Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
emc3
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:11 am

Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

Post by emc3 »

Hi, All,

I just can not find any reference which has some clues on the creation of wiffball in polywell machines, experimentally. Even worse, there exist no evidences/clues on this topic.

Odd is that, they are named WB-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8......

Without wiffleball creation and maintenance, WB-D ?

Wish its not another story of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Post by Robthebob »

Hello emc3,

Ultimate short answer to your question: No, there's not publicly released explicit evidence of formations of wiffleballs in polywell machines (that I know of, I can be wrong)

Complicated answer: Well, it depends on how you look at it. Keep in mind that lack of publicly released and explicitly stated information does not equate, by a long shot, evidence of the impossibility of formation of wiffleballs.

Beta: ratio of the machines magnetic field pressure vs magnetic field pressure of the intrinsic field of the plasma.

WB effect: when beta approaches 1, the internal cusps allowing electrons to escape, and some of them are lost, some of them recirculate back in, begins to grow smaller and smaller, to the point where most electrons will not escape the core of the machine. I'm pretty unsure about if there's any publicly released information on theory, good simulations, etc on this effect. Nevertheless, this effect is the very center piece of polywell machines, without the wb effect, polywell has no chance.

These are the publicly released and explicit stated information:
-high beta (beta approaching 1) has been achieved in multiple machines, at the very very least, it has been achieved in WB7 and 8.
-scaling of nuclear from wb7 to 8 activity follows the theoretical prediction. This was stated by one of the heads of emc2
-the experimental data to date, which are not publicly released, agree with the theory. This was stated in the J&A
-the company is looking to go into production in 4-5 years (i dont know what production really means)

From that information, a couple things can be safely inferred:
-Due to the fact that high beta has been achieved and that the experimental data agree with the theory, it's extremely likely that formation of wiffleball polywell machines are undeniable.
-If two sources, first party and third party, seem to agree on the consistency of experimental results to theory, it's again extremely likely that the experimental results ARE consistent with the theory.
-If emc2 is counting its money before they get any money, the company has at least a fair level of confidence in their approach and ability.

So long answer: No, there doesnt seem to be any publicly released evidence of WB effect, but base on what is publicly released, it's extremely likely the WB effect is happening.
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Evidence for Wiffleball formation is lean at best, at least in the public domain. EMC2 was prohibited from publishing their results for over 10 years. Much of the publicly available information is hearsay or implied. Bussard was certainly satisfied, and Nebel , Parks, etel seemed satisfied after they used a more difinative plasma density testing method. I assume that the WB7review panel was satisfied .

Some pieces and hints can be found in various papers, most of which can be found at :

http://www.askmar.com/Fusion.html

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

emc3
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:11 am

Post by emc3 »

THANKS, RobTHEbob.

A few more concerns:

1) If wiffleball(s) has(have) been created experimentally on WB7 & WB8, then why does it take EMC2 so long to get the job done?
a) electron gun? why do they need more power? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
b) money? why do not they get huge change? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
c) people? as b)
d) physics? then what?
e) engineering? then what?

2) How do they get the Beta (high, close to ~1)? measured or calculated? How accurate will that be?

3) What, if it exist, prohibited the company and research go public? Americans and tons of billionaires are watching, I believe.

4) What's the "first party and third party" you mentioned? Just curious. I only see one party, that's emc2.

emc2+

emc3
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:11 am

Post by emc3 »

Dan,

Any clue on the "more definitive plasma density testing method"? What's the "less" testing way?

Even if it's 100% accurate, one can not obtain the beta from density alone: am I wrong?

Hearsay and implied information are the real players in "The Emperor's New Clothes".

emc2+

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

emc3 wrote:THANKS, RobTHEbob.

A few more concerns:

1) If wiffleball(s) has(have) been created experimentally on WB7 & WB8, then why does it take EMC2 so long to get the job done?
a) electron gun? why do they need more power? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
b) money? why do not they get huge change? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
c) people? as b)
d) physics? then what?
e) engineering? then what?

2) How do they get the Beta (high, close to ~1)? measured or calculated? How accurate will that be?

3) What, if it exist, prohibited the company and research go public? Americans and tons of billionaires are watching, I believe.

4) What's the "first party and third party" you mentioned? Just curious. I only see one party, that's emc2.

emc2+
Question 3 is answered here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6673788606
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

emc3 wrote:THANKS, RobTHEbob.

A few more concerns:

1) If wiffleball(s) has(have) been created experimentally on WB7 & WB8, then why does it take EMC2 so long to get the job done?
a) electron gun? why do they need more power? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
b) money? why do not they get huge change? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
c) people? as b)
d) physics? then what?
e) engineering? then what?

2) How do they get the Beta (high, close to ~1)? measured or calculated? How accurate will that be?

3) What, if it exist, prohibited the company and research go public? Americans and tons of billionaires are watching, I believe.

4) What's the "first party and third party" you mentioned? Just curious. I only see one party, that's emc2.

emc2+

Question 3 is answered here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6673788606
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

emc3 wrote:Dan,
Hearsay and implied information are the real players in "The Emperor's New Clothes". emc2+
You should really wait until results are published if that ever happens. That is really the only way to be sure this is not just some sky castle. After all, all the money spent and years of research, and no working reactor with published results is not very promising. Perhaps you are here just to pass the time...
Best regards
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

1) If wiffleball(s) has(have) been created experimentally on WB7 & WB8, then why does it take EMC2 so long to get the job done?
a) electron gun? why do they need more power? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
b) money? why do not they get huge change? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
c) people? as b)
d) physics? then what?
e) engineering? then what?


