Polywell pat application 20110170647 - prosecution documents

[Joseph Chikva]

I have never seen "'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence". Only speculations of Kiteman, Dan and now Georgio in this thread.

You have never seen the calculations because you refuse to read the papers, so you choose to be ignorant and now you complain? You are funnier with each post Joseph.

I have never seen calculations because there are not in existence in nature.
Or at least are not published.
If you know 'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence please give link.

[Joseph Chikva]

2. The general rule of thumb on ion collisions is that ion collisions in the core add angular momentum to the ions (thermalization) while collisions in the edge remove angular momentum. The reasons edge collisions remove angular momentum is that as the ions reach their radial turning point, their angular velocity exceeds the radial velocity. Consequently, thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction. The collision rate gets big because the velocities are small. The upshot of this is that if you want to look at the effect of collisions on ions, you have to do something like bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck where you take into account the collisions at all points in the ion orbit.

It is very difficult to understand for me.
How thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction.
At least Dr. Nebel does not use this explanation in discussion with examinator. Why?
Does examinator not speak about thermal plasma in Polywell?

[rcain]

...
I have never seen calculations because there are not in existence in nature.
Or at least are not published.
If you know 'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence please give link.

'calculations' do not exist in nature - they exist on paper (in this case, and published).

the reason you have not come across them is because you steadfastly refuse to read anything that is recommended to you.

i feel obliged to refer you back to your earliest thread on this forum, when people were still being helpful towards you. The Valencia paper amongst others is referenced there.

Have you read the Valencia paper yet?

[vankirkc]

I must say, the U.S. patent process seems very capricious.

How is it that a Polywell patent can be denied on the grounds of lack of practical application, and yet a patent like this one (US 5999908) can be approved?

The Polywell patent examiner says that "The applicant has presented no reputable disclose how to build apparatus which...", which is a fair reason to deny the claim. However, the approved patent mentions no specifics whatsoever on how to build the 'Customer-Based Product Design Module', or even what said invention is a module of.

[rcain]

2. The general rule of thumb on ion collisions is that ion collisions in the core add angular momentum to the ions (thermalization) while collisions in the edge remove angular momentum. The reasons edge collisions remove angular momentum is that as the ions reach their radial turning point, their angular velocity exceeds the radial velocity. Consequently, thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction. The collision rate gets big because the velocities are small. The upshot of this is that if you want to look at the effect of collisions on ions, you have to do something like bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck where you take into account the collisions at all points in the ion orbit.

It is very difficult to understand for me.
How thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction.
At least Dr. Nebel does not use this explanation in discussion with examinator. Why?
Does examinator not speak about thermal plasma in Polywell?

an exact description of 'annealing' (which is what you are talking about i believe), is something that has been discussed here at length on several threads. i don't think there can be many (if any) who would claim, either a 'definite' or 'certain' description.

my own understanding of the (conjectured) process, is based on a simple visual model of marbles (ball-bearings or balls if you prefer) in a bowl. each marble has both radial and angular momentum (relative to the bowl), some fraction of each being the residue of initial impulse into the system + thermal (Maxwellian) component picked up on the way.

when marbles reach as high as they can in the bowl (the turnaround region), they hit an area of other (radially) 'slow' like-particles. at that point, much of the remaining kinetic energy of each marble (largely thermal only at this point) is imparted/propagated to the rest of this outer shell population. from there , much that the energy is either radiated, or is used in ejecting some particles from the system. Since the marble in question, still retains its potential energy in the system, due to its height in the well, it begins its radial decent again, but with much of its previous angular momentum attenuated/absorbed by the outer shell.

As to calculations showing this 'can' happen - i believe the Folker-Plank Bounce Averaged models/simulations are the best we have. But in fairness i don't think it addresses annealing directly.

As to experimental evidence that this happens in a Polywell - I don't believe there is any - yet. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps someone would care to correct me if i am mistaken in my interpretation of the purported process.

Re: '...thermal plasma in a Polywell...' - there is some confusion for me as to whether you are referring to 'Thermal energy in order to achieve fusion' (which is not a method Polywell is attempting to employ), or 'Maxwellianisation of (directed) velocity space' (which is what Polywell is actively trying to avoid - by 'purposeful' losses from the system + recirculation + edge annealing (if it exists) + ...).

[Joseph Chikva]

2. The general rule of thumb on ion collisions is that ion collisions in the core add angular momentum to the ions (thermalization) while collisions in the edge remove angular momentum. The reasons edge collisions remove angular momentum is that as the ions reach their radial turning point, their angular velocity exceeds the radial velocity. Consequently, thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction. The collision rate gets big because the velocities are small. The upshot of this is that if you want to look at the effect of collisions on ions, you have to do something like bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck where you take into account the collisions at all points in the ion orbit.

