a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
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.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.
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 wrote:Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
Hehe "bites"KitemanSA wrote: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 wrote:Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test 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.Joseph Chikva wrote:Yes, I am sure because know that beta=1 is impossible for every magnetic confinement device.ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Do you you still think that EMC2 has never seen B=1 in a test device?
http://www.emc2fusion.org/QuikHstryOfPolyPgm0407.pdfMACHINES
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.
Not B but βladajo wrote:Joseph, this is where you go wrong. B=1 is possible for a Polywell, and has been seen many many times.
Drive voltage?ladajo wrote:WB-6 showed 1/10 of loss coefficient of WB-4, and ran as a deep well Polywell at 10-12keV,...
Because that is impossible. Why do you not understand this?ladajo wrote:That is the entire point of the test devices to date. Why do you not understand this?
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...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.
And where are they? Total investment in Polywell by Navy does not exceed the cost of 5-6 antiship missiles.ladajo wrote:to help you understand why they are where they are today.
Such is the insanity of politics. It helps to have a Russian sense of humor.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.