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

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

Postby ladajo » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:27 pm

Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
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)

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:00 am

ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:10 am

Maybe I missed something, I thought the whole idea behind polywell is that it is electrostatic confinement and the magnetic field was for protecting the madrid from electrons, electrons being the cause of the (electric) potential well, and it is the (electric) potential well that contains the positive ions that fuse.

edit:
I should add that the magnetic field provides shape to the (electric) potential well. The magnetic field is not intended on confining the electrons without leakage, but it does reduce electron leakage from the well, hence the importance of electron recirculation (caused by the electric confinement).
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:52 pm

My basic layman's understanding of the idea behind the Polywell is that it's supposed to magnetically confine the electrons, and the electrostatic confinement is of the ions. Without the magnetic field created by the magrid, there would be no electron potential well, right? "Confine" might not be the best word to use, but then it's probably not the best word to use in the area of magnetic confinement of ions either.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

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

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:17 pm

Ivy Matt wrote:My basic layman's understanding of the idea behind the Polywell is that it's supposed to magnetically confine the electrons, and the electrostatic confinement is of the ions. Without the magnetic field created by the magrid, there would be no electron potential well, right? "Confine" might not be the best word to use, but then it's probably not the best word to use in the area of magnetic confinement of ions either.
Simplistically speaking, the Polywell COULD be viewed as a magnetically protected Elmore-Tuck-Watson FUSOR; but it is SO much more. If it were an ETW fusor, there would STILL be a potential well, but the losses would be too high to go Q>1.

The magnetic field both protects the grid as an enhanced ETW fusor, but it also develops a wiffleball which amplifies the electron/plasma density inside the grid. These two factors together are AFAIUT what MAY allow the Polywell to actually go Q>1.

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

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:19 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.
It ain't what you don't know, but what ya know that ain't so that bites you. What you seem to "know that ain't so" is that a Polywell is a "magnetic confinement" device.

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:39 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.
It ain't what you don't know, but what ya know that ain't so that bites you. What you seem to "know that ain't so" is that a Polywell is a "magnetic confinement" device.
Hehe "bites"
Even more succesful TOKAMAK does not bites me.
Or do you think that number of followers forces device to work better?

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

Postby ladajo » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:05 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.


Joseph, this is where you go wrong. B=1 is possible for a Polywell, and has been seen many many times. Granted, in the current and previous devices, it "passes through" B=1 condition during the test runs, and does not stop and "hang there" at close to B=1 conditions.

That is the entire point of the test devices to date. Why do you not understand this?

The simple statement on the EMC2 webpage that says, "Wiffleball Proven" means exactly that they have seen Beta=1. Again, why do you resist opening your understanding to grasp this?
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)

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

Postby ladajo » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:27 pm

Joseph,
Read this:

MACHINES
PRE-USN
SDIO/DNA 1987/88, small scale recirculating-electron (open corners) Polywell, R = 3 cm, low voltage and current 800-1000 V, 10-20 mA, B = 50-60 G
DARPA/HEPS, closed cubical box, large device, R = 93 cm, 25 ms pulsed, E = 15 kV, Ie = 5-10 A, water-cooled, truncated-cube coil magnets, B = 3.5 kG
USN/EMC2
DG-1.2, 1994, double-grid Hirsch/Farnsworth devices, R = 3 cm, calibrate instruments and show DD fusion at small scale, up to 5-6 kV, 100 mA
WB-1, 1994, R = 5 cm, uncooled, fixed solid-state magnets, annular ring cusp losses, recirculating electrons, B = 800 G, Ie = 4-5 A (max), E = 1-2 kV
WB-2, 1994/96, in-vacuum, recirculating (MG) uncooled wound-coil magnets, B = 1300G, E = 1-2 kV (failed at 4.5 kV), truncated cube coils, 1-4 A
PXL-1, 1996/97, closed box, R = 13 cm, uncooled pancake coils on truncated cube faces, B = 1800 G single e-gun, Ie = few A, E = 4-5 kV, 2.45 GHz ECR
WB-3, 1998/2000, larger WB-2, recirc (MG), R = 10 cm, E up to 15 kV, Ie = 3 A, multiple emitters, B = 2400 G, 2.45 GHz ECR
MPG-1,2. 1999/2001, single-turn, water-cooled, recirc (MG) copper coils, pure edgewound, E = 30 kV, Ie = 0.4 A, B = 70-100 G, ECR on coil surface only, R = 7/10 cm
WB-4, 2001/03, R = 15 cm, B = 5 kG, E = 15-30 kV, Ie = 2-4 A, water-cooled, canned, recirc (MG) copper coil truncated cube faces, 2.45 GHz ECR, several emitters
PZLx-1, 2003/04, adiabatic compressor, pulsed, un-cooled single-turn coil, bulk copper device, R = 3 cm, B = 35 kG (max pulsed), Ee(injection) = 15 kV, Ie = 10-100 A, Ee(at compression start) = 400-500 eV
MPG-4, 2003/04, larger MPG-1, with 7 turn coils, water-cooled tubing, ECR, etc
WB-5, 2004/05, larger PXL-1, external water-cooled coils, truncated cube, closed-box, max B = 6 kG, E = 15 kV, R = 40 cm, Ie 3-5 A (up to 3kA, pulsed)
WB-6, 2005, R = 15 cm, B = 1.3 kG, E = 12.5 kV, clean recirc truncube with minimal spaced corner interconnects, multi-turn, conformal can coils, uncooled, cap pulsed drive, Ie to 2000 A, incorporated final detailed engineering design constraints.

