Talk-Polywell.org

Giorgio wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:Not a difference superconducting magnets or conventionally conducting, are in existence magnets or not.

I know that very well, but they are using a superconducting magnet.
This is why the reference was made to the superconducting one and not to the normal one.

Anyhow this does not change the point of my previous post.
You cannot make the galaxy example because there is no magnet (supercoducting or not) that squeezes them increasing their density in the collision point.

As for the density value, if no one has the info I will look for it tonight when I go back home and send you a link to the paper.

Thanks.
But I can use any example if I see similarity.
If you know very well that

Not a difference superconducting magnets or conventionally conducting, are in existence magnets or not

so you see too or do not know so well.

Giorgio wrote: As for the density value, if no one has the info I will look for it tonight when I go back home and send you a link to the paper.

Aren't you overlooking the part the magnetic reconnection conspiracy plays in all this?

(As was portrayed in George Pal's seminal classic "When FRC Toroids Collide")

Joseph Chikva wrote: If you know very well that

Not a difference superconducting magnets or conventionally conducting, are in existence magnets or not

so you see too or do not know so well.

I really do not understand you.....

zapkitty wrote:Aren't you overlooking the part the magnetic reconnection conspiracy plays in all this?

(As was portrayed in George Pal's seminal classic "When FRC Toroids Collide")

Giorgio wrote:

zapkitty wrote:Aren't you overlooking the part the magnetic reconnection conspiracy plays in all this?

(As was portrayed in George Pal's seminal classic "When FRC Toroids Collide")

Field reverse configuration also is proposed for toroidal Z-pinch (analogue of TOKAMAK with high beta - up to 0.4) and proposed for purpose to keep plasma in minimum B for improving stability. Not for more else.
If you think that FRC will allow particles of colliding with supersonic velocities plasmoids the long term reacting capability, you are wrong.
Which particle collide - well, which not - will remain moving at the same direction.

zapkitty wrote:The total energy applied to the plasma is a combination of the collision energy of the two smaller plasmoids and then the compression energy applied to the resultant larger plasmoid.

As I feel now I understand what you mean.
Do you mean that those plasmoids merging will stop each other converting their kinetic energy into heat?

Joseph Chikva wrote:

zapkitty wrote:The total energy applied to the plasma is a combination of the collision energy of the two smaller plasmoids and then the compression energy applied to the resultant larger plasmoid.

As I feel now I understand what you mean.
Do you mean that those plasmoids merging will stop each other converting their kinetic energy into heat?

As the first post in this thread indicated.


As I understand it the process goes as follows:

The plasmoids, not just the plasma, interact and drag each other to a halt over several (how many?) passes through each other.

Then reconnection occurs and the plasmoids merge... at this point a high percentage of the linear kinetic energy has been converted to thermal energy.

Then it's crunch time and, hopefully, net power.

Now, perhaps I've misunderstood something along the way, perhaps something vital... but that's not quite the same as you stating things that are in direct contradiction to what is being reported as lab results... so, a little humor.

zapkitty wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:

zapkitty wrote:The total energy applied to the plasma is a combination of the collision energy of the two smaller plasmoids and then the compression energy applied to the resultant larger plasmoid.

As I feel now I understand what you mean.
Do you mean that those plasmoids merging will stop each other converting their kinetic energy into heat?

As the first post in this thread indicated.


As I understand it the process goes as follows:

The plasmoids, not just the plasma, interact and drag each other to a halt over several (how many?) passes through each other.

Then reconnection occurs and the plasmoids merge... at this point a high percentage of the linear kinetic energy has been converted to thermal energy.

Then it's crunch time and, hopefully, net power.

Now, perhaps I've misunderstood something along the way, perhaps something vital... but that's not quite the same as you stating things that are in direct contradiction to what is being reported as lab results... so, a little humor.

My understanding how it should work and what you or another person mean is not the same.
As for subject discussion you have not provided data.
I thought and thinking till now that except the viscosity there is nothing disturbing to plasmoids to scatter after merge.

zapkitty wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote: "Can not do p-B11 fusion" means that they can D-T?
I can not understand from Helion's animation how are they going to get net power colliding accelerated plasma clots or toroids?
Is there meant that those clots are so dense that one collision is enough?

Yes, Helion is standard neutronic fusion.

You're missing a component, though: the middle of the core, where the opposing plasmoids collide and merge into one, is wrapped in a superconducting coil that will pulse a heck of a squeeze on the plasmoid just after the collision and compress it to D-T fusion.

The total energy applied to the plasma is a combination of the collision energy of the two smaller plasmoids and then the compression energy applied to the resultant larger plasmoid.

So it looks like Tri-Alpha are now identical to helion?

I guess one reason for lack of Helion funding (it seems a better bet than steam-punk fusion) is lack of IP protection perhaps?

