Alan Boyle update

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 5954
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sat May 14, 2011 12:28 am

Ok, I googled it too. The distance Mars-> is ~12 lightminutes.
Earth-> sun is ~8 lightminutes.
So when earth and mars are closest to each other, it is ~4 lightminutes difference.
When they are furthest away from each other it is about 20 lightminutes.
That was my estimate anyway. Might be that data was not correct.

93143
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Postby 93143 » Sat May 14, 2011 4:02 am

No, those are about right. And of course round trip times (ie: the time between pushing a button and seeing what it did) are double that.

But the orbits are such that the maximum and minimum distances vary a bit. Mars was just over three light minutes away in late August of 2003.

krenshala
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Postby krenshala » Sat May 14, 2011 5:08 am

rjaypeters wrote:
93143 wrote:You could just use a fully-autonomous robotic force, I suppose...
We've had that discussion elswhere, I believe. Few believe a fully-autonomous robotic force would do just what we want, but then neither does any military organization do just what the civilians want.

Your idea now has suspiciously more merit...

The problem isn't that a fully-autonomous robotic force would not do what we want ... the problem is that a fully-autonomous robotic force would do exactly what we tell it to, no matter how bad an idea that is. This is the basis for most of the "robots vs humans" fiction; the humans tell the robots to "take all steps necessary to ensure the peace", robots calculate that the surest way to maintain peace is to eliminate those pesky unpredictable humans ... cue terminators. :D

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby cuddihy » Sat May 14, 2011 6:58 pm

GIThruster wrote:
I do appreciate the point, but what I'd really like is for everyone in USG to respect the rule of law. There are plenty of people who could classify Poly with the wave of a hand. Failing this, it is hard to take that EMC2 is claiming everything is proprietary. Seems to me the best solution is for EMC2 and the Navy to agree upon a larger data set to release, and so serve both their need for some privacy and the rule of law.


No doubt EMC2 and the Navy are both fully on board with their current information policy.

For EMC2 and the Navy it is set at exactly the right level to prevent embarrassment to the government and EMC2, but still build confidence that they are doing real science, not a scam like EEstor, etc.

Patience.
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby cuddihy » Sat May 14, 2011 7:13 pm

rjaypeters wrote:
Sure the USAF has done most of the US military work in space, but by no means all of it. There was and probably still is, a US Navy component command to whatever USSpacecom exists today (but I stopped keeping track a few years back).

Regarding the name of said space force. Back in the day, with the satellites I paid attention to, we called the group satellites we managed the constellation ("with the stars"). When the aformentioned Admiral refered to them as the "fleet", I had a visceral and bad reaction (carefully kept to myself, 'course).


There is, the NAVSPOC is still doing its thing managing the UFO fleet (sorry kids that's UHF Follow-On), in Pt Mugu, CA. Also they're going to manage MUOS if the JTRS clowns ever get the man radios done.
Tom.Cuddihy



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Faith is the foundation of reason.

ladajo
Posts: 6194
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Sat May 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Don't hold your breath.

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby cuddihy » Sat May 14, 2011 9:59 pm

ladajo wrote:Don't hold your breath.


Sigh. We're coming on 5 years from when JTRS was supposed to have full IOC and they're still prototyping.
Tom.Cuddihy



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Faith is the foundation of reason.

ladajo
Posts: 6194
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Sat May 14, 2011 10:06 pm

I love aquisitions. Really I do. Really. I do. no, really...

Think about USS San Antonio. Over 5 years active service, and yet has produced only 3 months actual deployed service. The rest of the time has been repair.

bennmann
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:43 pm

No one in this thread attempted to guess at the KeV going into WB8 based on neutron numbers provided in the article, anyone willing to make some guesses?

I presume it's steady state and that why there is the huge discrepancy from what we know of WB6/7.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:12 pm

More explanation please!

bennmann
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:39 pm

WB6 and presumably 7 had results of 10^9 per second running D-D fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV, what kV do we think WB8 was doing when it reached [sic]"1000 times neutron count of WB7" or whatever?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:12 pm

bennmann wrote:WB6 and presumably 7 had results of 10^9 per second running D-D fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV, what kV do we think WB8 was doing when it reached [sic]"1000 times neutron count of WB7" or whatever?
Ok, to a first approximation, R=2 and B=8 (ratios of WB8 to WB6). Output ~ B^4*R^3. WB8 output SHOULD be ~33,000 times WB6, not 1000 times. This suggests that the MaGrid voltage is quite a bit lower. But why? Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps they want steady-state and don't want capaciter discharge to drive the well.

The other possibility is that the scaling DOESN'T work as hoped.

Could Park be talking GAIN rather than output? If so, I'll need some help here becasue all I know for gain is "R"^5 but that assumes B=R.
Hmmph!

bennmann
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:20 pm

That's a good start Kiteman.

Magrid voltage is probably going to scale with B then? I actually have no idea what electromagnet scaling is like with voltage.... I am very amateur.

EDIT: wait wait wait, wasn't WB-6 doing bursts at something like the millisecond interval? Bussard considered them as good as steady-state at the time. One might be able to use that time data and apply it to WB8s data. Of course, the magrid is cooled now so maybe not. If Park was talking about gain would that be as incredible as I think it is?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:48 pm

bennmann wrote: That's a good start Kiteman.

Magrid voltage is probably going to scale with B then?
No. MaGrid voltage and B are two completely separate variables. We are not SURE why the B should be 8 times as high. Assuming the 2x scaling for size is ABOUT right, then the B should be 2x because of simple scaling. Where the extra 4x comes is anyone's guess. I have suggested LN cooling in the past, but they may just boost the coil drive voltage instead. The coil drive voltage (typically quite low) is NOT the same as the MaGrid voltage (typically quite high).
bennmann wrote: I actually have no idea what electromagnet scaling is like with voltage.... I am very amateur.
All else being equal, double the coil drive voltage, double the B, IIRC. Again, this is NOT the MaGrid voltage.
bennmann wrote:EDIT: wait wait wait, wasn't WB-6 doing bursts at something like the millisecond interval? Bussard considered them as good as steady-state at the time. One might be able to use that time data and apply it to WB8s data. Of course, the magrid is cooled now so maybe not. If Park was talking about gain would that be as incredible as I think it is?
I suggested a while back that the coil may be cooled. I don't know of any knowledgable confirmation of that.
If the 1000x is indeed gain and not output it would suggest that they are right about where they should be and there is nothing incredible about it... other than it works in the first place! :D

choff
Posts: 2411
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby choff » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:41 pm

Bussard said WB6 was built in haste and presumablely WB7 should produce 5 times its output, given the same relative dimensions and less rushed better construction. Park said that WB8 should produce a 1000 times more output than the last small machine, (presumeablely WB7). This would imply to me that WB7 output was even greater than 5 times the output of WB6.
CHoff


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests