Polywell pat application 20110170647 - prosecution documents

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon


Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Polywell pat application 20110170647 - prosecution docum

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Motivation for said inclusion derives from Morozov: “By introducing the mantle into plasma configuration, we stopped the gaps and general knowledge: “Since it was always known that conformal magnet coil cans/casings were the only way to avoid B field intersect with their surfaces”
Here a lttle about Morozov (in Russian but everybody who has Google translator can readit):
http://w3.mirea.ru/science/priority/plazm.html

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Thanks Chris - these appear to cover 2007-2009 - did you not suggest there was something more recent than this? (or just the availability is new?)

i see a lot of objections on grounds of lack of demonstrated 'means', utility' etc. can someone remind me of the final state of play - does the application remain 'withdrawn'?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

This patent has only just been published (last week) and its status is currently that EMC2 are still in the process of appealing its rejection (as per the 'appeal brief'). Patent applications take that long, sometimes...

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Polywell pat application 20110170647 - prosecution docum

Post by rcain »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Motivation for said inclusion derives from Morozov: “By introducing the mantle into plasma configuration, we stopped the gaps and general knowledge: “Since it was always known that conformal magnet coil cans/casings were the only way to avoid B field intersect with their surfaces”
Here a lttle about Morozov (in Russian but everybody who has Google translator can readit):
http://w3.mirea.ru/science/priority/plazm.html
according to the responses from Nebel in http://filestore.crossedfields.com/2011 ... nfinal.pdf
the references to Morozov's paper were largely inappropriate/based on wrong assumptions (eg: non local thermal equilibrium).

[edit]http://w3.mirea.ru/science/priority/plazm.html looks quite interesting though, thanks[/edit]
Last edited by rcain on Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

chrismb wrote:This patent has only just been published (last week) and its status is currently that EMC2 are still in the process of appealing its rejection (as per the 'appeal brief'). Patent applications take that long, sometimes...
Excellent, thanks, that clarifies.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Polywell pat application 20110170647 - prosecution docum

Post by Joseph Chikva »

rcain wrote:according to the responses from Nebel in http://filestore.crossedfields.com/2011 ... nfinal.pdf
the references to Morozov's paper were largely inappropriate/based on wrong assumptions (eg: non local thermal equilibrium).
As I have read in that Russian site, there is talk about confinement of thermal plasma.
It is interesting for me how Nebel explains the difference.
In which page he says about "non local thermal equilibrium"?

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

page 17

Tom DeGisi
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:27 pm

Thanks!

Post by Tom DeGisi »

Thanks, chrismb!

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

chrismb, Thanks!

Is it just me, or is the patent examiner really stubborn? Or was I scanning too fast?
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

My reading of the exchange is that the examiner believes the plasma is thermal, and the magnets won't be able to contain it, and the connectors will melt from lack of magnetic shielding, the device will explode if it contains the energy described, and the WB6 results were from "cross talk", arching, cosmic rays, etc. In the end they say it won't work because practical fusion is 50 years away, they sound like the DOE guys Bussard was trying to avoid.
CHoff

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

rjaypeters wrote:chrismb, Thanks!

Is it just me, or is the patent examiner really stubborn?
More than stubborn I'll say a real pain in the ass....

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

rcain wrote:page 17
Thanks, but there is only 13 pages.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

choff wrote:My reading of the exchange is that the examiner believes the plasma is thermal,...
Are sure that plasma in Polywell is not "thermal"?
If each scattering event will decline particle into random direction and there are no any forces for returning them back.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
choff wrote:My reading of the exchange is that the examiner believes the plasma is thermal,...
Are sure that plasma in Polywell is not "thermal"?
If each scattering event will decline particle into random direction and there are no any forces for returning them back.
Of course, collision and instabilities tend to make the plasma thermal. Bussard worked on this issue and designed the Polywell with the idea of solving exactly this issue.

In the Polywell core the ions have their maximum speed (and lowest cross section), so the possibility of thermalizing collision is at its lowest.
On the edges the ions are at their lowest speed and even if some thermalizing collision occurs it has no impact on the core of the reactor (where the high speed of ions tends to favour fusion collisions).

Post Reply