reddit: We are nuclear fusion researchers, ask us anything

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:19 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Have YOU read his Valencia paper? Find that part and READ it. See what it says. Quote it and dispute it. You are an IDIOT if you are arguing with ME. Argue with HIM.

I've read his work. I believe I understand it.
Have you? I don't believe YOU understand it.
I don't care whether you are a plasma physicist or not.
Ok, Kiteman I am idiot saying to Christian who trusts that Jesus walked above water that this is impossible. I am an idiot saying to Jew who trusts that Moses splitted water that this is impossible too. But there is a talk about the divine foresight. I see that talking about technical approach your main argument is "I believe".

I have not any necessity to argue with deadman.
I only said that impossible to narrow the spread of velocities by braking of coherent motion. Because I know physics better than you. Am I idiot or no but it's so.
I believe I understand it.
You believe vs. I know.
I've read Valencia paper
I've read a lot of papers. And also have an ability analyzing them. Unlike you.
Do you feel difference, Mr. Smart?

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:37 pm

Show us an analysis of Dr. Bussard's published work then.

Cite, cite, argue, argue.

Show us your "analytical" skill.

I do not think I have ever seen you cite Bussard directly, and then provide your anlaysis based counter argument. You keep talking about religion mostly.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:25 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Have YOU read his Valencia paper? Find that part and READ it. See what it says. Quote it and dispute it. You are an IDIOT if you are arguing with ME. Argue with HIM.

I've read his work. I believe I understand it.
Have you? I don't believe YOU understand it.
I don't care whether you are a plasma physicist or not.
Ok, Kiteman I am idiot saying to Christian who trusts that Jesus walked above water that this is impossible. I am an idiot saying to Jew who trusts that Moses splitted water that this is impossible too. But there is a talk about the divine foresight. I see that talking about technical approach your main argument is "I believe".
Are you saying you do NOT believe you understand what you have been spewing? So you are knowingly telling lies, making statements that you do not believe?

Yet again I direct you to some specific path toward knowledge of a subject and yet again you vere off into non-sensical diatribes.
Joseph Chikva wrote: I have not any necessity to argue with deadman.
Actually, it is probably more the truth that you do not have the CAPABILITY to dispute his arguments.
Joseph Chikva wrote: I only said that impossible to narrow the spread of velocities by braking of coherent motion. Because I know physics better than you. Am I idiot or no but it's so.
So you say. But seems maybe not. Your "knowledge" may be blinding you to better understanding.
Joseph Chikva wrote:
I believe I understand it.
You believe vs. I know.
I KNOW "I believe", you BELIEVE "you know". Seems you may be wrong. But don't let that keep you from being too close-minded to learn! :)
Joseph Chikva wrote:
I've read Valencia paper
I've read a lot of papers. And also have an ability analyzing them. Unlike you.
So "analyse" the Valencia paper and show where it is wrong, if you can.
Joseph Chikva wrote: Do you feel difference, Mr. Smart?
The difference in what? That you have your mind snapped closed tighter than a steel trap and I am still willing to learn? Yes, I believe I feel that difference. And thank you for the acknowledgement. Mr. Smart. I like that! ;)

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:44 am

ladajo wrote:Show us an analysis of Dr. Bussard's published work then.

Cite, cite, argue, argue.

Show us your "analytical" skill.

I do not think I have ever seen you cite Bussard directly, and then provide your anlaysis based counter argument. You keep talking about religion mostly.
We can talk about that in another thread. If you wish. In this thread I answer if I recall correctly to Skipjack that by my opinion Polywell and Slaw's approach are too far from commercialization and both have conceptual problems.
As well as you and other said similar on TOKAMAK. Unlike you I can explain my opinion. And also explained why they are wrong on TOKAMAK.
Do you want analyze also any TOKAMAK paper in parallel mode?

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:48 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: I only said that impossible to narrow the spread of velocities by braking of coherent motion. Because I know physics better than you. Am I idiot or no but it's so.
So you say. But seems maybe not.
May be not? No comment.

Skipjack
Posts: 6003
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:35 am

We can talk about that in another thread. If you wish. In this thread I answer if I recall correctly to Skipjack that by my opinion Polywell and Slaw's approach are too far from commercialization and both have conceptual problems.
As well as you and other said similar on TOKAMAK. Unlike you I can explain my opinion. And also explained why they are wrong on TOKAMAK.
Do you want analyze also any TOKAMAK paper in parallel mode?

