Focus Fusion news story

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 »

Betruger wrote:Bussard did not go Polywell while thinking Tokamak was "good" and not out of control, as you yourself can see Bussard say in the Google video.

Joseph what is your response to Krenshala's above reply?
At least he was proposing for building dead conceptually high-aspect ratio TOKAMAK. As in 70s was already known that as aspect ratio is lower for TOKAMAKs as allowable beta can be higher. Does not a big matter what he speaks. But see only facts.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Mike_P wrote:If you will review the Google-talk video you can watch Dr. Bussard amend his earlier stance. He explicitly states that having expended efforts on such early designs he no longer believes in them. Just as early belief in Newtonian physics proved to be misplaced, IMHO so is belief in a Tokamak fusion reactor.

Another recent example was the implementation of the GPS satellites. The first ones were configured for both Newtonian and Einsteinium calculations. After launch and testing the Eisenstein calculations were proven to be the more accurate. Once a new and better model comes to light then it makes no sense to hang onto a discredited one.
The Newtonian mechanics can be considered as a special case of the Einstenian. One doesn't contradict another. This is like the Cartesian geometry with the help of which Newtonian mechanics is written is a special case of Riemannian, and Riemannian is a special case of spaces of affine connection.

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

Post by krenshala »

Their point, Joseph, is that the Einsteinian version was determined to be better for GPS satellites, so no more Newtonian based GPS satellites were launched as the benefits (if any) were outweighed by the drawbacks. Compare this with Tokomak designs where, iirc, even some folks on the project admit it is not an economical method of power generation (its intended end purpose), yet large scale development is still pushed to the near exclusion of all other possible methods of generating power via fusion.

Mike_P
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA

Post by Mike_P »

Returning back to original discussion for this thread, I have a question about the focus fusion concept. Seeing the physical arrangement of the device, would the geometry work well with a direct power conversion? I'm thinking that the device would sort of sputter out the alphas in a spray in one general direction. With all the electronics one one side of the device it seems to be ideal for a collecting plate on the other.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

krenshala wrote:Their point, Joseph, is that the Einsteinian version was determined to be better for GPS satellites, so no more Newtonian based GPS satellites were launched as the benefits (if any) were outweighed by the drawbacks. Compare this with Tokomak designs where, iirc, even some folks on the project admit it is not an economical method of power generation (its intended end purpose), yet large scale development is still pushed to the near exclusion of all other possible methods of generating power via fusion.
"Some folks on the project admit" being inside you understand better the problems too. But some problems of TOKAMAKs are visible also with open years. Effectiveness of management of such a strong team (many thousands very skilled people) is questionabble too.
But it does not mean that world class challenge we can solve with team of two PhD strength and with device conceptual problems of which is visible too. Even for my layman's eyes. As I could not understand for example has periodically oscillation achived in Polywell? And if yes, why in recovery.com is written "improvement of electron gun for better heating of plasma". Also nobody could explain has Polywell immunity against electron-ion two-stream instability. And so on.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Mike_P wrote:Returning back to original discussion for this thread, I have a question about the focus fusion concept. Seeing the physical arrangement of the device, would the geometry work well with a direct power conversion?
Yes, there is not any problem to connect direct energy converter to any fusion device. Even to toroidal through divertor. But one more time. Direct energy converter will be rather roomy device. And its development is a challenge too. Not scientifically challenge but more engineering. And nobody was engaged seriously yet with its development. Googling we can find only the conceptual drawings. But serious development also needs time and a lot of money. As many many man-years are required.

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

Re: Ummmm ...

Post by Joseph Chikva »

krenshala wrote:So, are you stating that the tokomak is better because there are thousands of physicists expending man-decades (or is it man-centuries by now?) of work that hasn't produced its intended result after 30+ years is somehow better than a project that has had 3 physicists (that I know of; Drs Bussard, Park and Nebel) work on it over its 25 years, at a fraction of the cost (0.1%? 0.01%?), and actually has something closer to a production design in use?
By the way, here is an interview with Dr. Bussard in which he advocates his TOKAMAK design: http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/ ... erview.pdf
It all began in 1977, when the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) funded a $637,000 conceptual study of Bussard’s Riggatron. The results, according to a DOE review panel, were discouragingly negative.
Now please note me to what goal Polywell is closer? Did Polywell achieve good value of n(tau) product? While TOKAMAK has overcome Lawson Criterion.

vernes
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Ummmm ...

Post by vernes »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
vernes wrote:KitemanSA has a point...
I see. Now he states that company with two full time physicists works simultaneously on two different projects.
My statement was concerning KitemanSA's statement that POPS is not part of the polywell design.
This is quite clear when you read the rest of my post.
But you are ignoring this because your primary goal is to piss people off, which returns us to the last part of my previous post.

You are a troll. Your goal is not the educate or to learn.
Your goal is to keep the discussion going on and on in the hopes of extracting some sign of people getting angry.

You step over questions and statements that highlight wrong assumptions or misconceptions on your part.

And people should really stop feeding you.

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

Re: Ummmm ...

