Uhm no...Airplane and car both move in one dimension.
ICC 2011
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
There is one Russian song in which is stated that better to be rich and healthy than poor and ill. In fusion device better if plasma would be stable than unstable. That is trivial. But now how to achieve this?ladajo wrote:He never meant they could be put on a polywell, he did mean that the knowledge improvement in magnetics and plasmas could be useful for bettering polywells.
The man mentioned quadrupole that by definition is for focusing of coherent one dimensional (axial velocity much bigger than radial) motion, then he made analogy in aerodynamic (wing, car frame and may be wind tunnel).
Is that correct analogy for Polywell?
For which I can not think up analogy closer than motion of liquid inside the heart.
Now please apply one dimensional stabilizing concept into the moving to all direction system.
Mr. Chikva,Joseph Chikva wrote:Now please apply one dimensional stabilizing concept into the moving to all direction system.
Pleae try to think of Polywell as a 1+ dimension (I've read 1.5 dimension) system. There is radial and a partial tangential. Perhaps learning how to improve the stability of a 1 dimensional system CAN help improve the stability of a 1.5 dimensional system.
By the way, I am WAY out of my field here. Please excuse any stupidities.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Polywell: Spherical frame of coordinates: radial&tangentialKitemanSA wrote:Mr. Chikva,Joseph Chikva wrote:Now please apply one dimensional stabilizing concept into the moving to all direction system.
Perhaps learning how to improve the stability of a 1 dimensional system CAN help improve the stability of a 1.5 dimensional system.
By the way, I am WAY out of my field here. Please excuse any stupidities.
I think that not partial but strongly tangential as there are not any forces in Polywell reducing tangential velocities.You said Pleae try to think of Polywell as a 1+ dimension (I've read 1.5 dimension) system. There is radial and a partial tangential.
Beam of particles+quadrupole: cylindrical frame of coordinates: axial&partially radial. I wrote "partial" because namely quadrupole creates focusing forces. But here is the trick as one quadrupole focuses only in one plane defocusing in orthogonal. Then following quadrupole should focus in orthogonal and etc.
I would be very grateful to any who would teach me how to apply such a system in spherical geometry.
Here again I may be wrong but I got the impression that the possible values for the tangential are limited to a function of the radial and other related functions of the ions (collisional x-section I think) such that the tangential is not a fully developed degree of freedom. So, in part, the tangential is not a full dimension but partially a mirror of the radial dimension.Joseph Chikva wrote:Polywell: Spherical frame of coordinates: radial&tangentialKitemanSA wrote: Perhaps learning how to improve the stability of a 1 dimensional system CAN help improve the stability of a 1.5 dimensional system.I think that not partial but strongly tangential as there are not any forces in Polywell reducing tangential velocities.You said Please try to think of Polywell as a 1+ dimension (I've read 1.5 dimension) system. There is radial and a partial tangential.
This is probably a poor explanation but I know that EMC2 has said they have beneficially modeled the process with a 1.5 dimensional model. This is how I have interpreted that statement. Whether this has anything to do with the tad-pole discussion, I am not sure!
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Does Polywell have any forces limiting tangential (or angular) motion?KitemanSA wrote:Here again I may be wrong but I got the impression that the possible values for the tangential are limited to a function of the radial and other related functions of the ions (collisional x-section I think) such that the tangential is not a fully developed degree of freedom. So, in part, the tangential is not a full dimension but partially a mirror of the radial dimension.
Is there in Polywell something returning ion back when that suffers scattering and in result deflects acquiring the certain angular momentum?
Then following scattering event and following and so on. In result total randomization of velocities. And I am sure that by the order of magnitude average tangential velocity will be comparable to the amplitude of "right" radial motion velocity which is observed in the center.
As repeatedly mentioned. There are two primary restoring or tangential suppressing mechanisms. First is the edge annealing. Second is the central area of the near spherical geometry. This region will dominate ion collisions over the mantle region (if there is any confluence), and collisions here will result in less tangential magnitude in the collisions. At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible. All directions are radial. The magnitude of this effect depends on the degree of confluence, it may be a tiny, modest, or huge effect.
Dan Tibbets
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
This does not correspond to true. If not head-head collision occurs or in the other words impact parameter is not equal to zero, we always will get some angular momentums.At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible.
“Annealing” as I understand only equalizes the temperatures in all points of plasma. And in result temperature will be uniformly high everywhere. And high temperature means high average angular momentum as well.
And spherical geometry as such can not suppress random motion.
For deceleration of particle ("tangential suppressing mechanisms" is the deceleration) the certain forces are required. And nothing else. This is Newton's second Law. a=F/m
And Polywell has not such forces acting in tangential direction.
