ICC 2011

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Airplane and car both move in one dimension.
Uhm no...

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

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.
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?
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.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:Now please apply one dimensional stabilizing concept into the moving to all direction system.
Mr. Chikva,
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.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Now please apply one dimensional stabilizing concept into the moving to all direction system.
Mr. Chikva,
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.
Polywell: Spherical frame of coordinates: radial&tangential
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.
I think that not partial but strongly tangential as there are not any forces in Polywell reducing tangential velocities.

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.

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

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:What statement did you make?
I quit.....

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Perhaps learning how to improve the stability of a 1 dimensional system CAN help improve the stability of a 1.5 dimensional system.
Polywell: Spherical frame of coordinates: radial&tangential
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.
I think that not partial but strongly tangential as there are not any forces in Polywell reducing tangential velocities.
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.
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! ;)

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

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.
Does Polywell have any forces limiting tangential (or angular) motion?
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.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

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
To error is human... and I'm very human.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible.
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.
“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.

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible.
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.
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
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

krenshala wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
At the dead center no tangential scattering would be possible.
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.
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.
Pardon for not strict definition. And geometrically you are right - all directions in the center are radial.
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).

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote: Does Polywell have any forces limiting tangential (or angular) motion?
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: Is there in Polywell something returning ion back when that suffers scattering and in result deflects acquiring the certain angular momentum?
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: 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.
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! ;)

I have reached my limit and beyond.

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
krenshala wrote:
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.
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.
Pardon for not strict definition. And geometrically you are right - all directions in the center are radial.
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).
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.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

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.
I have no purpose to redirect discussion and, so, your assumption on "my hopes" are absolutely wrong.
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
Those particles are still drawn toward the center of the system
is wrong as there are not any forces allowing to particle the returning to right radial direction capability.
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.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

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.

Post Reply