It is very difficult to understand for me.
How thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction.
At least Dr. Nebel does not use this explanation in discussion with examinator. Why?
Does examinator not speak about thermal plasma in Polywell?

an exact description of 'annealing' (which is what you are talking about i believe), is something that has been discussed here at length on several threads. i don't think there can be many (if any) who would claim, either a 'definite' or 'certain' description.

my own understanding of the (conjectured) process, is based on a simple visual model of marbles (ball-bearings or balls if you prefer) in a bowl. each marble has both radial and angular momentum (relative to the bowl), some fraction of each being the residue of initial impulse into the system + thermal (Maxwellian) component picked up on the way.

when marbles reach as high as they can in the bowl (the turnaround region), they hit an area of other (radially) 'slow' like-particles. at that point, much of the remaining kinetic energy of each marble (largely thermal only at this point) is imparted/propagated to the rest of this outer shell population. from there , much that the energy is either radiated, or is used in ejecting some particles from the system. Since the marble in question, still retains its potential energy in the system, due to its height in the well, it begins its radial decent again, but with much of its previous angular momentum attenuated/absorbed by the outer shell.

As to calculations showing this 'can' happen - i believe the Folker-Plank Bounce Averaged models/simulations are the best we have.

As to experimental evidence that this happens in a Polywell - I don't believe there is any - yet. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps someone would care to correct me if i am mistaken in my interpretation of the purported process.

Re: '...thermal plasma in a Polywell...' - there is some confusion for me as to whether you are referring to 'Thermal energy in order to achieve fusion' (which is not what Polywell is attempting to do), or 'Maxwellianisation of (directed) velocity space' (which is what Polywell is actively trying to avoid - by 'purposeful' losses from the system + recirculation + edge annealing (if it exists)).

Ok, let's use your model.
You have balls having both: radial and angular momentums.
They move to edge and in process of approach lose their radial momentum – kinetic energy converts to potential.
But spread in their radial velocities remains and not disappear. As well as spread of their angular velocities.
In fact collective motions in Polywell can be considered as combination of two motions: coherent + random/chaotic/thermal.

I proposed earlier one example.
Potential well of Earth. You throw up the hot rock “strongly radially”. “Hot” means very rigorous thermal/chaotic motion of particles in the rock.
Its kinetic energy converts to potential and in deadpoint velocity of rock will be equal zero. Kinetic energy too equal to zero.
Does it mean that you have a cold rock in that point?

[Joseph Chikva]

'calculations' do not exist in nature - they exist on paper (in this case, and published).

the reason you have not come across them is because you steadfastly refuse to read anything that is recommended to you.

i feel obliged to refer you back to your earliest thread on this forum, when people were still being helpful towards you. The Valencia paper amongst others is referenced there.

Have you read the Valencia paper yet?

I have read Valencia paper.
But have not seen there "calculation" and experimental evidences"
If you want let's create anew thread for discussing Valencia paper.

[rcain]

...
Ok, let's use your model.
You have balls having both: radial and angular momentums.
They move to edge and in process of approach lose their radial momentum – kinetic energy converts to potential.
But spread in their radial velocities remains and not disappear. As well as spread of their angular velocities.

if there were just one ball (or a few), that would be true. but Polywell is a machine of 'localised populations', geometry and loses, by design. It is those aspects that determine a 'direction' for such loses - and sustain the polarisation of the system.

In fact collective motions in Polywell can be considered as combination of two motions: coherent + random/chaotic/thermal.

yes. in fact there are potentially more than just two, since there are several 'zones' of different characteristic coherent motion within the machine.

I proposed earlier one example.
Potential well of Earth. You throw up the hot rock “strongly radially”. “Hot” means very rigorous thermal/chaotic motion of particles in the rock.
Its kinetic energy converts to potential and in deadpoint velocity of rock will be equal zero. Kinetic energy too equal to zero.
Does it mean that you have a cold rock in that point?

yes. if the assumption is not as you suggest, that they are thrown up into nothing. (though even then there will be losses due to radiation, to we assume, space). but sticking with my model, if your hot rock is thrown upwards into a dense cloud layer (of colder rocks) and spends some time there slowly turning around. it will come down just as fast (mostly), but colder. will it not?

[Joseph Chikva]

yes. if the assumption is not as you suggest, that they are thrown up into nothing. (though even then there will be losses due to radiation, to we assume, space). but sticking with my model, if your hot rock is thrown upwards into a dense cloud layer (of colder rocks) and spends some time there slowly turning around. it will come down just as fast (mostly), but colder. will it not?

