Alan Boyle update

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

rcain
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:51 pm

KitemanSA wrote:....
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


... you are just trying to cheer us up because in reality we are ignorant of the facts :)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:01 pm

choff wrote: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.
Where in the world do you come up with this???

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:07 pm

I bet that's from the Google Talk

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:35 pm

Betruger wrote:I bet that's from the Google Talk
Nope. Unless he truly mis-heard something.

bennmann
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:36 pm

I'm with kiteman, choff where do you get the wb7 5x stat?

choff
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby choff » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:09 pm

It's been a few years since, but looking back quickly I found this on page 18.


http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/S ... uclear.pdf

Mind you it refers to a truncated cube WB7 getting 3-5 times WB6 output, so I'm probably incorrect, though WB6 was built in haste using available material.
CHoff

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:58 am

choff wrote:It's been a few years since, but looking back quickly I found this on page 18.


http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/S ... uclear.pdf

Mind you it refers to a truncated cube WB7 getting 3-5 times WB6 output, so I'm probably incorrect, though WB6 was built in haste using available material.
Ok, that is what I suspected.

Dr B had different nomenclature at that time than what eventually took place. Dr B's WB7 was NOT the rebuilt WB6 but a differently designed machine. It was the "square plan form" magnet version rather than the round WB6. He thought that the more spherical B field would improve things. Yes, it is interesting that the square plan form magnet would result in a more spherical field, but it does!

Dr B's WB7 has nothing to do with what eventually got called WB7 which was just the rebuilt WB6. Confusion all over the place!

The WB7 that got built should have been simply a more carefully built version of WB6, no more powerful, just less likely to explode. Since we heard nothing of exploding WB7s, I suspect that part worked!

Now, since it may have been able to be driven to higher currents and voltages, it may have achieved higher power (i.e. neutron count) than WB6, but all else being equal, it was the same basic machine.

WB7.1 MAY have had some differences in detail but the coils were surely the same.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests