Lawaranceville E-Newsletter

[Teemu]

D-T fusion sets also the highest safety requirements, highest need for neutron containment etc. 80% of the process energy is released as 14.1 MeV neutrons.

[Joseph Chikva]

D-T fusion sets also the highest safety requirements, highest need for neutron containment etc. 80% of the process energy is released as 14.1 MeV neutrons.

Right, but this is much easier problem than reaching break-even using any fusion aproaches. As neither approach provides today breakeven. Even if using DT fuel. Including Focus Fusion. Only Mr. Zapkitty can say that Dr. Lerner can reach break-even on DT as a matter of course. This statement is too far from true.

[polywellfan]

D-T fusion sets also the highest safety requirements, highest need for neutron containment etc. 80% of the process energy is released as 14.1 MeV neutrons.

Right, but this is much easier problem than reaching break-even using any fusion aproaches. As neither approach provides today breakeven. Even if using DT fuel. Including Focus Fusion. Only Mr. Zapkitty can say that Dr. Lerner can reach break-even on DT as a matter of course. This statement is too far from true.

You are mixing up two statements:

1. We haven't breakeven yet,

Then you conclude

2. all today's approaches will never reach break-even.

[Joseph Chikva]

You are mixing up two statements:

1. We haven't breakeven yet,

Then you conclude

2. all today's approaches will never reach break-even.

Logically the second statement does not follow from the firs. But their fans e.g. Mr. Zapkitty state that achievement of breakeven on DT is a matter of course. Does this statement correspond to true? I think that no.

Then:
I know that their approach is not new and researches in this direction were stopped around the world. Now they have made one improvement of electrode and promise golden mountains for their fans. But I see their real current big problems with plasma contamination. They declared that that was caused with grease degradatation. But grease will completely degradated and then ended after several shots. But greaze is either hydrocarbon or silicon. And they use also mylar insulator instead of ceramic e.g. beryllium oxide. I asked earlier: will mylar insulator not degradate in the same environment? And could not receive an answer.
Also after several shots the have got non-transparent observation window. Why?
I assume that this is because of erosion of copper electrode with its further deposition on walls, window, etc. Not a problem? Now compare atom number of carbon with number of copper. So, I assume that they will get unexpectedly strong Bresstrahlung. Not a problem? I think that this is a big problem.

[polywellfan]

You are mixing up two statements:

1. We haven't breakeven yet,

Then you conclude

2. all today's approaches will never reach break-even.

Logically the second statement does not follow from the firs. But their fans e.g. Mr. Zapkitty state that achievement of breakeven on DT is a matter of course. Does this statement correspond to true? I think that no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Joseph Chikva]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That is about you? Yes, the second statement does not follow from the second. But LPP has well seen problems and and following not first statement but from declared by them problems very unlikely that they will ever reach breakeven. Understand?

[polywellfan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That is about you? Yes, the second statement does not follow from the second. But LPP has well seen problems and and following not first statement but from declared by them problems very unlikely that they will ever reach breakeven. Understand?

It is about you. Think about it.

And the problems mentioned by LPP are may be fixed eventually - in fact, thats LPPs purpose, isn't it?


But I think talking with trolls isn't my best talent. I don't like such an aggressive tone.

[Joseph Chikva]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That is about you? Yes, the second statement does not follow from the second. But LPP has well seen problems and and following not first statement but from declared by them problems very unlikely that they will ever reach breakeven. Understand?

It is about you. Think about it.

And the problems mentioned by LPP are may be fixed eventually - in fact, thats LPPs purpose, isn't it?


But I think talking with trolls isn't my best talent. I don't like such an aggressive tone.

Some problems may be unsolvable, my little friend. It seems me that for Focus Fusion such a problem is critical plasma contamination via erosion of copper anode.

So, Mr Zapkitty saying nonsense "breakeven on DT is so easy for Focus Fusion team" is not a troll and I am?

[zapkitty]

And the problems mentioned by LPP are may be fixed eventually - in fact, thats LPPs purpose, isn't it?

Many of Chikva's misconceptions are based on data and incidents that are way out of date. Others are so far off they aren't even wrong.

... and as for the few items on Chikva's list that might turn out to be showstoppers?

No one knows... yet. Not even Chikva.

That is why the experiments are being performed in the first place.

But, given Chikva's past record, for each flatly wrong one that I take the time to correct another will be spontaneously generated from... nothing much at all.

Strawmen in infinite recursion.

[polywellfan]

So, Mr Zapkitty saying nonsense "breakeven on DT is so easy for Focus Fusion team"

Last comment to you: Here you have your straw man! And it is your straw man!

[Joseph Chikva]

... and as for the few items on Chikva's list that might turn out to be showstoppers?

No one knows... yet. Not even Chikva.

