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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:TOKAMAK will NEVER be commercially viable.
May be. I even see where are some TOKAMAK's problems. Also I see and feel Polywell's problems too and tried to explain you. Should we crush teeth of each other? I think that no.
But problems will remain problems.
Patent office examinator told with doctor Nebel about Polywell as about conventional thermal magnetic trap, said that Polywell has not any novelty in conparison of Russian Galatea. As answer on my doubts on 2-stream instability you said me "Polywell is not a beam device" but investigation by Nebel disprove your this point.
Results of those research are that electrons should be extremaly thermal for avoiding 2-stream. Thermal electrons with large angular momentums will inevatably heat ions too.
Now aboyt beta. Beta=1 means that gas pressure is equal to mag field pressur.
When we talk about conventional plasma gas pressure is equal to sum of partial pressure of two spices: ions and electron commonly temperatures of which are not equal each other. But both those temperatures goes to be equalized.
Let's admit that Polywell works as desired (initially) and beta=1. This means that only electrons have gas pressure at the edge and ions have not. But after thermalization? Beta authomatically will become equal to 0.5.
Beta=1 is like swimming pool filled to the edges. Waves will pour water through the edges. Waves are instabilities. Whether you heard about plasma in any device where all types of instability are completely excluded? I did not. Not 2-stream, not any other type? Not any fluctuation in plasma?

I am saying simple thing: Neither TOKAMAK nor any other approach will alow to get commercial reactor in near 10 or 20 and may be 30 yuears. Has our dispute not begun from this point?
Do you believe that Polywell entried from conceptual phase? The device, the last version of which produced 0.15 W of power (your words - WB8 two orders more powerful than WB6)
Your right if yes.
Thanks.

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

Joseph, I thought I'd mention that your english seems to be improving since you started posting here. :D
Joseph wrote:Now aboyt beta. Beta=1 means that gas pressure is equal to mag field pressur.
When we talk about conventional plasma gas pressure is equal to sum of partial pressure of two spices: ions and electron commonly temperatures of which are not equal each other. But both those temperatures goes to be equalized.
Let's admit that Polywell works as desired (initially) and beta=1. This means that only electrons have gas pressure at the edge and ions have not. But after thermalization? Beta authomatically will become equal to 0.5.
If I understand correctly what is happening, then the edge of the Wiffleball must be at a Beta=1 condition. With the potential well being weaker than the magnetic grid (MaGrid), the wiffle ball edge is then inside the MaGrid, as is proposed by Dr.B's description of the device.

While typing this, it made me wonder whether you are assuming both electron and ion populations are involved with Beta in a Polywell, and that I'm not sure if in a Polywell we care whether the ions reach a high Beta or not.

This is why I like discussions like this, it helps everyone understand what should be happening, and what might be happening, in a Polywell (or whatever is being discussed).

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

Post by ladajo »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Joseph has admitted in the past that his military systems knowledge is internet driven. I try not to hold that against him.
Ladajo, I live in Georgia and Georgia sitizan and, yes, my knowledge on US military may be only internet driven. My palsma physics knowledge is also books or internet driven.
But have you participated in real battle when you see yies of your enemy? I was in 1992. And you?
Also I saw another 2008 war.
But it does not matter. Especcially we - Georgians lost those both wars.
Even being US Navy's servicemen you also can estimate prices Navy's weapon systems also through internet. Not?
I know for example that each Patriot missile's cost is about 2 million, Harpoons has the same order? And what cost Tomahawk ans that antisubmarine (forgot name) has? Not comparable?
I said that Navy's military equipment and ammunition's cost is so high and Navy spends so much money, that in case of feeling the promizing technology, Navy would find the money needed for Polywell's development.
But I can not see any facts of such Navy's interest.
From internet, my friend, from internet.
Joseph, once again, navy operational funding does not cross streams with RDT&E funds. When it does, it is a highly contested, and painful event.
The navy spends a massive amount of money on operations, because that is its job, to operate. It spends much less money on development, because that not its number one job, and other groups do it as well. Nobody else operates warships at sea. Where you see lots of money spent by the navy on operating, I also see lots of money spent by MNAY groups in support of future development for the navy. It is not limited to navy dollars.

