Talk-Polywell.org

I would not be surprised if contaminants, by cooling the hottest part of the plasma, helped stability.

hanelyp wrote:I would not be surprised if contaminants, by cooling the hottest part of the plasma, helped stability.

Given that their experimental results showed improvements with reduced contaminants, this seems rather unlikely.

But did reduced contaminants improve stability, or did improved stability reduce contaminants?

hanelyp wrote:But did reduced contaminants improve stability, or did improved stability reduce contaminants?

Well, they went through great length (e.g. by using bake outs) to reduce the impurities first, then they observed improved plasma density and fusion yield.

Even short pulsed machines like the DPF has to retain the heat if they hope to have much fusioin. Also, as the plasma loses energy the collapse of the magnetic field/ pinch may be impeaded or it may fall apart faster(?).

Tungsten is especially heavy with a very high Z. Even if only partially ionized it may have Bremsstruhlung rates hundreds or thousands of times higher than hydrogen isotopes. If tungsten is ionized to +70 (retains two innermost S orbital electrons), that gives a Bremsstruhlung ratio that is the square of that or 4,900 times more. Compare this to Boron at 25, Helium3 at 4 and Beryllium at 9. If there is much tungsten or other high Z ions in the plasma, the plasma cools extremely fast. Even in inertially confined boosted atomic bombs or hydrogen bombs (?) They need a uranium shell to catch the plasma cooling x-rays and reflect them back into the plasma to keep it hot enough and long enough for the secondary fusion/ fission to reach high levels.

Beryllium is a tough heat tolerant metal and it is transparent to hot x-rays (doesn't heat up much). Perhaps even more important it has a low Z (atomic number) and thus a low Bremsstruhlung contribution.

PS: In Dr Park's Mini B machine, there was significant tungston electrode erosion feeding the plasma along with other metals (from stainless steel in the plasma gun), not to mention carbon. That the plasma pressure lasted long enough (high Beta) with the rapid cooling to obtain useful results was lucky. That or Parks calculated correctly the experimental conditions that had to be necessary and obtainable within budget. It is not only particle loss (with their associated KE), but also radiation losses that have to be controlled. This was Rider's criticism of P-B11 fusion.

Dan Tibbets

The December 2016 report is out:

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=879 ... 4ba1703700

LPP is moving to shorter tungsten electrodes, with the next shots expected in early January.

Oxygen is believed to be responsible for most of the erosion of the anode near the insulator. That can be reduced with a more thorough bake-out process. They're aiming for less than 10 micrograms of oxygen in the chamber before the first shot.

Recombination radiation is believed to be responsible for most of the erosion of the anode tip. There's not much that can be done about that with the next set of experiments, but the eventual switch to beryllium electrodes should practically eliminate recombination radiation, as beryllium only has four electrons and should be fully ionized.

Both reducing impurities caused by tungsten oxidation and eliminating recombination radiation should also enable filaments to form undisturbed, increasing fusion yield.

Been rather quiet lately, but today LPPX tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/LPPX/status/829537842099548165

New Newsletter. More problems with impurities, Beryllium electrodes are almost ready.
http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=879 ... 0643fd7cc5

LPPFusion has produced a set of six videos explaining their own concept as well as the present status of the fusion race.

Part 1 The Old Fusion Race
Part 2 Aneutronic Fusion
Part 3 Focus Fusion - How Does It Work?
Part 4 Fusion Race: Who is Ahead
Part 5 Focus Fusion Next Steps
Part 6 Fusion Race Stats - 2017

The videos have been published both on Youtube and on Vimeo. There is also a set of references, where the used data is taken from.
http://lppfusion.com/new-video-ranks-to ... ny-giants/

Their comment about Helion is wrong. IIRC, they have previously published neutron production. Also, their last published temperature was 5 keV.

LPPFusion has published their first paper on results using tungsten electrodes. They have improved the results, but only the beryllium experiments scheduled for next year will really tell what the performance really will be.
https://lppfusion.com/lppfusion-publish ... s-plasmas/

LPPFusion has launched an equity crowdfunding campaign on Wefunder:

https://lppfusion.com/wefunder-campaign-launched/

Shares are $125 apiece. Minimum investment is $1000. LPPFusion's goal is to raise between $400,000 and $1,000,000. So far they've raised over $100,000.

Ivy Matt wrote:LPPFusion has launched an equity crowdfunding campaign on Wefunder:

https://lppfusion.com/wefunder-campaign-launched/

Shares are $125 apiece. Minimum investment is $1000. LPPFusion's goal is to raise between $400,000 and $1,000,000. So far they've raised over $100,000.

I would have invested 125$ but 1000 USD a bit much for an average person and such a high risk investment. Hope it works out for them (looking good so far, though).

Yes, well, I believe $1000 is the minimum investment amount permitted by the SEC, presumably to discourage lower income investors from making investments and potentially getting fleeced. I'm not sure I buy that argument, though. How much one is willing to invest in a venture is partly a function of one's level of income and partly a function of how much one believes in the venture. So, those who have relatively low income, but who strongly believe in a venture may be willing to invest $1000 just to get in on the action, even if they would be more comfortable investing a smaller amount.

Ivy Matt wrote:Yes, well, I believe $1000 is the minimum investment amount permitted by the SEC, presumably to discourage lower income investors from making investments and potentially getting fleeced. I'm not sure I buy that argument, though. How much one is willing to invest in a venture is partly a function of one's level of income and partly a function of how much one believes in the venture. So, those who have relatively low income, but who strongly believe in a venture may be willing to invest $1000 just to get in on the action, even if they would be more comfortable investing a smaller amount.

It gives rich people an unfair advantage. Any good investor knows that you only spend a small fraction of your investment portfolio into high risk investments. This is a high risk investment by any measure and it is also a long term investment, which would make it an even lower investment percentage.