Talk-Polywell.org

Pure speculation, but if they have claimed a 10 fold density advantage over other experiments, I would assume they are referencing the densities obtainable in Tokamak type machines (~10^19 to 10^20 particles per M^3). (Polywell densities are claimed to be upwards of 10^22 particles/M^3). But this is a claim on Polywells part that has not been independently duplicated (that I know of) or widely acclaimed in the scientific literature. The illustration of a Tri Alpha power plant that has been around for several years may be consistent with this. The reactors are perhaps similar to slightly smaller than a Polywell (in diameter), but this is for perhaps 10 MW power production, while the Polywell might be ~ 100 MW. This may be consistant with the energy density comparisons of the Tokamak and Polywell. If the Polywell may reach an energy density of ~ 60,000 over that of a Tokamak (due mostly to the obtainable fusion plasma density), then the FRC may have a potential energy density intermediate between the two. Perhaps 100X fusion density advantage (claimed 10 fold density gain squared).

Dan Tibbets

Skipjack, those are relatively bold statements in the context of a PRL. *Nobody* is going to write "the end of the world's energy problems" in a PRL

Yes, I know that (though I am pretty sure I have seen statements like that before). I was just trying to emphasize the thought. Sorry if that was not clear. It still is a pretty weak statement though. It does not say "will enable so and so much more Q" or something like that either. Lets just say that the wording is extremely careful, especially for a company that depends on venture capital.

Had there been a little less polybullshitbullying here we might even have had the pleasure of an educated opinion on this........

I don't see how the "implications" snippet can't mean neither better or worse, but that the findings are consistent with a different picture from current understanding. What it says to me is that the research they've done / are doing is useful.

One of my think-tank buddies, who says he worked with Tri-Alpha for a while, says they're ready to build a $1B demo reactor.

Was it 2-3 years ago they'd only burned $5M and were still doing theory? We had no firm idea what the hardware looked like except that it would be some form of FRC?

Long list of contributors on the paper I just looked at. Way longer than the 5 people involved in the WB-7 effort.

Tom, does he mean they expect the thing to make usable power? I wonder if the VC guys are convinced enough to give them 10 figures.

Was it 2-3 years ago they'd only burned $5M and were still doing theory? We had no firm idea what the hardware looked like except that it would be some form of FRC?

I know they were saying it was more than 5 but less than 15 years away.

I'm still skeptical they can actually get high beta with this approach in a large machine.

Maybe Art will weigh in, he was a convert to at least the possibility of FRC working after getting smacked around a bit by Rostoker on the subject in Sciece Mag back in 1998. Last I recall he was tired of speculating on PW theory in the absence of data and was awaiting disclosure of something meaningful. Most of his objections were based in tok thinking, but they were still interesting.

It's so curious that fusion would make such progress, from so many different approaches, all in the same few years, after such a long slump.

Betruger wrote:It's so curious that fusion would make such progress, from so many different approaches, all in the same few years, after such a long slump.

Yes, it is curious. Still, observation says that these events all happened independently. Curious indeed.

Curious, but not unprecedented. How many were simultaneously developing atom bomb technology. USA won, but we weren't the only contestant. Consider airplanes, researched for years and again, the Wright brothers weren't the only contestant. There is quite a list if someone wants to put one together.

There is a saying, "All things in their time." If it is the time for fusion then fusion will come to fruition.

Tom Ligon wrote:One of my think-tank buddies, who says he worked with Tri-Alpha for a while, says they're ready to build a $1B demo reactor.

Was it 2-3 years ago they'd only burned $5M and were still doing theory? We had no firm idea what the hardware looked like except that it would be some form of FRC?

Long list of contributors on the paper I just looked at. Way longer than the 5 people involved in the WB-7 effort.

That will be quite a news.
Do you know if it is ready like "we have already proved the feasiability of the theory" or ready like "we have actually mady excess power in lab"?

It's so curious that fusion would make such progress, from so many different approaches, all in the same few years, after such a long slump.