Well it is of course very possible that the Polywell concept will not work. And even if it does there are many other engineering hurdles before commercial power out. But it is not surprising that experiments so far have taken a long time: what they are trying to discover is very complex and difficult. Look at ITER etc dealing with a different plasma problem. Understanding everything takes a lot of time and money. Polywell seems cheaper, and quicker.

It is not clear to me that we would ever expect additional large resources for Polywell. Could initial results in best of all possible worlds have been so positive that the idea merits very large amounts of money? I'll leave that to others. But the fact that some decent money is given probably means that more results from current eqpt with modifications will make it clear whether or not the move to a larger more expensive device is merited. Hence it is still in the balance.

Comparing this with other claims, EMC2 are remarkably quiet in what they claim, and the funding via Navy and a series of science reviews is remarkably unlike what you find in the various fringe science groups.

But then goat-staring got funds, so don't view Navy continued funding as certain evidence the idea is still (with more data) scientifically sound.

best wishes, Tom

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

emc3 wrote:THANKS, RobTHEbob.

A few more concerns:

1) If wiffleball(s) has(have) been created experimentally on WB7 & WB8, then why does it take EMC2 so long to get the job done?
a) electron gun? why do they need more power? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
b) money? why do not they get huge change? (Recovery.Gov Project Tracker)
c) people? as b)
d) physics? then what?
e) engineering? then what?

2) How do they get the Beta (high, close to ~1)? measured or calculated? How accurate will that be?

3) What, if it exist, prohibited the company and research go public? Americans and tons of billionaires are watching, I believe.

4) What's the "first party and third party" you mentioned? Just curious. I only see one party, that's emc2.

emc2+
I think you should read the historical documents about previous work. And then rethink your questions and comments.
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 »

tomclarke wrote:Look at ITER etc dealing with a different plasma problem.
What "plasma problems" has ITER that was not already solved? If to take into account that confinement time in JET TOKAMAK has seconds order and projected confinement time for ITER 500-1000 sec.
As scaling "larger machine-longer confinement" has been successfully approved.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
tomclarke wrote:Look at ITER etc dealing with a different plasma problem.
What "plasma problems" has ITER that was not already solved? If to take into account that confinement time in JET TOKAMAK has seconds order and projected confinement time for ITER 500-1000 sec.
As scaling "larger machine-longer confinement" has been successfully approved.
Instability problems that require a redesign that attempts to fix the problem without significantly altering the rest of the machine. We will not know if the alterations will accomplish their goal until the machine is built.

You might want to look up alfven waves with respect to ITER. There is quite a bit on that around here. It was thrashed as well as possible given the information available.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

MSimon wrote:Instability problems that require a redesign that attempts to fix the problem without significantly altering the rest of the machine. We will not know if the alterations will accomplish their goal until the machine is built.

You might want to look up alfven waves with respect to ITER. There is quite a bit on that around here. It was thrashed as well as possible given the information available.
Wrong. Instabilities in TOKAMAKs are in controllable scale allowing seconds order of confinement. Consider them as 3rd ball excitement instead of 9 ball devastating storm.

Today's problem of TOKAMAK is in the low reactivity of plasma at lower than required temperature.

PS: If as an advantage of Polywell (notice extremely undeveloped concept: waffleball’s existence is very questionable, statement that beta=1 is questionable (laughable), etc.) is given its low price, it is necessary to compare current Polywells not with ITER but with T-1
http://www.efda.org/newsletter/50-years-of-tokamaks/
T-1 was the first toroidal facility with a steel vacuum vessel that satisfied the Kruskal-Shafranov stability condition. The condition requires that the safety factor q is bigger than one, i.e. the pitch angle of the magnetic field helicity needs to be very low – in practice it means that the toroidal field must be strong, which distinguishes tokamaks from the then popular toroidal pinches like ZETA in Harwell. The tokamak T-1 major and minor radius were 62.5 cm and 24 cm,…

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Joseph,

I must say that accepting evidence presented is not your strong point. But maybe some study will help. Or not.

http://home.physics.ucla.edu/calendar/c ... vandam.pdf

http://www.afs.enea.it/zonca/references ... _rnc99.pdf

http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/34/ ... 53925EE.c2

http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Montreux/pdf/P1_121.pdf
Theoretical analyses predict that shear Alfvén waves may be driven unstable by energetic particles (with energies in the MeV range) in thermonuclear plasmas, e.g., by fusion products. Indeed, these waves have been experimentally observed and – in certain circumstances – found to be responsible of significant energetic particle losses. This fact, together with the possible detrimental effect of these instabilities on the plasma performance – in the perspective of a fusion reactor –, has attracted significant attention on the topic. The present review article is focused on both linear stability and non-linear dynamics of shear Alfvén in tokamaks, the presently most successful experimental machines devoted to the study of fusion reactions via magnetic confinement of thermonuclear plasmas. The present theoretical investigation highlights both analytical and numerical approaches to the problem.

http://www.afs.enea.it/vlad/Papers/revi ... RNC_2.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

I think the name wiffleball is a bad choice on Bussard's part. I don't think a convex shape could even achieve pressure balance between external magnetic field and plasma, and so would never form in a steady state. And since the b-field goes to zero in the center of the machine, technically all of them probably achieved beta=1 in some regard.
Carter

Post Reply