No, what I said was that both Polywell as well as Sloughs/Rostokers/Monkhorsts FRC- Colliding Beam approaches have a higher chance of making it to an economic reactor within the next ten years (or so). We already know for sure that Tokamaks wont result in economic fusion reactors in the next 10 years (because ITER wont be ready and that is pretty much the only Tok even close to a working prototype. We do have good indication that the other two concepts could make it and since they are both much simpler and would require much less money (which also means smaller projects, less political interests, less delays, etc, etc), they could make it within 10 years from now.
That is all. Even if Toks will reach break even, which wont happen within a decade, it is very unlikely that the concept will EVER result in an economic reactor. And for these reasons, I find it a good idea to invest into these two concepts (very high risk- high gain investments, the kind that only governments do).

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:05 am

Skipjack wrote:
We can talk about that in another thread. If you wish. In this thread I answer if I recall correctly to Skipjack that by my opinion Polywell and Slaw's approach are too far from commercialization and both have conceptual problems.
As well as you and other said similar on TOKAMAK. Unlike you I can explain my opinion. And also explained why they are wrong on TOKAMAK.
Do you want analyze also any TOKAMAK paper in parallel mode?

No, what I said was that both Polywell as well as Sloughs/Rostokers/Monkhorsts FRC- Colliding Beam approaches have a higher chance of making it to an economic reactor within the next ten years (or so). We already know for sure that Tokamaks wont result in economic fusion reactors in the next 10 years (because ITER wont be ready and that is pretty much the only Tok even close to a working prototype. We do have good indication that the other two concepts could make it and since they are both much simpler and would require much less money (which also means smaller projects, less political interests, less delays, etc, etc), they could make it within 10 years from now.
That is all. Even if Toks will reach break even, which wont happen within a decade, it is very unlikely that the concept will EVER result in an economic reactor. And for these reasons, I find it a good idea to invest into these two concepts (very high risk- high gain investments, the kind that only governments do).
My dear Skipjack, "economic reactor" means that "all engineering issues are solved". But at first before approaching closely to engineering issues all competing concepts should prove their viability: confinement (plasma lifetime), etc. Except TOKAMAKs neither other projects did prove that. And TOKAMAK did.
I think that I talk using very easy for understanding categories. Despite to my very bad English.
Commercialization of any product is very long way. And 10 years is very short time period for fusion commercialization.
As in ITER program's frame many useful things are in development. E.g. breeder modules, large superconductor magnets immersed in cryostat and at the same time running very close to very hot other parts of reactor. etc.
For any other more successful approaches we will be forced to pass the same way. For example divertors used now in TOKAMAKs first were invented for Stellarators.
And more qualified people make decision where and how to invest. As they invest their own money or money on which they are responsible. While you only suggest to invest another's money in idea which is pleasant to you but actually you are not trained enough for evaluating.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:51 pm

Joseph,
Nobody here, me included, has ever said that Toks won't breakeven. The problem is to build the breakeven machine is so ridiculously expensive, it is not viable. $80 Billion??? Come on. Where is the return on investment? And, they are also estimateing it will take a couple more decades to build for productive power.
I for one, do think that parallel approaches are better for critical problems. Energy is a critical problem. So, until another method proves viable for breakeven and net, and in a more economical context, yes we should probably continue to burn the ITER candle. However, I would also argue that ITER is fast approaching the, "its just not worth it stage". It sis kind of like nuclear weapons, building 100+ Megaton weapons is just not worth it. You can do what you need with two or more orders less magnitude.

The point is that deferring effort on other promising approaches is just cutting your leg off. Yes, Toks will go net at some point. But, it is becoming more and more likely that soem other method will do it first, and for a whole lot less resources. The leading publically visible candidate right now is NIF. Will NIF be commerically viable? The remains to be seen as well. But, I would argue it has a much better chance than Toks.

In the mean time we have a couple of darkhorse in the race. Polywell being one of them. Nothing has been found yet to prove Polywell will not work. And, it has not yet made Net. But it is making progress. So why give up? Because Joseph Chivka, world famous plasma physicist has proven Bussard and Nebel wrong?
Come on, show us specifically where Bussard is wrong.

Cite and argue. Show us your analysis skill you are so world famous for.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:30 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
We can talk about that in another thread. If you wish. In this thread I answer if I recall correctly to Skipjack that by my opinion Polywell and Slaw's approach are too far from commercialization and both have conceptual problems.
As well as you and other said similar on TOKAMAK. Unlike you I can explain my opinion. And also explained why they are wrong on TOKAMAK.
Do you want analyze also any TOKAMAK paper in parallel mode?