As far as military experience, I feel no need to put my penus on the table and show you how big it is. I've done what I've done, and am happy I am still around to know it. You should be too.
My knowledge of systems is professional. I would have guessed you figured that out by now.
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

Post by ladajo »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:TOKAMAK will NEVER be commercially viable.
May be. I even see where are some TOKAMAK's problems. Also I see and feel Polywell's problems too and tried to explain you. Should we crush teeth of each other? I think that no.
But problems will remain problems.
Patent office examinator told with doctor Nebel about Polywell as about conventional thermal magnetic trap, said that Polywell has not any novelty in conparison of Russian Galatea. As answer on my doubts on 2-stream instability you said me "Polywell is not a beam device" but investigation by Nebel disprove your this point.
Results of those research are that electrons should be extremaly thermal for avoiding 2-stream. Thermal electrons with large angular momentums will inevatably heat ions too.
Now aboyt beta. Beta=1 means that gas pressure is equal to mag field pressur.
When we talk about conventional plasma gas pressure is equal to sum of partial pressure of two spices: ions and electron commonly temperatures of which are not equal each other. But both those temperatures goes to be equalized.
Let's admit that Polywell works as desired (initially) and beta=1. This means that only electrons have gas pressure at the edge and ions have not. But after thermalization? Beta authomatically will become equal to 0.5.
Beta=1 is like swimming pool filled to the edges. Waves will pour water through the edges. Waves are instabilities. Whether you heard about plasma in any device where all types of instability are completely excluded? I did not. Not 2-stream, not any other type? Not any fluctuation in plasma?

I am saying simple thing: Neither TOKAMAK nor any other approach will alow to get commercial reactor in near 10 or 20 and may be 30 yuears. Has our dispute not begun from this point?
Do you believe that Polywell entried from conceptual phase? The device, the last version of which produced 0.15 W of power (your words - WB8 two orders more powerful than WB6)
Your right if yes.
Thanks.
Joseph,
Before I dig into this deeper (I have to run off to a meeting), please say slowly to yourself many times, "Inertial Electrostatic Fusion". And think about what that really means.
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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Before I dig into this deeper (I have to run off to a meeting), please say slowly to yourself many times, "Inertial Electrostatic Fusion". And think about what that really means.
Thanks. Do not see nececity to say any spell. I see that your knowledge of Navy systems is professional. But Inertial Electrostatic Fusion or any other fusion approach is not in your competence. Here I would not like too to put my penis on the table for showing how big that is.
Best regards,

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote: Ladajo was delighted with fusion rate 1E9 events/sec. And what rates provides TOKAMAKs in 70s of last century. Not in billions times higher?
For a VERY SMALL scale Polywell, 1E9 events/sec is very good. Assuming this thing scales like every other fusion device of this nature is supposed to (power = B^4*R^3; gain ~R^5) then a unit with a superconducting MaGrid ~1.5m radius should produce ~100MW of net energy.

Checking whether scaling follows the theory is the main reason for WB8 (with WB8.1 allowing for pB&J).

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: Ladajo was delighted with fusion rate 1E9 events/sec. And what rates provides TOKAMAKs in 70s of last century. Not in billions times higher?
For a VERY SMALL scale Polywell, 1E9 events/sec is very good. Assuming this thing scales like every other fusion device of this nature is supposed to (power = B^4*R^3; gain ~R^5) then a unit with a superconducting MaGrid ~1.5m radius should produce ~100MW of net energy.

Checking whether scaling follows the theory is the main reason for WB8 (with WB8.1 allowing for pB&J).
Good, good.
That is the main difference between TOKAMAK and Polywell.
Scaling step and initial fusion rate.
WB6 - 1.5E-3 W
WB8 - XE-1 W
Then at once 100 MW = 1E8 W (in billion times higher)
Who has investigated that Polywell's behavior will be so good at higher number density provided by 10T magnet? Running well at 1E19 number density does not mean that device will run successfully at 1E22 m^-3.
You are only repeating beta=1. That is impossible and similar to for example someone would say that he invented engine running at 100% efficiency.
Pardon, I should repeat slowly "Elecrostatic Confinement" :)

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

Post by Roger »

ladajo wrote:military systems knowledge is internet driven..
Good point, I am probably guilty of the same.... :~ )
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

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

Post by ladajo »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Joseph,
Before I dig into this deeper (I have to run off to a meeting), please say slowly to yourself many times, "Inertial Electrostatic Fusion". And think about what that really means.
Thanks. Do not see nececity to say any spell. I see that your knowledge of Navy systems is professional. But Inertial Electrostatic Fusion or any other fusion approach is not in your competence. Here I would not like too to put my penis on the table for showing how big that is.
Best regards,
I also have a professionally based knowledge of fission, and have grown this through personal efforts (as a hobby) to fusion. But, you are correct, I am not a plasmas nor fusion professional, nor have I claimed to be one.
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