Helion gets round many of the near wall disadvantages of DT fusion, the fusion near wall neutron flux can be adjusted at will simply by altering the final speed of the collided FRC. Also fusion occurs well away from the electronics that generates beams, in a part of the machine that can therefore easily be dismantled and chnaged. And the whole setup is quite small.

So if they can get enough containment for high Q it is a great idea. Big if, but claims were that preliminary experimental results show better containment than expected. I'm sure there is a thread here with Stroud's paper?

tomclarke wrote:

zapkitty wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote: "Can not do p-B11 fusion" means that they can D-T?
I can not understand from Helion's animation how are they going to get net power colliding accelerated plasma clots or toroids?
Is there meant that those clots are so dense that one collision is enough?

Yes, Helion is standard neutronic fusion.

You're missing a component, though: the middle of the core, where the opposing plasmoids collide and merge into one, is wrapped in a superconducting coil that will pulse a heck of a squeeze on the plasmoid just after the collision and compress it to D-T fusion.

The total energy applied to the plasma is a combination of the collision energy of the two smaller plasmoids and then the compression energy applied to the resultant larger plasmoid.

So it looks like Tri-Alpha are now identical to helion?

I guess one reason for lack of Helion funding (it seems a better bet than steam-punk fusion) is lack of IP protection perhaps?

Helion gets round many of the near wall disadvantages of DT fusion, the fusion near wall neutron flux can be adjusted at will simply by altering the final speed of the collided FRC. Also fusion occurs well away from the electronics that generates beams, in a part of the machine that can therefore easily be dismantled and chnaged. And the whole setup is quite small.

So if they can get enough containment for high Q it is a great idea. Big if, but claims were that preliminary experimental results show better containment than expected. I'm sure there is a thread here with Stroud's paper?

Nobody knows. In original article is written about certain combination of theta-pinch and field reverse configuration. I think that Helion does not correspond to mentioned.
Also I disagree with your optimism regarding Helion.

tomclarke wrote: So it looks like Tri-Alpha are now identical to helion?

Well, we've been discussing Helion and the Tri-Alpha paper.

But it should be recalled that T-A has described an FRC plasmoid as part of their process for quite some time.

It's the advent of colliding and reconnecting FRC plasmoids that's seemingly lifted out of a Helion operating manual... if only there were such a thing... that's causing all the interest now.

My disagreement with Joseph is over the proposed Helion operation process and the part of that that now apparently applies to T-A as well.

But, apparently like a few other people, I couldn't quite get my head around how a T-A unit was supposed to all come together in the first place so it could well be that the T-A version of colliding FRCs is simply a way to up the gain of an aneutronic colliding beam process.

... although I'd envisioned the T-A as a steady state device and the colliding plasmoids would seem to imply pulsed operation...

... mysterious Tri-Alpha is still mysterious...

zapkitty wrote:My disagreement with Joseph is over the proposed Helion operation process and the part of that that now apparently applies to T-A as well.

I am really interested. Do you think that two colliding plasmoids in one big solenoid field will stop each other?
If yes, at the expense of what?

Joseph Chikva wrote:

tomclarke wrote:

zapkitty wrote: Yes, Helion is standard neutronic fusion.

You're missing a component, though: the middle of the core, where the opposing plasmoids collide and merge into one, is wrapped in a superconducting coil that will pulse a heck of a squeeze on the plasmoid just after the collision and compress it to D-T fusion.

The total energy applied to the plasma is a combination of the collision energy of the two smaller plasmoids and then the compression energy applied to the resultant larger plasmoid.

So it looks like Tri-Alpha are now identical to helion?

I guess one reason for lack of Helion funding (it seems a better bet than steam-punk fusion) is lack of IP protection perhaps?

Helion gets round many of the near wall disadvantages of DT fusion, the fusion near wall neutron flux can be adjusted at will simply by altering the final speed of the collided FRC. Also fusion occurs well away from the electronics that generates beams, in a part of the machine that can therefore easily be dismantled and chnaged. And the whole setup is quite small.

So if they can get enough containment for high Q it is a great idea. Big if, but claims were that preliminary experimental results show better containment than expected. I'm sure there is a thread here with Stroud's paper?

Nobody knows. In original article is written about certain combination of theta-pinch and field reverse configuration. I think that Helion does not correspond to mentioned.
Also I disagree with your optimism regarding Helion.

What optimism?

tomclarke wrote:What optimism?

I guess one reason for lack of Helion funding (it seems a better bet than steam-punk fusion) is lack of IP protection perhaps?

I think that first of all by conceptual disadvantages.

I think that the reactor proposed by John Slough of Helion is the most realistic and down to earth concept that has the best chance of working in the near future. They do already have a working subscale prototype. The only thing that could go wrong, is that their scaling laws are off, but that would then be the same problem for most other FRC and Tok concepts. So given the experience and state of the art knowledge it should be ok.
Of course mistakes can always happen.