Post by Joseph Chikva »

vernes wrote:My statement was concerning KitemanSA's statement that POPS is not part of the polywell design.
This is quite clear when you read the rest of my post.
POPS (periodically oscillated plasma sphere) is not part of the polywell design?
So, Polywell is a conventional thermal magnetic trap?
And electron beams are used there not for forming of virtual cathode (potential well) but only for heating of plasma?
Thank you, the rest of your post is less interesting.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Mike_P wrote:It would seem that the Tokamak project is just such an out of control project. As Dr. Bussard pointed out during his Google talk, billions have been spent just to find out that a Tokamak design is no good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggatron
Riggatron
A Riggatron is a magnetic confinement fusion reactor design created by Robert W. Bussard in the late 1970s. It is tokamak on the basis of its magnetic geometry, but some unconventional engineering choices were made, in particular the use of copper magnets positioned inside the blanket, which was hoped to lead to much lower construction costs.
Fusion research establishment consideration
Studies carried out at the time suggest the Riggatron was not considered as much of a "sure thing" by other members of the fusion research establishment.[1][2] Existing experimental tokamaks generally do not include a lithium blanket, and are thus fairly similar to the Riggatron in layout, yet none of these reactors is close to generating a fusion gain of one, let alone the three that was being claimed for the Riggatron. In retrospect it appears the Riggatron concept likely would not have worked, due to the various plasma instabilities that were only being discovered coincident with its design process. Interest in the Riggatron has essentially disappeared.
So, Bussard had not such opinion at least in late 70s.
At least that time he asked 150 millions dollars for building TOKAMAK with lifetime of magnets 30 days. Recall that that time 150 millions would be more than today's billion. The cost of 1 barrel of crude oil that time was not higher than 10 USD vs. today's 120.
Even back then he had noticed that Tokamak as most considered it would be un-economic. He had an idea that MIGHT have changed the economics. But still the Tok'ers want hugely more time and money. 80 BILLION dollars and 40 years. I long for the days of "25 years away".

LFTR is only 2-5 years and 2-5 Billion away. WHY waste money on Tokamaks???

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

Re: Ummmm ...

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote: POPS (periodically oscillated plasma sphere) is not part of the polywell design?
So, Polywell is a conventional thermal magnetic trap?
Only an idiot would ACTUALLY believe such a ridiculous "not A therefore Z" statement. Since you have repeatedly maintained that you are NOT an idiot, you must be trolling.

Good folk,
I think vernes is correct. Joe is a troll. I shall not feed him any more. I suggest that you all stop too.

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

Post by Betruger »

He's probably not a troll. I've known other Russians (yes I know, Georgia), and a few of them fit the same archetype, exactly. Incredibly thick.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

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

Re: Ummmm ...

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: POPS (periodically oscillated plasma sphere) is not part of the polywell design?
So, Polywell is a conventional thermal magnetic trap?
Only an idiot would ACTUALLY believe such a ridiculous "not A therefore Z" statement. Since you have repeatedly maintained that you are NOT an idiot, you must be trolling.

Good folk,
I think vernes is correct. Joe is a troll. I shall not feed him any more. I suggest that you all stop too.
I repeatedly mentioned that am an idiot. As by my primitive thinking if people speak "virtual cathode" and "potential well attracting ions" this means, my little friend, "periodically oscillated over center ions" or POPS. If such ions are not observed, therefore Polywell is variation of conventional magnetic traps. I am an idiot as unlike you I know past projects including traps (mirror machines). For example know that all magnetic traps were heated by external injection. Also know that people abstain over decades after gathering of knowledge how instabilities occur people abstain from electronic injection into background plasma. Also I am troll or idiot as speak with people who absolutely do not want to learn.

Mike_P
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA

Post by Mike_P »

So have I, but I don't believe this kind of behavior is endemic of any one ethnicity. Some people just like to start an argument for the sake of entertainment.

On a separate note, I have been reviewing the RT video piece and have noticed that it contains a recurrent theme which plays on the David/Goliath angle. Maybe this is what it takes to noticed in mainstream media. I've also noticed in my conversations with "lay-people" that there is a common conception that big $ science is real science and that small $ science is not to be taken seriously. Perhaps this is a cultural phenomena that has been encouraged by Hollywood.

If the Focus Fusion or Polywell folks are to be taken seriously I'm thinking that we really need to find a lobby group to take up the cause of educating the public as well as Congress.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:Even back then he had noticed that Tokamak as most considered it would be un-economic. He had an idea that MIGHT have changed the economics. But still the Tok'ers want hugely more time and money. 80 BILLION dollars and 40 years. I long for the days of "25 years away".

LFTR is only 2-5 years and 2-5 Billion away. WHY waste money on Tokamaks???
For your reference economical parameters change over time. You do not know history of engineering. As e.g. aluminum was very expensive in 19th century but mass production lowered its price to reasonable scale. Cell phones from thousands dollars to ten dollars for some models. In 1987 factory where I worked as young engineer bought the CNC machine tools at several hundreds thousands dollars. Today I can buy the same class machine at 20000 USD.
And Bussard had an idea how to build TOKAMAK that would not work with a little bit less money than working TOKAMAK.
Also he was sure that ТОКАМАК will become economic in 20 years after interview.
So, he had not idea on problem's scale. Or do you think that DOE people are idiots and only Bussard and his followers are not?
The results, according to a DOE review panel, were discouragingly negative

Post Reply