No, what I said was that both Polywell as well as Sloughs/Rostokers/Monkhorsts FRC- Colliding Beam approaches have a higher chance of making it to an economic reactor within the next ten years (or so). We already know for sure that Tokamaks wont result in economic fusion reactors in the next 10 years (because ITER wont be ready and that is pretty much the only Tok even close to a working prototype. We do have good indication that the other two concepts could make it and since they are both much simpler and would require much less money (which also means smaller projects, less political interests, less delays, etc, etc), they could make it within 10 years from now.
That is all. Even if Toks will reach break even, which wont happen within a decade, it is very unlikely that the concept will EVER result in an economic reactor. And for these reasons, I find it a good idea to invest into these two concepts (very high risk- high gain investments, the kind that only governments do).
My dear Skipjack, "economic reactor" means that "all engineering issues are solved". But at first before approaching closely to engineering issues all competing concepts should prove their viability: confinement (plasma lifetime), etc. Except TOKAMAKs neither other projects did prove that. And TOKAMAK did.
I think that I talk using very easy for understanding categories. Despite to my very bad English.
Commercialization of any product is very long way. And 10 years is very short time period for fusion commercialization.
As in ITER program's frame many useful things are in development. E.g. breeder modules, large superconductor magnets immersed in cryostat and at the same time running very close to very hot other parts of reactor. etc.
For any other more successful approaches we will be forced to pass the same way. For example divertors used now in TOKAMAKs first were invented for Stellarators.
And more qualified people make decision where and how to invest. As they invest their own money or money on which they are responsible. While you only suggest to invest another's money in idea which is pleasant to you but actually you are not trained enough for evaluating.


TOKAMAKs have been extensively researched and the result, for commercial power generation, seems very very expensive and difficult. Nor does there seem any easy way to reduce this cost with better technology, it is intrinsic (correct me if wrong).

ICF techniques have been less researched, because high power lasers are a rapidly improving technology, and there is no fundamental reason why they should not work commerially, nor fundamental reason why they should. We don't know. But we do know that there are very large improvements still being made in high-power laser costs and performance, and that whether some form of ICF can reach commercial break-even Qs is still up in the air, with avenues not yet well explored.

In terms of the engineering problems they seem pretty bad in both cases, with lots of development still to do.

I don't know enough to say that ICF is obviously unfeasible, but I do think that new lasers look likely to increase input efficiency by a factor to 10 or more, and that fast ignition promisses Qs higher than previously thought possible. Put the two together and commercial energy production may become feasible. Costs depend on laser costs which ae still falling rapidly.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:37 pm

Joseph,
Do you foresee Tokamaks being economical for Georgia? Personally, I would like to see fusion approaches investigated that would be economical at the 100 net MW electric size (as polywell is targeted for) as that size is easier to install for expansion. 1000 to +2000 net MW electric power units, such as Tokamaks, require such massive investment that they are hard to justify.

I realize you have your doubts about polywell, but should it prove out it will be much more desirable for power plant expansion projects.
Best regards
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:51 pm

ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Nobody here, me included, has ever said that Toks won't breakeven. The problem is to build the breakeven machine is so ridiculously expensive, it is not viable. $80 Billion??? Come on. Where is the return on investment? And, they are also estimateing it will take a couple more decades to build for productive power.
I for one, do think that parallel approaches are better for critical problems. Energy is a critical problem. So, until another method proves viable for breakeven and net, and in a more economical context, yes we should probably continue to burn the ITER candle. However, I would also argue that ITER is fast approaching the, "its just not worth it stage". It sis kind of like nuclear weapons, building 100+ Megaton weapons is just not worth it. You can do what you need with two or more orders less magnitude.

The point is that deferring effort on other promising approaches is just cutting your leg off. Yes, Toks will go net at some point. But, it is becoming more and more likely that soem other method will do it first, and for a whole lot less resources. The leading publically visible candidate right now is NIF. Will NIF be commerically viable? The remains to be seen as well. But, I would argue it has a much better chance than Toks.

In the mean time we have a couple of darkhorse in the race. Polywell being one of them. Nothing has been found yet to prove Polywell will not work. And, it has not yet made Net. But it is making progress. So why give up? Because Joseph Chivka, world famous plasma physicist has proven Bussard and Nebel wrong?
Come on, show us specifically where Bussard is wrong.

