big budget to investigate the dodecahedron, Rick has gone with what he knows can be built based on a configuration he has scaling data for, hence the low budget, low risk design.
You know, since the better sphericity might make the density 3-5 tmes as good, I have always wondered if the total result might be 3-5 raised to the 4th times as good. Probably not, but that would be a marvelous result, no?Tom Ligon wrote:Part of the idea of building a dodec at the same scale as WB-7 was to see if the improved reaction rate matched what the model said would result from being closer to spherical. The improvement was supposed to be something like 3-5 x better. That would then guide the design choices in the 100 MW demo.
Kiteman, one can always hope (hence the experiment, to see if theory and practice are the same). In theory, though, no.
It could go the other way. Chris thinks this thing leaks like a sieve, in which case more cusps is counterproductive.
Since we don't know whose theory is right in practice, we keep chaffing and grousing about FOIA disclosures.
It could go the other way. Chris thinks this thing leaks like a sieve, in which case more cusps is counterproductive.
Since we don't know whose theory is right in practice, we keep chaffing and grousing about FOIA disclosures.
50 cm coils would imply a nice increase in the coil size over the 30cm WD-7 coil size as well as the B field increase from .1T to .8T. Would the coil size and B field be adequate for WD-8.1 pBJ testing? Would the B field need to be increased? Thoughts?Tom Ligon wrote:On the scale of WB-8, I count thirty bolt holes on the large flanges. According to the tech data at Insulator Seal, there are two flanges with 30 bolt holes. Their outside diameters are 13.25 and 14 inches, which pins down the size of the apparatus considerably. That would rough the magnet diameters at around half a meter, so maybe they were intended as 1/4 meter radius?
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
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?Tom Ligon wrote:Chris thinks this thing leaks like a sieve, in which case more cusps is counterproductive.
Since we don't know whose theory is right in practice, we keep chaffing and grousing about FOIA disclosures.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Wink,
There are a few around here who seem to have a very good grasp of plasma physics, who have, let's say, grave doubts about the viability of the Polywell. Chris and Art Carlson among them. They argue that there are cusp loss mechanisms that the Polywell will not be able to beat, that will prevent it from working.
I'm by no means convinced they are right. EMC2 seems to confidently believe they are wrong.
Physics, in the end, will decide the truth.
WB8 might be rigged to try p-B11, but just to prove that some detectable level of reaction is possible. For that matter, you could probably do the reaction in a Farnsworth Fusor, if you don't mind getting cooked by the radiation from 100 kV drive potentials. They would have to build the unit with much better insulators than are needed for DD reactions. All those extra ports on the chamber could accomodate detectors rigged to discriminate alphas in the 3 MeV range, among other new diagnostics.
There are a few around here who seem to have a very good grasp of plasma physics, who have, let's say, grave doubts about the viability of the Polywell. Chris and Art Carlson among them. They argue that there are cusp loss mechanisms that the Polywell will not be able to beat, that will prevent it from working.
I'm by no means convinced they are right. EMC2 seems to confidently believe they are wrong.
Physics, in the end, will decide the truth.
WB8 might be rigged to try p-B11, but just to prove that some detectable level of reaction is possible. For that matter, you could probably do the reaction in a Farnsworth Fusor, if you don't mind getting cooked by the radiation from 100 kV drive potentials. They would have to build the unit with much better insulators than are needed for DD reactions. All those extra ports on the chamber could accomodate detectors rigged to discriminate alphas in the 3 MeV range, among other new diagnostics.
If you go for the 50 KV resonance peak the radiation will be less. And the resonance peak reactivity is on the order of D-D reactivity at 50 KV. Of course that means a highly regulated well filtered power supply.Tom Ligon wrote:Wink,
There are a few around here who seem to have a very good grasp of plasma physics, who have, let's say, grave doubts about the viability of the Polywell. Chris and Art Carlson among them. They argue that there are cusp loss mechanisms that the Polywell will not be able to beat, that will prevent it from working.
I'm by no means convinced they are right. EMC2 seems to confidently believe they are wrong.
Physics, in the end, will decide the truth.
WB8 might be rigged to try p-B11, but just to prove that some detectable level of reaction is possible. For that matter, you could probably do the reaction in a Farnsworth Fusor, if you don't mind getting cooked by the radiation from 100 kV drive potentials. They would have to build the unit with much better insulators than are needed for DD reactions. All those extra ports on the chamber could accomodate detectors rigged to discriminate alphas in the 3 MeV range, among other new diagnostics.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Thanks Tom, I understand theoretical doubts, but actual testing always trumps theory, hence pointing to EMC2 web site posting validated results with improved diagnostics. Granted FOIA requests would have assuaged nagging doubts where folks might doubt EMC2, but I personally will take them at their word. So, if I might restate my question, does acceptable electron loss go to the heart of the cusp issue? Or am I being slow minded here? Thanks again.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Yes.mvanwink5 wrote:Thanks Tom, I understand theoretical doubts, but actual testing always trumps theory, hence pointing to EMC2 web site posting validated results with improved diagnostics. Granted FOIA requests would have assuaged nagging doubts where folks might doubt EMC2, but I personally will take them at their word. So, if I might restate my question, does acceptable electron loss go to the heart of the cusp issue? Or am I being slow minded here? Thanks again.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.