2011 IEC Confrence slide presentations are now up

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:24 am

Some interesting reads. There are two presentations on Polywell.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~khachan ... ations.php

The Sidney group reports on confinement, note they worked with low Beta conditions.

Joel Rogers analysis has evolved from impressions presented from last year. The 6.6 meter (13.2 M diameter) breakeven machine is for P-B11. I didn't see D-D discussed (still need to read the slides in greater depth- wish the verbal dialog was included). Some needed/ possible (?) improvements may shrink the size further.

6.6 M radius, is not too far from Bussard's 2 to 2.5 M radius estimate for P-B11 (for breakeven or for useful positive Q?).

Dan Tibbets

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:09 pm

Mercy buckets, dude!

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:15 pm

Joel wants to add "downscattered" (e-) "scrapers". That is his big change this year. I also wonder where he gets his Polywell diagrams. It would seem to be a patent application that I have not seen. Wall mounts, etc.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~khachan ... Rogers.pdf

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:28 pm

Thanks a lot for the find.

So, Bremsstrahlung losses seems the next working point for Joel Rogers. I am curious to see how his simulation will evolve.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:15 pm

ladajo wrote: I also wonder where he gets his Polywell diagrams. It would seem to be a patent application that I have not seen. Wall mounts, etc.

It's from his own patent, Modular Apparatus for Confining a Plasma

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:05 pm

I do not recall seeing that before. Hmmm. Am I developing CRS?

Thanks. Joel has been a busy boy for someone who has said it does not work a couple of times.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:39 am

ladajo wrote:Thanks. Joel has been a busy boy for someone who has said it does not work a couple of times.

True indeed.

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:43 am

ladajo wrote:I do not recall seeing that before. Hmmm. Am I developing CRS?

Thanks. Joel has been a busy boy for someone who has said it does not work a couple of times.

I noticed that, 14ish meters across is still kinda big... I really do hope it doesnt get any bigger than that. In other news, I emailed dr. Khachan about going to grad school at Sydney University, and he told me to try a school in the states... sigh...

What schools does IEC? Other than Wisconsin.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:44 am

B fields look low due to use of commercial copper magnets designed for continuous operation. I don't see a discussion of scaling with increased B fields that would be possible with superconductor magnets. It is very likely that I missed it due to poor reading skills on my part.

Best regards

PS Nice patent, did he get out in front of EMC2 on the magnet support?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:55 am

Some interesting developments there, thats for sure. Maybe this will trigger some more funding for polywell research?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:01 pm

Robthebob wrote:
ladajo wrote:I do not recall seeing that before. Hmmm. Am I developing CRS?

Thanks. Joel has been a busy boy for someone who has said it does not work a couple of times.
I noticed that, 14ish meters across is still kinda big... I really do hope it doesnt get any bigger than that. In other news, I emailed dr. Khachan about going to grad school at Sydney University, and he told me to try a school in the states... sigh...

I didn't see any real evidence of a wiffleball effect in his analysis. I get the impression it ONLY covers simple cusp effects. In which case it would have to be MUCH larger that the Polywell EMC2 is investigating.

Did I miss something?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 pm

I think he talked about whiffleball, but just used different words. Afterall, the cone reduction of the cusps is afterall what whiffleball is all about.

It is curious that he has flown this, and EMC has yet to re-issue a round of patent submission since the last lot ran out.
My take is that this will open up some sort of legal battle if things become fully viable.

It is curious how Joel's drawings and write up are very similar to public postings we have had from EMC2. To include the vacuum chamber as displayed on the EMC2 webpage.

Makes me a little uncomfortable.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:32 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Robthebob wrote:
ladajo wrote:I do not recall seeing that before. Hmmm. Am I developing CRS?

Thanks. Joel has been a busy boy for someone who has said it does not work a couple of times.
I noticed that, 14ish meters across is still kinda big... I really do hope it doesnt get any bigger than that. In other news, I emailed dr. Khachan about going to grad school at Sydney University, and he told me to try a school in the states... sigh...
I didn't see any real evidence of a wiffleball effect in his analysis. I get the impression it ONLY covers simple cusp effects. In which case it would have to be MUCH larger that the Polywell EMC2 is investigating.

Did I miss something?

IIRC he did mention some cusp-plugging effects in past presentations.

Great to see he's still working on this.

choff · Post by **choff** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:27 pm

I think his first calculation was for a 150M device, now he's down to 13M, maybe next year down to 2.5M. Possibly Joel realized after the initial finding he miscalculated, and rather than say so he's bringing his numbers in line over time.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:19 pm

TallDave wrote: IIRC he did mention some cusp-plugging effects in past presentations.

Yes, but cusp plugging didn't work. Not the same thing as the wiffleball.