Cite and argue. Show us your analysis skill you are so world famous for.
Joseph Chikvashvili is not world famous plasma physicist. But everybody who a little aware in plasma physics can say the same as me. At least nobody here could answer on some question have been put by me. Or answered wrongly.
Those for example are:
1. 2-stream instability. Paper of Dr. Nebel confirms that this issue would be significant for virtual cathode stability as virtual catode is the main component in Polywell's concept. Recall objections like "no beam machine", "once you pumped electron inside their stability does not matter", etc. Paper of Dr. Nebel proves that they also considered this type of instability.
From this follows #2
2. Scaling. All Polywell fan consider 2-dimensional scaling: by mag field and by dimension. Stating that fusion power is proportional to B^4 and R^3.
I can not say anything about dimension scaling but B^4 does not work in any fusion device. Here I am arguing namely with Kiteman, Talldave, etc. As I do not believe that any plasma physicist can say such a nonsense. As if Nebel found the certain stability area by increasing of B you will change the properties of plasma. And not considered by Dr. Nebel electron-ion 2-stream would appear. As only single way (from three known) of damping of 2-stream is possible for Polywell - namely distribution of velocities of background subtract. And ions initiallyhas not broad distribution.
From this follows #3
3. By increasing of B from laughable 0.1 T to 7-10 T you will confine some (not all) charged products of reaction. This will increase thermalization. As all Polywell fans considers ion velocity at the edge equal to nil, so, gas pressure is created only by electron gas, increasing ion temperature till to electron temperature gives 2 times higher gas pressure. And beta from 1 (if this possible) at once will become 0.5.
I can go on.

Again regarding "world famous", I do not see a big interest from even Navy and of coarse DOE as well. Has DOE made any statement on Polywell anywhere? Why Dr. Nebel left MC2?

And I am repeating once again 16 or 20 billions of ITER cost is not cost of hardware.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:55 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:Joseph,
Do you foresee Tokamaks being economical for Georgia?
For Georgia at this moment is more economical a lot of HPP plants. And now up to 20 such projects are in construction including 720MW Khudoni HPP.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:00 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote: Joseph Chikvashvili is not world famous plasma physicist. But everybody who a little aware in plasma physics can say the same as me. At least nobody here could answer on some question have been put by me. Or answered wrongly.
Those for example are:
1. 2-stream instability. Paper of Dr. Nebel confirms that this issue would be significant for virtual cathode stability as virtual catode is the main component in Polywell's concept. Recall objections like "no beam machine", "once you pumped electron inside their stability does not matter", etc. Paper of Dr. Nebel proves that they also considered this type of instability.
To misquote a popular American movie, "Show me the paper". The only paper that you have quoted from Dr. Nebel simply showed that you can't read English.
Joseph Chikva wrote: From this follows #2
2. Scaling. All Polywell fan consider 2-dimensional scaling: by mag field and by dimension. Stating that fusion power is proportional to B^4 and R^3.
Actually, everyone I see says "all else being equal"...
Joseph Chikva wrote:I can not say anything about dimension scaling but B^4 does not work in any fusion device.
Source? I linked you to a totally independant site that provided the mathmatics of why B^4 IS the factor for magnetic confinement. Where is your counter cite? You have provided none but your big mouth. That is not a valid cite.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Here I am arguing namely with Kiteman, Talldave, etc. As I do not believe that any plasma physicist can say such a nonsense. As if Nebel found the certain stability area by increasing of B you will change the properties of plasma. And not considered by Dr. Nebel electron-ion 2-stream would appear. As only single way (from three known) of damping of 2-stream is possible for Polywell - namely distribution of velocities of background subtract. And ions initiallyhas not broad distribution.
Cite? I've provide one to show B^4 is correct, where is yours?
(By the way, what you have been saying MAY be correct. Polywell MAY not ever be viable for any number of reasons. But Dr. B. obviously thought it would be viable, and that is what research is all about.)
Joseph Chikva wrote:From this follows #3
3. By increasing of B from laughable 0.1 T to 7-10 T you will confine some (not all) charged products of reaction. This will increase thermalization. As all Polywell fans considers ion velocity at the edge equal to nil, so, gas pressure is created only by electron gas, increasing ion temperature till to electron temperature gives 2 times higher gas pressure. And beta from 1 (if this possible) at once will become 0.5.
I can go on.
Actually, in that case beta will TRY to go to 2 but the magnets wouldn't hold it so it would blow out. Except it would also leak and relieve pressure so it would be a control balancing act.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Again regarding "world famous", I do not see a big interest from even Navy and of coarse DOE as well. Has DOE made any statement on Polywell anywhere? Why Dr. Nebel left MC2?