RESULTS
WB-1 showed surface transport losses, and annular cusp losses, in accord with theory
WB-2 proved WB-trapping, low voltage, modest B fields, few A current; diamagnetic B field effects, probe measured well shape, showed deep (fractional) potential wells, developed first empirical transport scaling electron loss formulae
PXL-1 showed ECR suppression of neutral wall reflux, ion focussing at device center, WB diamagnetic current formation around cusps
MPG-1,2 showed first Polywell trapped ion fusion reactions, driven by electron injection, at up to 27 kV, supported MG transport equation scaling from WB-2 work
WB-3 showed deep potential wells, diamagnetic electron formations at low energy, ECR ionization inside and outside of machine
WB-4 showed deep potential wells, ECR neutral control both inside and outside of machine (low density), varied potential configurations, trapped ion fusion reactions under pulsed gas operation mode, agree with models/theory
PZLx-1 showed stability of polyhedral field shape under compression, fusion reactions in short pulse mode, high B fields, neutral plasma compression
WB-5 showed deep potential wells, potential well formation, fusion and oscillatory well collapse arising from limited power supply current capability, performance and design constraints of closed configuration, critical discovery of 1E-5 unshielded metal limit.
WB-6 showed 1/10 of loss coefficient of WB-4, and ran as a deep well Polywell at 10-12keV, producing DD fusions at 2.5E9 fus/sec. This is 200,000 times higher than the early work of Hirsch/Farnsworth and a world’s record for such IEF devices at same conditions.

PROVEN
High energy potential well depth, ion focussing and trapping, fusion reactions, electron trapping, electron (MG) transport loss scaling, cusp loss mechanisms, well and field macrostability, neutral gas wall reflux suppression, limiting configurations and detailed design constraints for minimal losses, computer code design ability for machine B and E fields,
fusion/electric power systems design codes, DD fusion output in five machines, world’s record DD fusion output in final experiments, determined and verified all design scaling laws for physics and engineering constraints, definition of RDT&E for full scale net-power demonstration, prototype development plans, schedules and costs.


http://www.emc2fusion.org/QuikHstryOfPolyPgm0407.pdf

So, the only thing missing is that WB7 & 7.1 revalidated WB6. And WB8 is a scaled up version of WB6/7/7.1, where it is 10x the B-Field, and probably a larger diameter (surmised from the posted drawing).

In case you did not catch it, "Trapping" equals "Confinement" and Wiffleball effect. To get Wiffleball, one must hit B=1.

Maybe you should read the WB6 report.
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)

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

Postby ladajo » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:34 pm

You can also read this:

http://www.emc2fusion.org/RsltsNFnlConc ... 120602.pdf

to help you understand why they are where they are today.
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)

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

Postby Joseph Chikva » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:38 pm

ladajo wrote:Joseph, this is where you go wrong. B=1 is possible for a Polywell, and has been seen many many times.
Not B but β
ladajo wrote:WB-6 showed 1/10 of loss coefficient of WB-4, and ran as a deep well Polywell at 10-12keV,...
Drive voltage?
ladajo wrote:That is the entire point of the test devices to date. Why do you not understand this?
Because that is impossible. Why do you not understand this?
...producing DD fusions at 2.5E9 fus/sec. This is 200,000 times higher than the early work of Hirsch/Farnsworth and a world’s record for such IEF devices at same conditions.
Fusion rate of 2.5E9 fus/sec for DD fuel corresponds to power 1.5 milliwatt. Acurracy of measurement of power? If you are speking about β=1
ladajo wrote:to help you understand why they are where they are today.
And where are they? Total investment in Polywell by Navy does not exceed the cost of 5-6 antiship missiles.
And average US destroyer equipped with not less 30-40 missiles.
Do you want to say that Navy considers Polywell as promising technology?
How many destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers Navy has? Their total cost and total cost of their equipment?
Are these two-three numbers comparable each other?

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

Postby ladajo » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:15 pm

Drive voltage would seem to produce about 85% well.

So probably about 15 to get 12.

Beta is Beta, but I do not take the time to use the special character. Please understand the difference I mean when speaking B Field and Beta.

You say it is impossible. Yet EMC2 has almost 30 years of work that says it is so.

Why can you not accept a misunderstanding on your part?

Have you read the 2006 IAC Paper?

http://www.emc2fusion.org/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf

Try the 2nd to last paragraph of page 12. The last paragrph of page 16 and the first three paragraphs on page 17. And then to cap it off, the first paragrpah on page 20 (starts on 19). Further detail on WB6 follows that. He (Bussard) talks to t 12.5Kv drive for 10Kv well.

Too bad you have not read the WB6 report.
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)

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:19 pm

Joseph it sounds like, somehow, you missed the discussions regarding why EMC2 must keep quiet with Polywell until the politics are feasible. IOW when Polywell is "proven" enough.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:48 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:Total investment in Polywell by Navy does not exceed the cost of 5-6 antiship missiles.
And average US destroyer equipped with not less 30-40 missiles.

Such is the insanity of politics. It helps to have a Russian sense of humor.
Best regards
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

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

Postby ladajo » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:34 pm

Actually Joseph. The average US Destroyer has about 2 or none for Anti-Ship missiles.

But yes, your point is taken about spending. However please note, operational spending is entirely different from research money.

The navy does funny things sometimes in this regard.
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)


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests