10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Joseph Chikva]

Joe,

There was a report on the 'net for a few days that was pulled at the request of EMC2 that detailed the WB effect. As long as EMC2 has funding the release (to wide distribution) of the report is not important. What is important: does the Navy keep funding the project and will they scale up. I'm annoyed that the time line has been extended. But it happens. Some project's I'm working on which should (in my estimation) have taken one month look to be more in the three to four month range. Unanticipated difficulties are a very common refrain even in fields well known. In places where the data is sparse those kinds of hits are even more common.

There is nothing to do but wait and cheer or complain depending on attitude. The cheering or complaining can make no difference.

When I was stumping for funds for EMC2 I never promised definite results. All I ever said (well maybe I did exaggerate here and there) was that at the cost and given the potential it deserves a shot. That shot is being taken. I'm grateful.

Ok, let's admit that WB effect exists. Without links, but ok.
What about other questions - e.g. electron-ion 2-stream instability? I've seen only abstract of one paper, in which Dr. Nebel claims that depth of potential well IIRC 14% from driven voltage is achievable, and the second full paper achievable depth was deepened to 90%.

Then possibility on running at beta=1. As we (you and me) can not come to the conclusion in this question. As on base of very simple logic I am still claiming that this is impossible because of instabilities existing in any plasma device, while you and others say that possible because Jesus (pardon Dr. Bussard and Nebel) said so.

Etc.
I wish you (you and others) all the best.

[MSimon]

...
Joe,

There was a report on the 'net for a few days that was pulled at the request of EMC2 that detailed the WB effect....

... dashed bad luck that.

got a copy by any chance?

Yes. But it has been a long while, I have no idea what I named it or where I filed it and Polywell is no longer my main line.

This is my main line:

http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/

[KitemanSA]

Not that we may share.

[rcain]

Not that we may share.

this really is 'still' the Rossi thread isn't it - for a brief, beautiful moment there i was dreaming we were talking about 'open source' Polywell.

[rcain]

...
Joe,

There was a report on the 'net for a few days that was pulled at the request of EMC2 that detailed the WB effect....

... dashed bad luck that.

got a copy by any chance?

Yes. But it has been a long while, I have no idea what I named it or where I filed it and Polywell is no longer my main line.

This is my main line:

http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/

ah. raising advertising revenue. can't say i blame you. man's got to keep himself in coffee and smoke. (other useful vices and necessities).

shame. sure i would have grabbed a copy, had i known. unfortunately have suffered at least two disk crashes over past year - lost lots.

still maintain - great subject for new 'focused' study by other groups/individuals - particularly if even half of what we 'optimistically' assume of US Navy/EMC2 Polywell progress is true.

[rcain]

Joe,

There was a report on the 'net for a few days that was pulled at the request of EMC2 that detailed the WB effect. As long as EMC2 has funding the release (to wide distribution) of the report is not important. What is important: does the Navy keep funding the project and will they scale up. I'm annoyed that the time line has been extended. But it happens. Some project's I'm working on which should (in my estimation) have taken one month look to be more in the three to four month range. Unanticipated difficulties are a very common refrain even in fields well known. In places where the data is sparse those kinds of hits are even more common.

There is nothing to do but wait and cheer or complain depending on attitude. The cheering or complaining can make no difference.

When I was stumping for funds for EMC2 I never promised definite results. All I ever said (well maybe I did exaggerate here and there) was that at the cost and given the potential it deserves a shot. That shot is being taken. I'm grateful.

Ok, let's admit that WB effect exists. Without links, but ok.
What about other questions - e.g. electron-ion 2-stream instability? I've seen only abstract of one paper, in which Dr. Nebel claims that depth of potential well IIRC 14% from driven voltage is achievable, and the second full paper achievable depth was deepened to 90%.

Then possibility on running at beta=1. As we (you and me) can not come to the conclusion in this question. As on base of very simple logic I am still claiming that this is impossible because of instabilities existing in any plasma device, while you and others say that possible because Jesus (pardon Dr. Bussard and Nebel) said so.