You are absolutely right talking about thermal energy losses via radiation or heat transfer.
But also you should recall the circumstance that the characteristic time for traveling from initial point to top deadpoint is much lower than time needed for significant cooling. And consequently, heat losses for rock can be neglected.
I would like to say more: in fact temperature or in the other words the measure of its chaotic thermal motion will be the same in all points of device due to very vigorous mass transfer.

Regarding the rest. Yes, we are talking about not one particle or few particles but about population of particles.
Because of "thermal" means population for which statistic physics methods are used.

[rcain]

...
I have read Valencia paper.
But have not seen there "calculation" and experimental evidences"
If you want let's create anew thread for discussing Valencia paper.

At last!

As I recall there are quite a few 'reasonable' calculations in that paper. But I would need to check what they were about. There are many other papers to choose from, both for or against IEC/Polywell. Exactly what aspects of design are you disputing/questioning?

I don't particularly fancy starting a new thread on Valencia myself, but you please go ahead if you must. Personally, I think a lot of what you wish to find out, has been discussed in some depth many times over. The forum search facility is useful.

Just before you do, just a word of caution:

The conclusion most sane people here have reached I think, and it is the same for detractors and fans of Polywell alike, is that both sides of the 'Polywell feasibility argument' have presented a more or less 'equal' amount of of 'correct' theory and 'reasonable' calculations. The only (most effective) way of ultimately deciding the theoretical arguments is to build the darn machine and measure it.

(Note: this subject goes back quite a long way, and many measurements have been taken of various things. As to exactly what, you'd have to be more specific and google it yourself).

I think such an approach is pragmatic and worthwhile. What is the view in Russia on the feasibility of IEC Fusion? I gather they have been pretty 'in to it' historically.

[Joseph Chikva]

...
I have read Valencia paper.
But have not seen there "calculation" and experimental evidences"
If you want let's create anew thread for discussing Valencia paper.

At last!

As I recall there are quite a few 'reasonable' calculations in that paper. But I would need to check what they were about. There are many other papers to choose from, both for or against IEC/Polywell. Exactly what aspects of design are you disputing/questioning?

I don't particularly fancy starting a new thread on Valencia myself, but you please go ahead if you must. Personally, I think a lot of what you wish to find out, has been discussed in some depth many times over. The forum search facility is useful.

Just before you do, just a word of caution:

The conclusion most sane people here have reached I think, and it is the same for detractors and fans of Polywell alike, is that both sides of the 'Polywell feasibility argument' have presented a more or less 'equal' amount of of 'correct' theory and 'reasonable' calculations. The only (most effective) way of ultimately deciding the theoretical arguments is to build the darn machine and measure it.

(Note: this subject goes back quite a long way, and many measurements have been taken of various things. As to exactly what, you'd have to be more specific and google it yourself).

I think such an approach is pragmatic and worthwhile. What is the view in Russia on the feasibility of IEC Fusion? I gather they have been pretty 'in to it' historically.

I do not live in Russia.
3 years ago we had a war with Russians.
Regarding Polywell first I've been noted on Polywell here http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 85695.html Or March 30 of this year.

Regarding Valencia paper I did not see anywhere in correspodence that Nebel mention that paper.
I only remember he talks something like: " In IEC particles move strongly radially and this is well known"
But it is "well known" for him and not for me and as I see for exonerator as well. As personally for me, I do not see any forces allowing moving in radial direction.

[rcain]

...
You are absolutely right talking about thermal energy losses via radiation or heat transfer.
But also you should recall the circumstance that the characteristic time for traveling from initial point to top deadpoint is much lower than time needed for significant cooling. And consequently, heat losses for rock can be neglected.

i do not agree they can be neglected, since the metaphor of the 'hot rock' does not capture the details of actual 'scale' when we are talking about the ion populations in the Polywell (edge).

I do not claim to know precisely how much heat is lost from the system by this process. By all 'estimates' and rough calculations i have read from discussions, I think it is probably 'quite a small amount', but significant, and in the direction we wish.

Since the Polywell does not rely on annealing (by design), for feasibility, it has been treated as an additional 'non-critical' factor to optimise. But there may be a view it might 'become' a critical factor. Certainly the 'Wiffle-ball' trapping factor is regarded as critical, and follows the same general geometry, so there is a linkage.

I would like to say more: in fact temperature or in the other words the measure of its chaotic thermal motion will be the same in all points of device due to very vigorous mass transfer.

except that you are forgetting two main things 'geometry' and 'inertia' and 'losses'... three main things... and...

it will not be exactly the same in all parts of the system, because of the (statistically) 'coherent' components of momentum.

i am certain in Valencia paper there is a very persuasive account of the 'measures' taken and the 'properties assumed' in order to prevent thermalisation of the device 'out of envelope'.

the most significant of those measures, as i understand it, is to ensure a constant and predictable loss of particles from the system, before such thermalisation destroys the regime, but not before they've had an 'adequate' chance of fusing. it is all about timing.