It is not curious to me. It is one of the benefits of the global warming/peak oil scare (whether justified or not does not matter in this context) and people/governments desparately looking for "green" alternatives to current technologies. There is more funding from governments for projects like this and venture capital is also showing more interest. Both meant more cash flowing in the direction of institutions and companines that were doing research in this area. More money means more experiments and more experiments means more results. So I do not find this particularily surprising.

Betruger wrote:It's so curious that fusion would make such progress, from so many different approaches, all in the same few years, after such a long slump.

That's not particularly true.

Between the 'dawn' of fusion reseach and early 1980's there was a steady stream of various magnetic confinement configurations. Magnetic confinement is the solution of choice - if it can be done - because you get a useful specific power density from it.

Included in those attempts were other types like DPF and magnetic mirrors.

Before 1980's there was no big reason to presume research was on the wrong track as progress had been made, and the predictions said the machines had to be bigger.

The outcome was a series of tokamaks, the 'big ones', TFTR, JET, JT-60, &c....

They fiddled with those for a few years, and it was only then that people really started to question whether the indefinite rise and growth of magnetic machines was untenable. These 'big ones' were supposed to do the job. But then they didn't and ITER was proposed. It was at that point the emperor started taking a second look at his clothes.

The 'recent years' is merely a move away from these earlier magnetic machines, but is from 1980 to date, not one of the last few years.

'Tri-alpha' is just more and more of the Rokoster et al work, that dates from this post 1980's period. Bussard dates from then. Laser date from 'around' then (a bit before, but motivated by weapons work, as we know well). In fact, the only 'new experiments', that is to say that has never been attempted on any scale before, in the last 5 years or so is General Fusion and my work.

The only difference now is that energy is more of a buzz word and political game, so you're hearing more about it. But as for new methods.... there have been essentially none since the big magnetic machines built in the 1980's, except for a few like Bussard who rode the wave formed from that fall-from-grace that splashed, surf-like, into the economics of the time when they found out even these machines weren't big enough to 'prove' viability.

Gotta go with Chris here. There has never been a lack of people looking at alternate approaches to fusion, and the guys with a chance now have been looking for a way for decades.

Bussard was inspired by Hirsch, Farnsworth, Elmore, Tuck, and Watson, going back to the 50's. He tried the Riggatron. Told me he still thinks it could have run if he had the chance to build it, but losing that chance made him look for a better alternative, hence the Polywell.

Rostocker was in on the Migma if memory serves. Out-of-the-box thinking, flawed maybe, but part of the whole history of trying to find a better way.

Theta pinches have been revisited routinely. All the magnetic guys would like to make 'em work. In a way, Focus Fusion is taking this approach, their own kind of "pinch". Elements of that project resemble elements of Tri-Alpha and Paul Koloc's ideas.

What changed was tedium of the Big Dog holding the breakeven carrot on a 30-year stick for too many decades. Most people gave up. The believers offered more affordable alternatives to keep trying.

God bless people who keep trying, but not the same old way.

I'll argue the situation today is a little unique in that we have 3 approaches all giving us timelines to net fusion power in the next 5 years. It is a bit coincidental, perhaps a result of high oil prices. Of course, the most likely scenario is none of them will be making net power in 2015. Hopefully we'll learn enough from this round of failures to make better failures next time.

Incidentally, with the Big Red Wave coming I expect ITER is dead and maybe NIF too.

Giorgio -- Given how things scale, I doubt anyone is going to get net power from something smaller than a (very expensive, nine figures or more) reactor.

Other factors to consider are the greatly improving - year over year - improvements in computer simulation capabilities and CAD-CAM design over the last few decades, and also availability of new superconductors and other materials. On top of that is the sum total of research into fusion and plasmas since the 1950s. Eventually you reach a critical mass of new technology and research, and it makes breakthroughs possible which weren't before.

As others have pointed out, not unprecedented. There was the wave of new ideas in physics between the 1910s and 1930s, the two approaches to atom bomb design (little boy and fat man) in the U.S. alone during WWII, the rapid evolution of automotive and aircraft technology from around 1900 to the 1960s... and the information technology "revolution" from the 1960s to present with Moore's law, fiber optics, satellite communications etc.

The rapid development of rocketry from the 1940s to the 1960s, after guys like Goddard and Tsiolkovsky had been at it for decades before the 40s, is another one.