Etc.
I wish you (you and others) all the best.

if you will allow me, i will have a go at responding to those issues (though i know you/we have thrashed them about before)::

electron-ion 2-stream instability - dunno. but Jesus (sorry both Bussard AND Nebel) have estimated that if and when it does occur, it is not 'foreseen' to have a significant negative impact on overall performance. they were both 'aware' of and 'familiar' with the phenomenon and both judged it to be a 'lesser' concern (than many other open questions/issues).

they might be totally wrong. but i do not think so. since they seem to have been right about most other things so far. also, Polywell topology is 'contra-split' in velocity (and momentum) space - so only smaller regions in device where it may become significant.

also, is volumetric stochastic device - thus beam-beam effects will tend to cancel out - esp. at or around core of device.

could it still frick things up? very well, maybe. but that is later problem waiting for us down the road slightly, if so.

- claims of potential well depth as % of drive voltage. don't know answer to this - but suspect these are not a 'suspicious' references. depends (mostly) on B-field (thus virtual anode containment) yes?

Bfield is cranked up to test (amongst other things) - scaling factors.

you have some other other problem with these figures?

- re: beta=1 - so for sure, using your filling bath tub model, impossible to achieve sustained beta=1 to precision of better than (say) 6-sigma (maybe much less). reality says it (water/ions) 'slops over and out' when disturbed.

so be it.

but:

1) we do not need, nor expect such 'exact' or 'continuous' performance of stationary beta=1;
- all we need to achieve is 'oscillating' condition either side and passing though beta=1, by an amount, not more than we can make up for and recover from, in overall efficiency of device, and certainly no more than causes 'catastrophic blow-out or 'collapse' respectively.
2) edges of bath tub are not flat - but parabolic, so is better chance to determine stable 'balancing' spot about which to wobble.
3) what spills out, we squirt back in (at some small cost, we calculate will be more than compensated for by improved overall gain).

at very least, 'passing through' beta=1, is unavoidable, by definition in this device. we must simply ensure spend more time inside 'critical beta' zone, than outside of it/create more energy whilst we do so than we consume maintaining and restoring it.

of all concepts and calculations of Bussard, beta conditions are one of the best defined and studied.

if you understand Bussards workings on beta - then i do not see why you have a problem with this quotient or its manifestation?

ps. having said all this, there is still great 'doubt' in my mind that everything will work out 'perfectly' for Polywell as 'continuous' device regime: i have a personal 'hunch' that Polywell will end up as a 'pulsed' regime device - notwithstanding other difficulties of achieving pulsed mode (eg: power control, mechanical stress, other inefficiencies introduced), yet still possessing adequate overall efficiency as a net energy producer/amplifier - will end up proving easier to achieve. but that is only hope/hunch.

[Joseph Chikva]

........electron-ion 2-stream instability - dunno. but Jesus (sorry both Bussard AND Nebel) have estimated that if and when it does occur, it is not 'foreseen' to have a significant negative impact on overall performance. they were both 'aware' of and 'familiar' with the phenomenon and both judged it to be a 'lesser' concern (than many other open questions/issues).

they might be totally wrong.............

I do not know from where you get such their statement.
As that is totally wrong.
As mentioned I've seen paper of Dr. Nebel in which he states that electron-electron 2-stream is not issue for Polywell due to big angular velocity component of background electron spice.
Initially ions will not have big angular velocity component. So, at the expense of what instability damping will occur? I assume that this type of instability was not considered at all.
But I’ve seen also the statement of Dr. Nebel that scaling law is not legit for small size Polywell due to some factors. E.g. due degassing. I can weakly imagine what "degassing" is, but assume that may be scaling law does not work due to non-foreseen instabilities.
What is "degassing"?

Concerning possibility of beta to be equal to 1, I only can say that absolutely static case is considered in beta definition (ratio of plasma pressure and ma-field pressure). And plasma is dynamic system and not static. And really achievable number of beta is dependent on how energetic there dynamic processes. More intense instabilities cause less achievable number of beta. It's simple. Regardless to that what Drs. Bussard-Nebel said.

