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?