If the collision is happening at the center of the device then, by definition, all directions are directly away from the center, and thus not tangental. Or, to phrase it differently -- This can ONLY correspond to true.Joseph Chikva wrote:This does not correspond to true. If not head-head collision occurs or in the other words impact parameter is not equal to zero, we always will get some angular momentums.At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Pardon for not strict definition. And geometrically you are right - all directions in the center are radial.krenshala wrote:If the collision is happening at the center of the device then, by definition, all directions are directly away from the center, and thus not tangental. Or, to phrase it differently -- This can ONLY correspond to true.Joseph Chikva wrote:This does not correspond to true. If not head-head collision occurs or in the other words impact parameter is not equal to zero, we always will get some angular momentums.At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible.
But scattering in the center will produce more spread of velocities. As thermalization is the spread not only of directions but also spread of velocites.
And ions having even very low but non-zero angular momentums and not being in center with very low probability will pass through the center (only in result of multiple collisions and multiple changing of directions).
Collisions with other ions having tangential motion? When they have reached the top of their motion allowed by their radial motion, all they have left is tangential, which is libel to run into another ion coming the other way. This returns the ion into a MORE radial motion.Joseph Chikva wrote: Does Polywell have any forces limiting tangential (or angular) motion?
Sorry, I can't quite interpret this question. I THINK it is just an expanded repeat of the first, so the answer is the same.Joseph Chikva wrote: Is there in Polywell something returning ion back when that suffers scattering and in result deflects acquiring the certain angular momentum?
Annealing. This is the expected process to return some, if not all, of the tangential motion into radial. How well it works is still not published. I get the impression it is quite welol known, just not published!Joseph Chikva wrote: Then following scattering event and following and so on. In result total randomization of velocities. And I am sure that by the order of magnitude average tangential velocity will be comparable to the amplitude of "right" radial motion velocity which is observed in the center.
I have reached my limit and beyond.
Sure, collisions lead to various resulting velocities for the particles involved. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the angle of that motion is tangental or not. But then I guess this is your style ... when caught in a logical flaw you try to redirect the discussion to something else you perceive to be a problem in the hopes it will distract people from the original discussion point.Joseph Chikva wrote:Pardon for not strict definition. And geometrically you are right - all directions in the center are radial.krenshala wrote:If the collision is happening at the center of the device then, by definition, all directions are directly away from the center, and thus not tangental. Or, to phrase it differently -- This can ONLY correspond to true.Joseph Chikva wrote: This does not correspond to true. If not head-head collision occurs or in the other words impact parameter is not equal to zero, we always will get some angular momentums.
But scattering in the center will produce more spread of velocities. As thermalization is the spread not only of directions but also spread of velocites.
And ions having even very low but non-zero angular momentums and not being in center with very low probability will pass through the center (only in result of multiple collisions and multiple changing of directions).
To that end ... Sure, the particles will have different velocities. Those particles are still drawn toward the center of the system where their chances of fusing are the greatest. Those particles still experience the "annealing" process with particles of similar velocities.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
I have no purpose to redirect discussion and, so, your assumption on "my hopes" are absolutely wrong.krenshala wrote:Sure, collisions lead to various resulting velocities for the particles involved. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the angle of that motion is tangental or not. But then I guess this is your style ... when caught in a logical flaw you try to redirect the discussion to something else you perceive to be a problem in the hopes it will distract people from the original discussion point.
To that end ... Sure, the particles will have different velocities. Those particles are still drawn toward the center of the system where their chances of fusing are the greatest. Those particles still experience the "annealing" process with particles of similar velocities.
Returning to issue, the center being by meaning of Polywell's developer a 'virtual cathode' is a center of attraction like the Sun is the center of our planet system. But particle once passing through center in result of scattering has very low probability to pass there again. And your statement that
is wrong as there are not any forces allowing to particle the returning to right radial direction capability.Those particles are still drawn toward the center of the system
As I saw the video of comet hitting Sun but more frequently planets, comets and asteroids do not hit the Sun even experiencing the gravitational attraction. As as a rule planets and others also have non-zero angular momentums and also do not experience any forces reducing those momentums.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
KitemanSA wrote:When they have reached the top of their motion allowed by their radial motion, all they have left is tangential, which is libel to run into another ion coming the other way. This returns the ion into a MORE radial motion.
KitemanSA wrote:Annealing. This is the expected process to return some, if not all, of the tangential motion into radial.
Absolutely wrong. As electrostatic attraction by virtual cathode acts only radially and stopping the particle only in radial direction, can not nor accelerate or decelerate tangential velocity. Collisions can only randomize the velocity and can not reduce them. All the more energy feeding from externally by creating of electric field should permanently increase the average tangential velocity as well growing thermalization. And only Bremsstahlung can limit that.