[rcain]

........electron-ion 2-stream instability - dunno. but Jesus (sorry both Bussard AND Nebel) have estimated that if and when it does occur, it is not 'foreseen' to have a significant negative impact on overall performance. they were both 'aware' of and 'familiar' with the phenomenon and both judged it to be a 'lesser' concern (than many other open questions/issues).

they might be totally wrong.............

I do not know from where you get such their statement.
As that is totally wrong.
As mentioned I've seen paper of Dr. Nebel in which he states that electron-electron 2-stream is not issue for Polywell due to big angular velocity component of background electron spice.
Initially ions will not have big angular velocity component. So, at the expense of what instability damping will occur? I assume that this type of instability was not considered at all.

pretty sure it was - albeit briefly - though you are right in that electron-electron 2-stream was discussed in a bit more depth - in the same early Bussard paper - iirc, though i might be wrong - i would need to check/find it again. I suspect though there may not be enough detail to satisfy you.

besides - the most problematic condition for two stream ion-electron would dictate exponential growth of instability - since we have not (yet) heard of this happening (for surely it should have materialised by now in many previous experiments) - thus i suggest it has not happend, because the conditions are not right to allow it/induce it - hence it is not 'such' a problem.

but, without running though all the numbers (or asking someone else to), or alternatively running experiment specifically designed to induce it and study it (or waiting for someone else to) - i cannot prove it to you - or to myself for that matter. but i 'deduce' it is provably so.

do you have any numbers which show it WILL/IS a problem for Polywell? i do not think so.

so, nice idea. a good ting to watch out for. but hasn't appeared on the radar yet, because it hasn't caused a problem - yet - so far as i am aware.

But I’ve seen also the statement of Dr. Nebel that scaling law is not legit for small size Polywell due to some factors. E.g. due degassing. I can weakly imagine what "degassing" is, but assume that may be scaling law does not work due to non-foreseen instabilities.
What is "degassing"?

same as 'outgassing' i think. - getting rid of all absorbed and embedded gasses from rig in vacuum chamber, rig, esp plastics, etc. contaminate plasma.

there are other reasons scaling might break down at small scale - eg: Larmor radius Vs component spacing, etc, Paschen arcing, many things.

Concerning possibility of beta to be equal to 1, I only can say that absolutely static case is considered in beta definition (ratio of plasma pressure and ma-field pressure).

And plasma is dynamic system and not static. And really achievable number of beta is dependent on how energetic there dynamic processes. More intense instabilities cause less achievable number of beta. It's simple. Regardless to that what Drs. Bussard-Nebel said.

firstly, we have yet to observe/determine any such 'instabilities' in action (though i'm sure some exist somewhere if you crank it up enough).
if we do come across them, then you will be proved right perhaps - but we have not, so you are not - not yet, perhaps never.

secondly, we all know this is dynamical system. but 'static' definition of beta should be fine to use as approximation of median value providing any perturbation is kept 'relatively' small.

thirdly, it is not what was 'said' but what was shown empirically, by equations, demonstrated in simulations and confirmed by experiment. machine HAS to be within 1-del < beta < 1+del and go through/vary around beta=1.

this seems sensible starting position for me. and also seems born out by 'facts' of operation of device to date.

so, you may have 'concerns', but you do not yet have a 'case' i think.

[ladajo]

Interesting anti-Rossi analysis from a former supporter.

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2478

[rcain]

Interesting anti-Rossi analysis from a former supporter.

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2478

my god! - did Parallel write that? not bad

[ladajo]

And standard phrase here: “this is not TOKAMAK”, meaning that this is much better than TOKAMAK is quite funny in my eyes.

There you go twisting meaning to suite yourself again. The argument here against tokamak is that it is not going anywhere. Not that it will not work.

Joe, work on your reading comprehension.