And I am repeating once again 16 or 20 billions of ITER cost is not cost of hardware.
Statements by "eminent fusion physicists" at MIT revealed that they believe it will take another $80 BILLION (and ~40 years) to reach an economical reactor. One wonders if they include the amortization of that 80 G$ in their assessment of "economical" and whether they have included the amortized cost of the PAST G$s either.
"Economical" - "Scientifically possible". Understand the difference?

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:24 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:By the way, on what do you base your statement that all ions pass through the center?


Is that in regard to Riders thoughts that ions pass thru the center VS Chacons thought that ions pass thru a broader center region?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:47 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: Joseph Chikvashvili is not world famous plasma physicist. But everybody who a little aware in plasma physics can say the same as me. At least nobody here could answer on some question have been put by me. Or answered wrongly.
Those for example are:
1. 2-stream instability. Paper of Dr. Nebel confirms that this issue would be significant for virtual cathode stability as virtual catode is the main component in Polywell's concept. Recall objections like "no beam machine", "once you pumped electron inside their stability does not matter", etc. Paper of Dr. Nebel proves that they also considered this type of instability.
To misquote a popular American movie, "Show me the paper". The only paper that you have quoted from Dr. Nebel simply showed that you can't read English.
Joseph Chikva wrote: From this follows #2
2. Scaling. All Polywell fan consider 2-dimensional scaling: by mag field and by dimension. Stating that fusion power is proportional to B^4 and R^3.
Actually, everyone I see says "all else being equal"...
Joseph Chikva wrote:I can not say anything about dimension scaling but B^4 does not work in any fusion device.
Source? I linked you to a totally independant site that provided the mathmatics of why B^4 IS the factor for magnetic confinement. Where is your counter cite? You have provided none but your big mouth. That is not a valid cite.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Here I am arguing namely with Kiteman, Talldave, etc. As I do not believe that any plasma physicist can say such a nonsense. As if Nebel found the certain stability area by increasing of B you will change the properties of plasma. And not considered by Dr. Nebel electron-ion 2-stream would appear. As only single way (from three known) of damping of 2-stream is possible for Polywell - namely distribution of velocities of background subtract. And ions initiallyhas not broad distribution.
Cite? I've provide one to show B^4 is correct, where is yours?
(By the way, what you have been saying MAY be correct. Polywell MAY not ever be viable for any number of reasons. But Dr. B. obviously thought it would be viable, and that is what research is all about.)
Joseph Chikva wrote:From this follows #3
3. By increasing of B from laughable 0.1 T to 7-10 T you will confine some (not all) charged products of reaction. This will increase thermalization. As all Polywell fans considers ion velocity at the edge equal to nil, so, gas pressure is created only by electron gas, increasing ion temperature till to electron temperature gives 2 times higher gas pressure. And beta from 1 (if this possible) at once will become 0.5.
I can go on.
Actually, in that case beta will TRY to go to 2 but the magnets wouldn't hold it so it would blow out. Except it would also leak and relieve pressure so it would be a control balancing act.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Again regarding "world famous", I do not see a big interest from even Navy and of coarse DOE as well. Has DOE made any statement on Polywell anywhere? Why Dr. Nebel left MC2?

And I am repeating once again 16 or 20 billions of ITER cost is not cost of hardware.
Statements by "eminent fusion physicists" at MIT revealed that they believe it will take another $80 BILLION (and ~40 years) to reach an economical reactor. One wonders if they include the amortization of that 80 G$ in their assessment of "economical" and whether they have included the amortized cost of the PAST G$s either.
"Economical" - "Scientifically possible". Understand the difference?
You need the source that B^4 does not work? This scaling law would be quite universal if that works. But we have about 60 years of fusion research history. And for any device that does not work. That is fact. In opposite case we would have an "economic reactor" right now.

Beta goes to 2? Thanks. Funny.

I can read technical English. There is the talk about electron-electron 2-stream instability. As initially only electron population in Polywell has large angular momentums. And not ions. Read it carefully. This is important. Increasing density by pumping more ions and electrons and strengthening mag field in space confined by cusps you will get another plasma properties. And ion-electron 2-stream was not investigated.
Or till now you still mean that this type of instability is not an issue for Polywell?

At least "eminent fusion physicists" at MIT are better trained in plasma physics than you, me and any other visitor of this board. It is a pity for me that they remained jobless. I think that they give you realistic estimation of cost of TOKAMAK program. For example Heavy Ions Fusion program would be even more expensive.
But recall that cost of program is not equal to cost of hardware.
But I feel that you and many others here hope to solve one of world's main challenges at e.g. vacuum cleaner's development cost.
I remember how you estimate nickel enrichment hardware's cost (couple thousands dollars). Good luck.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests