Page 2 of 7
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:28 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:36 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:38 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:48 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:12 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:26 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:37 pm
also very true. well made point.
but we still have no potatoes.
so, back to the earlier question - 'what will it take for other researchers to start following up in this field'?
until we start seeing some real, verified data that knocks (eg.) Art Carlson's skeptisism/equations on the head, we are all in the dark.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:07 pm
WB6 (Completed, Positive(ish)) - Eureka Build by Dr. Bussard to encorporate "we've got it! ideas". Smoked during final desperation testing runs after money was turned off. "I swear, it made neutrons, see!"
Dr. Bussard passes away while marketing for funding.
WB7 (Completed, Positive(ish))- Funding provided to duplicate WB6 results <after lots of crazy grass roots interneters shook the trees>. "Did we really get it?" Answer was "we got something, but...". The but looks like it fell out as "Nub Heating" (duh moment), and "I still can't tell if there is a Wiffleball". Ohh look! Neutrons again...<how many remains secret, but can be assummed same or more as less would have been a round in the head>.
WB7.1 (Completed, Positive(ish))- Let's take a look at that Nub Heating thing as a loss mechanism. Oh yeah and, use the tools at hand, to see if we have Wiffleball or what. Answer seems to have been, Ohh, the Nubs are Heating but we have an idea, and nope, we are still not clear with electron actual distributions and densities, but it looks what what we think it should, and while we are at it, Ion distros and densities are not fully vetted with the gear we have. But it seems to look like what it should, more or less(ish). ie: Is that really a wiffleball? Well it is certainly something...and ooh look! Neutrons again! Ummm, lets see 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, ...sshhhhssh!
WB8 (Inprogress, Design glimpses look promising, results due with-in the year (Mar11) Assumed testing to start within the next few months.) - Ok, lets get rid of these nub things, and go with wall mounts, here is a pretty picture of what that can look like. We can also explore coil cooling, improved higher volume vacuum system, and longer runs maybe, cause wall mounts certainly do make all that easier. While we are at it, we can up the power supplies and magnetics, to get a clearer picture on the math, is it right, is it mostly right, or is it wrong? To do that we will add some nifty cool diagnostics and analysis kit. This is the "Are we on crack tester", results to follow.
WB8.1 (Optional based on WB8 Results, Currently planning for accomplishment) - Coming into this we have not seen anything that says we are on crack. And, given that, if things go hopefully well, as indicators are so far(ish), we can even give a try for PB&J. tesing and results over 2011.
WB9 - (Navy Demo design 100MW) - Show us what this thing might look like, so we can figure out how much it would cost(ish).
WBD - EMC2 Civilian Demo design
Confinement = Yes, three times.
Electron Losses = Yes, but maybe not so bad, three times, and counting.
Plasma = Yes, three times, and counting.
Neutrons = Yes, three times, and counting.
And the root of all evil in ours minds: "But how many (fill in the blank)?"
The above sums up my take on where the program is at, based on compilations of ambiguous(ish) statements over the last few years.
And hat tip to Dr. Nebel for recognition of misconceptions. I am sure he aimed that comment at us.
Dr. Nebel, please clarify more.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:21 pm
MSimon and rnebel were both in agreement for an intermediate WB with the logic that too large of size changes will easily miss unforeseen issues. These issues are likely engineering issues not basic science issues and it is easily argued it is cheapest to solve them with smaller sizes. Hence the need to do detailed diagnostics to catch small issues that will become serious when scaled. That logic precludes jumping to early conclusions on WB-8 and would argue that the full program needs to be seen to its final conclusion. Unfortunately, I find no fault with this line of thinking.
Nub heating, static charge build up on nubs, gas injection methods, contaminant issues, vacuum exhaust design might be sources of surprises. Others here are more likely to point to small issues to watch for. I will point out however, rnebel thinks a few hundred thousand is justified expenditure for a WB-D preliminary design, so I would postulate the current issues are not large, but with scaling may need solutions researched before building WB-D.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:33 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:51 pm
Eh, chrismb has devolved into mere trolling, I wouldn't take him seriously.
What we know is that Polywell has had a WB-7 run followed by a peer review process that led the Navy to fund WB-8. If WB-8.1 is not picked up or WB-9 is not funded by 2012, we can assume things were, at least, not as rosy as Bussard believed. If both those things do happen, then there is very likely something here. I imagine it will be hard to keep a 100MW fusion reactor under wraps if it works, so if WB-9 is picked up by ~2015 we should know a lot more about whether there is useful tech here.
You kids play nice now.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:58 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:13 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:16 pm