Post by ladajo »

Well, on further thought, I guess I do have some limited basis in fusion weapons, if you think that counts... :D
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

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote: That is the main difference between TOKAMAK and Polywell.
Scaling step and initial fusion rate.
WB6 - 1.5E-3 W
WB8 - XE-1 W
Then at once 100 MW = 1E8 W (in billion times higher)
Who has investigated that Polywell's behavior will be so good at higher number density provided by 10T magnet?
Actually, the direct, "all else being equal" "10X" scaling from WB6&7 would be T=~1, not 10. And the R would be, you guessed it, 1.5m. So, all else being equal, 10x scaling from WB7 would yield 15MW. That means the increase from the SC MaGrid would only have to be ~78%. That means a 1.78T magnet.

No, this does not take into account the LOSS scaling which is a big question. Theoretically, it should be more like X^2 which is why GAIN would be ~X^5.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Running well at 1E19 number density does not mean that device will run successfully at 1E22 m^-3.
You are only repeating beta=1. That is impossible and similar to for example someone would say that he invented engine running at 100% efficiency.
Are you truly suggesting that beta is equivalent to THERMAL MACHINE efficiency? Whew!

Really, it is more like filling up a balloon until it pops. Take my word for it, that is an EASY thing to do. The more DIFFICULT thing will be to control this well enough to KEEP running it near beta=1 without actually exceeding it.
Joseph Chikva wrote: Pardon, I should repeat slowly "Elecrostatic Confinement" :)
Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, or as Dr B seemed to prefer, Inertial Electro-dynamic Confinement.
OHHHMMM
Inertial Electro-dynamic Confinement Fusion
Inertial Electro-dynamic Confinement Fusion
Inertial Electro-dynamic Confinement Fusion
Inertial Electro-dynamic Confinement Fusion
OHHHMMM

mvanwink5
Posts: 1811
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

Joseph Chikva wrote:(your words - WB8 two orders more powerful than WB6)
Assuming scaling is as expected (and hoped) WB-8 would be 5 orders more powerful than WB-6. This of course assumes going from .1 T to .8 T for B field and radius increased 1.5 times (estimated from the EMC2 website jpg labeled WB-8 ). This says nothing about confinement voltage changes which might also be increased, but that was not mentioned in the contract.
Best regards
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

mvanwink5 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:(your words - WB8 two orders more powerful than WB6)
Assuming scaling is as expected (and hoped) WB-8 would be 5 orders more powerful than WB-6. This of course assumes going from .1 T to .8 T for B field and radius increased 1.5 times (estimated from the EMC2 website jpg labeled WB-8 ). This says nothing about confinement voltage changes which might also be increased, but that was not mentioned in the contract.
Best regards
8^4*1.5^3=13824 ~ 4 orders, but who's counting :D

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:8^4*1.5^3=13824 ~ 4 orders, but who's counting :D
You like juggling with numbers. I see two-dimensional scaling in your calculation.
That meant that:
Fusion rate is proportional to fourth degree of magnetic field
Fusion rate is proportional to third degree of geomtric dimensions
Recall that scalling law does not belong to the Laws of Nature.
Real researchers always try to avoid multi-dimensional.
And here I would like to share you with only one of my doubts: increasing magnetic field in 8 times you mean that you would increase the number density in 64 times.
This may correspond to true only if 2 orders of magnitude more denser plasma has the same level of stability.
Stability of plasma defines viability of concept. In opposite case we would have commercial fusion reactors even since 70s of last century.
And I do not see real and serious researches of stability state in Polywell except mentioned article of Dr. Nebel and others for only one type of instabilities: particularly electron-electron two-stream.
No electron-ion two stream, no any other. Are you sure that plasma behavior is the same at 2 orders of magnitude higher density?

mvanwink5
Posts: 1811
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

Thanks KitemanSA that is what I calculated but just misspoke.

Joseph, WB-8 is for testing scaling not stability. If what you were saying was true, WB-8 would not have been built. That is the thing with actual hardware, it is hard to get around the reality of device operation results. Still, there is no argument that when one makes several order of magnitude device changes, unknowable weirdness can become manifest. So that is why devices are built in progressive stages.

On the other hand the reverse is true, sometimes what is a problem at small scales may become a non issue at larger scales. So, timid efforts also have their drawbacks.
Best regards
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Post Reply