As oft stated Joe, Polywell may or may not work, but it is being looked at honestly with no empty promises. Progres has trended in a more or less positive fashion. So that is encouraging. A lot can be said that after some real time being investigated, the research team can still say, "we have found nothing to indicate it will not work" so far. If you think they have not thought about or looked at your concerns, I would say that is very juvenile of you. What you bring up is not special or magical, nor even "only I thought to ask this". You are not special Joe. The guys working on this are world leaders in this plasma physics, fusion, etc. And better yet, they get to be periodically reviewed by other world class scientists who do similar work. To date, those reviews has been positive, enough so to continue and increase efforts. That is significant.

Who are you Joe? You do not work professionally in the field, you are not on the review board. You are a reasonably bright guy with some thoughts. But you are also unreasonably stubborn and insistent that if it is not your way it is wrong.

I have lost count how many times you have trolled your bait here. And how many times we have tried to walk you through alternate thinking. It is ok not to accept what others think Joe, it is not ok to continually tell them they are idiots because they don't see it your way.

I took some time to look back at the previous go arounds we have had with you. It was really annoying to see the same shit over and over.

I think I must finally give in to the multiple requests private and public of many here to just stop talking to you. I am resistant, because I think you are smart and can learn, but your actions trend otherwise. If you are serious and want to learn, then once again, go back into the old threads and find references and interpretations that were provided a number of times. You do not have to agree with them. But you should at least look at them honestly.

Personally, I doubt you will as you have shown that several times. One of my favorites was when you were spoon fed a simple exercise in the use of google to find reference material and information on sources. You chose to ignore the entire exercise. I applaud Netmaker's attempt. Do you even recall Lynn Peterson? John Pazik? Rich Carlin? Nevin Carr? I assure you that I do. I know very well who they are.

Why should I or others waste further time on you? You are not adding anything to the discussion.

[Joseph Chikva]

do you have any numbers which show it WILL/IS a problem for Polywell? i do not think so.

There in Polywell are typical conditions for creation of this type of instability: electron beam enters into background plasma consisting from two spices: electron spice and ion spice.
Nebel in his article investigated electron-electron streams interaction and claims that electron-electron 2-stream instability is not issue for Polywell. This he says is due to big angular (so thermal) component of motion of electron spice.

I know three ways for softening of impact on plasma of this type of instability:
1. high relativistic factor of at least one stream
2. strong axial mag field
3. wide velocity spread of at least one stream

So, Nebel's conclusion about electron-electron 2-stream is well understood for me because large angular component corresponds to the third mentioned way.

But ions will not have wide thermal motion velocities spread initially.

Concerning scaling law, you always can say that your device is not big enough and only this is a reason of your negative result (absence of scaling). But in reality you have not constant beta but have beta as a function of many factors and beta's value varies from nil to not one but e.g. 0.7 in real working conditions. And no outgassing and degassing or influence of those are minimal and more significant are mainly instabilities observed in any size devices.

[Joseph Chikva]

Who are you Joe? You do not work professionally in the field, you are not on the review board.

I am patological sceptic, I am a snake putting questions seems to me reasonable.
Yes, I do not work professionaly in this field but I have some skill to put questions correctly - skill enough for putting questions.

[KitemanSA]

Not that we may share.

this really is 'still' the Rossi thread isn't it - for a brief, beautiful moment there i was dreaming we were talking about 'open source' Polywell.

I was able to download it from "askmar" before it was removed. All of us who were so lucky as to get a copy were asked politely not to share it onwards as it was private property. I accede to their request.

[GIThruster]

I am patological sceptic, I am a snake putting questions seems to me reasonable.
Yes, I do not work professionaly in this field but I have some skill to put questions correctly - skill enough for putting questions.

Nonetheless, your statement that the Poly is of like kind to the ECat is a ridiculous statement. The theory behind spherical inertial electrostatic confinement is a fully scientific theory, even when someone like yourself who lacks the credentials decides to be abusive about it. It is published about in the very best scientific journals. It has empirical evidence in support. It is worked on by the most accomplished sorts of physicists from the most prestigious nuclear labs in the world. It is nothing at all like the ECat.

It's just your overblown ego talking, Joe. You think too much of your objections and too little of the real contributions of others, as well as the scientific process as a whole.