Regarding the rest. Yes, we are talking about not one particle or few particles but about population of particles.
Because of "thermal" means population for which statistic physics methods are used.

indeed. PopulationS (plural, i mean to say).

[Joseph Chikva]

I do not claim to know precisely how much heat is lost from the system by this process. By all 'estimates' and rough calculations i have read from discussions, I think it is probably 'quite a small amount', but significant, and in the direction we wish.

As I remember developers talk not about heat losses due to interaction of environment: radiation or heat transfer but about a certain process by which angular momentums transfer into radial.
Please, if those "calculations or experimental evidence" are in Valencia paper (or somewhere else) quote them. As may be I missed something.
And I think very primitively: in case of scattering the declined particle can move strongly radially only in case if some forces will return it back.
In any other cases it is impossible.
And all speculations about "reasonable time" during which plasma in Polywell can be kept cold are wrong. As quantity of scattering events strongly exceed fusion events' quantity.

[rcain]

...
I do not live in Russia.
3 years ago we had a war with Russians.

i did not mean to assume you did, but rather posed my question to ascertain whether you might.

please do not take offense. none was intended. i understand people can have strong feelings about the 'political history' of that whole region. i have friends in Kharkov, Ukraine.

.
Regarding Polywell first I've been noted on Polywell here http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 85695.html Or March 30 of this year.

that surprises me. there are a lot more (bettter) references to Polywell all over the internet. If you are looking for it of course.

Regarding Valencia paper I did not see anywhere in correspodence that Nebel mention that paper.
I only remember he talks something like: " In IEC particles move strongly radially and this is well known"
But it is "well known" for him and not for me and as I see for exonerator as well. As personally for me, I do not see any forces allowing moving in radial direction.

In the patent response, he is unlikely to i think, since it is a 'conference paper' rather than a published research paper. but it best encapsulates all Bussard's major ideas and results to date, which is why it is so often cited as the best starting point for discussions. so you are probably right.

as to 'forces allowing moving in a radial direction' (as opposed to angular), the potential difference between the virtual cathode and the injected ion over the distance/(time) of separation provides the force (plus any impulse imparted at injection). [edit] plus the fact its more or less a sphere.[/edit].

there are other forces at work also, obviously. but that is the dominant one. but i think you know this already. it is basic. so i do not understand why you still have a question.

[rcain]

...
As I remember developers talk not about heat losses due to interaction of environment: radiation or heat transfer but about a certain process by which angular momentums transfer into radial.
Please, if those "calculations or experimental evidence" are in Valencia paper (or somewhere else) quote them. As may be I missed something.

ok, i think i understand you. you mean like a micro collisional model, translating x to y to z. there are various 'packing' scenarios i can think of mediated by Coulomb force. there is also Lorentze force. (also indirect (out of system) control functions).

true, neither impose any 'directionality' in the sense of your enquiry i think.

the phrase 'transformation of angular momentum into radial momentum' does seem familiar however. i just cant remember exactly what has been claimed.

i have a vague memory of it relating to a net measurement effect (net energy balance equation), rather than a primitive physical mechanism.

as i recall there are a couple of good a japanese papers - one experimental ('multi-well' confirmation) , and the other theoretical (collisional/Folker Plank treatment). cant recall the links. sorry. they are on the board somewhere.

And I think very primitively: in case of scattering the declined particle can move strongly radially only in case if some forces will return it back.

yes. the well in the centre.

In any other cases it is impossible.

i think you are right. but it is possible. and that is the reason.

And all speculations about "reasonable time" during which plasma in Polywell can be kept cold are wrong. As quantity of scattering events strongly exceed fusion events' quantity.

that is your opinion. it is not an 'unreasonable' one. however, you must concede that to suggest that Bussard, Nebel, and the many other scientists in the field have totally overlooked this factor is to suggest they have absolutely no knowledge in the art, whatsoever. that would be absurd.

Bussard's calculations show there is such a 'window' of 'reasonable time' allowing acceptable fusion + acceptable thermalisation, steady state. the rest as they say as up to the scaling laws, and to go test the theory.

Since that time, more detailed computer modeling has been performed, in order to show it 'should work'. so far as i'm aware no commensurate computational effort has been put into showing ways it cant work. hence they build it.

personally i have my doubts too, on (out of envelope) thermalisation. (i would prefer to explore pulsed regimes, but there are many arguments against that also).