Why “even Chikva”? At least Chikva knows that window’s transparency can be broken by its bombardment with copper ions, which before passed through plasma. Did Lerner not ask the help against "contamination from grease"?
I asked "why only grease if they also use as insulator material mylar (hydrocarbon) in the same environment?
And if grease makes critical influence on experiment recall atom number of carbon (element with highest atom number in hydrocarbons) and also recall atom number of copper. And then recall how strongly Bremstrahlung depends on atom number. As I am sure that transparency's violation is wine of copper bombarding glass.

Are my data out of date?
If so, please, instead provide actual data.
And also please explain on base of what is your statement that breakeven achievement on DT fuel is the matter of course for Lerner's team.
So, they can but do not want? Not a nonsense?

As real today's situation is the following: all wants and nobody can. Even for DT fuel.

[hanelyp]

I don't think Joseph is deliberately putting out straw men, he just doesn't understand what he's talking about. So he naturally replaces a solid position with a corruption without even trying.

[D Tibbets]

They speak of P-B11 because from a physics standpoint (their claims) it is both doable and desirable. While D-T may be more doable, it is less desirable, and quite possibly more expensive for these cash strapped research efforts. The cost of handling tritium might increase the cost of the experiments by significant portions. As you mentioned, usuing other gasses may give useful results. Helium is the standard for various vacuum and plasma studies, and using it would not imply that they are doing inappropriate tests. If they can get certain results with given reactants , they can extrapolate to other reactants with a certain degree of confidence. I suspect the correlation between D-T and D- D fusion results are fairly well accepted. The case for P-B11 or even D-He3 are probably less defined, so gaining experiance sooner than later is reasonable. Admittedly, for demonstrating Q>1 D-D , or if you are desperate D-T fusion is the most basic goal.

And your understanding of why the performance may be different in the ff, is lacking. They are persueing subtle improvements in the electrode design, but magnetic fields is also a major player.

Your main argument is that they are placing their goals too high. But the system goals are actually much lower. Even if D-T is chosen because it has the best crossection properties. From a system standpoint it is much harder to handle, and even if it works, it is the furthest from successful exploitation. The hot neutrons, the need to manufacture excess tritium are tremendous challenges. Lithium blankets, beryllium, lead and other agents that might be required to produce the tritium, it's extraction, and control are tremendous physics and engineering challenges of their own. I think these researchers can be forgiven for considering alternate approaches as a starting point. Even steam production from a D-D reactor is much simpler than a system that uses tritium. This is certainly within the Polywell,s range of possibility. The P-B11 of D-He3 reactions may be essential for the ff or FRC due to engineering issues (energy density). It is a trade off- more difficult physics, but much easier engineering.

Dan Tibbets

[Joseph Chikva]

I don't think Joseph is deliberately putting out straw men, he just doesn't understand what he's talking about. So he naturally replaces a solid position with a corruption without even trying.

You are right:
-I do not understand if Dr. Lerner consideres plasma contamination by grease as a big problem why contamination by copper ions is not bigger problem
-I do not understand if transparency of watching window brokes after several shots with what that is caused besides copper deposition
-I do not understand if copper is deposited on windows glass, did that before pass through plasma or did not?
Please explain.
Thanks.

[Joseph Chikva]

They speak of P-B11 because from a physics standpoint (their claims) it is both doable and desirable. While D-T may be more doable, it is less desirable, and quite possibly more expensive for these cash strapped research efforts.

Nobody argues that better to be healthy and at the same time to be rich. So, we all know what is desirable. But I have well stated doubts on viability. Once again: if double for them to lift 200 kg bar, let's they show their ability to lift 100 kg.
As I do not see their such ability.

The P-B11 of D-He3 reactions may be essential for the ff or FRC due to engineering issues (energy density). It is a trade off- more difficult physics, but much easier engineering.

You are wrong. The same physics with much complex engineering. And the second wrong point is that you talk about commercial reactor. Do you believe that their existing experimental device can produce net power? Or that is intended only to prove viability of concept?
I think that proving viability is maximum they need. Without any energy conversion into electricity.
Also why do you (and others) think that direct energy converter will be cheaper and easier than combination of first wall, blanket, heat transfer circuits, steam turbine, generator? Have you ever seen running direct energy converter? This a big extremely high current decelerator (negative accelerator) of charged particles. And unlike steam cycle that is well developed nobody around the world has not any experience in its design and building.

By the way, you in vain bothered on difficulties with processing of tritium. That is not so difficult and dangerous as you think. At least now even tritium sights for riffles are offered for hunters and also for militaries. And for one shots only fraction of gram are required. And one Canadian company sells tritium compressed in cylinders for laboratories. If they (LPP team) are so proud when get several millions neutrons per each shot, so they are not afraid neutrons, and so let they use DT mix and get on 7-8 orders higher yield. Certainly, if they can.