Lawaranceville E-Newsletter

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

I'm going with pfrit's logical arguments on this one.

Polywell is a Naval nuclear development project of a peaceful tech. (power gen.), if it is not covered by the Non-proliferation treaty what in the heck would be?

You guys just always argue yourselves into blind corners and dark allies by trying to be too cute most of the time. Just tell it like it is and be true to yourselves, it is much simpler. Try to keep the political Machiavellian machinations, that seem to plague our era, out of science and tech., please, if only for your own sakes.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Post by dch24 »

DavidWillard wrote:My concern about the "three neutrons" is that its a self fulfilling prophecy of not funding proper detectors , and cutting the project funding due to inaccurate or less than stellar results.
Good point, but any number of projects might claim this. Specifically calling out the three neutrons is thus a red herring.

What differentiates Polywell: scientists do find the claims credible (by Bussard and now by EMC2). Regardless of what replies may be posted on this thread, there are Navy scientists who have looked closely and green-lighted the research.

So it's in a much smaller group of candidates than all the unfunded ideas out there.
DavidWillard wrote:My intuition is that they are running it as a "black skunkworks" project is because of proliferation concerns once it is proven to work. Also some of the conditions of operation could produce conditions capable of fast fission of an ordinary jacket of transuranic material without any enrichment. If Polywell running D-D, D-T, or P-B11 was possible, even in a non net power capacity, then it would probably make a dandy "sparkplug" for fourth generation nuclear weapons.
I know others have said it too, but somehow this was the "aha!" moment in my brain. Up to this point, I was convinced Polywell was not a proliferation risk or useful as a weapon. (As a weapon's powerplant, yes.)

Well, Polywell is not a weapon per se, but it can directly weaponize low-grade uranium (etc.)

That would explain the controls on it.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

dch24 wrote:What differentiates Polywell: scientists do find the claims credible (by Bussard and now by EMC2). Regardless of what replies may be posted on this thread, there are Navy scientists who have looked closely and green-lighted the research.
Really? Where is your reference for this?

Are you saying that the funding was a decision by scientists - or by accountants?

I'd really like to see it, because I think it'd be the first government financial decision I'd ever heard of that wasn't motivated by the politics of the individuals and their accountants.

Since when has whether a thing is good-or-bad science influenced gov funding?! [OK, I'll accept there are good things done at small level projects, sometimes even big ones, but you get my drift.]

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

pfrit wrote:Well if we are going with appeals to eminent reference, then I will say that my father was one of the engineers of Atoms For Peace, was involved with overseeing the AEC, worked on weapons design (mostly developing fissile materials), and then ran Nuclear power plants for decades. I actually called him and he agreed with me as much as he ever does. And if you knew my dad, you would be impressed with me calling him.
Well, I can tell you that I am very impressed that he is more authoritative on matters of the consequences of international nuclear treaties on private individuals than the current Deputy Director of the IAEA. Yes, sir, I would indeed be impressed.

Was that the inference you wanted me to read, by your post?

The bottom line, and I have to absolutely disagree with icarus on this, is that the only laws that affect private individuals are the laws that affect private individuals. Unless there is a law of a country that says something like "all fusion research done by any person under any circumstances shall belong to the state" then there is no such law that obligates a person so.

I'll add that it may, or may not, be an obligation on a nation state to have such a law, so as to be in compliance with the treaties - yes, we could debate that one and I can see the arguments both ways. But right now, no Western country I know of has commuted any such treaties to national laws that control private individuals in nuclear research, excepting for the control of fissile material and of the usual common law matters of ensuring you do not risk or cause harm to others.


D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

I suppose a Polywell could be a fast neutron source for pushing a fission fuel to criticality. The problem is that even with optimistic scaling the Polywell, and associated pumps, power supply, etc would occupy a large room. Not exactly a deliverable weapon. What would concern me more would be using the Polywell neutrons to produce plutonium. No need for subsequent large structures in the bomb, just the regular explosives and associated electronics.

As far as being a weapon, The 2008 patent application briefly mentions that the Polywell could be designed as a very strong microwave source. Even if you needed to feed in a portion of the operating energy from an outside source (Q<1) it could be a formidable weapon on a ship; essentially comparable to currently conceived laser weapons on steroids. Consider current powerful radar systems that can jam, and possibly destroy the electronics in a plane or missile, then multiply that effect by a hundred or more. It might even be strong enough to melt metals like lasers do.
Also, consider the truck mountable microwave systems currently available, that heat up the skin in a painful manner and is thus a excellent and benign crowd control tool. This might be scaled up enough that an entire battlefield may be denied, at least to infantry. As a perimeter defense, it would be difficult to penetrate. Good defense for forts, air bases, or ships against small boats, planes, infantry, etc. It doesn't even need to be lethal (like a mine field or machine guns would be).

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

chrismb wrote:
dch24 wrote:What differentiates Polywell: scientists do find the claims credible (by Bussard and now by EMC2). Regardless of what replies may be posted on this thread, there are Navy scientists who have looked closely and green-lighted the research.
Really? Where is your reference for this?

Are you saying that the funding was a decision by scientists - or by accountants?

I'd really like to see it, because I think it'd be the first government financial decision I'd ever heard of that wasn't motivated by the politics of the individuals and their accountants.

Since when has whether a thing is good-or-bad science influenced gov funding?! [OK, I'll accept there are good things done at small level projects, sometimes even big ones, but you get my drift.]
Considering the Navy's stated plans for going to HV DC for their ships, and the claimed capabilities of a working p-B11 Polywell, I'm pretty sure the Navy is paying for the research specifically because it could provide exactly the type of power source they would really like to be using.


Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Small new update:

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c ... &Itemid=90

I really like reading about their progress. Lets hope that this will lead them to the desired results in the end.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

"Simultaneity of Spark Gap Switch Firing in the Dense Plasma Focus Device"

Looks like an interesting paper but I am not willing to support Springerlink with the 50 USD fees they are asking to access the paper. Hopefully next time they will publish it on arxiv.org.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

If they wanted to use the vehicle of this peer reviewed journal, they probably didn't have any choice. I suppose that the journal wants to maintain their subscription income, so demand exclusive publishing rights.
How much would they need to change to circumvent the copyright(?) possessed by the journal (and any licensing the journal may have with the internet distributor)?

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

Its not clear if these guys will succeed in making commercial fusion. However, I am quite impressed with all of the work they have done in the past year or so. Three years ago I thought Lerner and his crew were complete flakes. I have a very different opinion of them now.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I am in the same boat with kurt...
Originally I was not thinking very highly of them, but now I have a lot more respect for their work. They might never make commercially viable fusion as an energy source, but as it seems they do at least have a device that is usable for other things already.
Plus their openness and willingness to share their experiences and progress is admirable.

Brian H
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:37 pm
Contact:

Post by Brian H »

Giorgio wrote:"Simultaneity of Spark Gap Switch Firing in the Dense Plasma Focus Device"

Looks like an interesting paper but I am not willing to support Springerlink with the 50 USD fees they are asking to access the paper. Hopefully next time they will publish it on arxiv.org.
My screen says USD 34. Where did you get the 50?
Help Keep the Planet Green! Maximize your CO2 and CH4 Output!
Global Warming = More Life. Global Cooling = More Death.

Post Reply