What is the adage about engineering and "what you can afford"? At this point Tokamaks ought to take a time out while the fusion alternatives catch up in budget. When those alternatives prove the same diminishing returns as Tokamaks, we can pretend with a straight face again that e.g. ITER isn't literally burning money.Joseph Chikva wrote:30 years ago even 1 sec of plasma lifetime was an unrealizable dream. As in case of enough plasma reactivity which is first of all the temperature function, 1 sec is quite enough.303 wrote:and cant even get stable plasma for longer than a few minutes,
Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?
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.
my 2 cents for you: (i know toks have some issues)
1) research history on toks has been more than 50 years, on polywell, should close 30 years.
2) billions have been spent on toks in hundreds labs worldwide, while several tens of millions on polywells in less than 5 labs.
3) tens of thousands paper/presentation published every year on progress of toks research by thousands of top scientists, while only a handful polywell public available publications in total by a few phds
4) modern toks are not small, but polywell, once it grow up, will not small either
5) radiation is common for plasmas let's say x-ray
6) nuclear (neutron) radiation from P-B11 will be much less than D-D or D-T, but even (official published) d-d wiffleball has not been experimentally created in polywell yet.
7) toks has pulse length more than hours already, polywell should be in millisecond order this moment. why do you say "cant even get stable plasma for longer than a few minutes" ?
8 ) "why not just make a mini sun ??"
...... what do you mean the mini sun?
"come to think of it, why arent we just making mini suns?"
...... oh, come on, 303, i do not get you.
emc2+
1) research history on toks has been more than 50 years, on polywell, should close 30 years.
2) billions have been spent on toks in hundreds labs worldwide, while several tens of millions on polywells in less than 5 labs.
3) tens of thousands paper/presentation published every year on progress of toks research by thousands of top scientists, while only a handful polywell public available publications in total by a few phds
4) modern toks are not small, but polywell, once it grow up, will not small either
5) radiation is common for plasmas let's say x-ray
6) nuclear (neutron) radiation from P-B11 will be much less than D-D or D-T, but even (official published) d-d wiffleball has not been experimentally created in polywell yet.
7) toks has pulse length more than hours already, polywell should be in millisecond order this moment. why do you say "cant even get stable plasma for longer than a few minutes" ?
8 ) "why not just make a mini sun ??"
...... what do you mean the mini sun?
"come to think of it, why arent we just making mini suns?"
...... oh, come on, 303, i do not get you.
emc2+
303 wrote:as a layman, tokamak doesnt seem like a very good solution to me , too big, produces radiation, 20 years top boffins working on it and billions spent or more and cant even get stable plasma for longer than a few minutes, a sign that the underlying principle is less than stellar
at risk of ruffling some feathers here, if it produces radiation its no better than the disaster thats been fission reactors , classic case of mankind building stuff before we knew or cared much about consequences
moving essentially hot slurry round a magnetic torus isnt a bad idea, but if u gonna do that, why not just make a mini sun ?? come to think of it, why arent we just making mini suns?
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
People paying money can make decision themselves. People of DOE seriously consider only three alternatives: TOKAMAK, laser inertial confinement and heavy ions fusion. Try yourself to contact to Fusion Science Office of DOE for calling interest on Polywell. Say them standard for every Polyweller’s phrase: “Cheap – so, good”. It is interesting for me what they will answer you.Betruger wrote:At this point Tokamaks ought to take a time out while the fusion alternatives catch up in budget.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
What a happyness. You are forgetting that sun and other stars are created by the Creator - the best engineer and scientist in the world. By the way, he has also created the Laws of Nature which we try to study, use and in certain cases bypass. Good luck.303 wrote:the sun , works pretty good , without aid of machinery or engineering
After inflation and taxes this is worth maybe 0.00003 oz Au.emc3 wrote: my 2 cents for you: (i know toks have some issues)
At least 10s of billions, if not 100s.emc3 wrote: 1) research history on toks has been more than 50 years, on polywell, should close 30 years.
2) billions have been spent on toks in hundreds labs worldwide,
A 100MW Polywell should fit inside a shipping container, a 100MW tok may not ever be feasible. The smallest "economical" tok I've seen discussed is ~10GW. A Polywell may be able to fit in a frigate, the ITER wouldn't fit in a supercarrier.emc3 wrote:while several tens of millions on polywells in less than 5 labs.
3) tens of thousands paper/presentation published every year on progress of toks research by thousands of top scientists, while only a handful polywell public available publications in total by a few phds
4) modern toks are not small, but polywell, once it grow up, will not small either
Your proof for this absurd statement? All available statements from EMC2 has indicated WB behavior has been observed.emc3 wrote:5) radiation is common for plasmas let's say x-ray
6) nuclear (neutron) radiation from P-B11 will be much less than D-D or D-T, but even (official published) d-d wiffleball has not been experimentally created in polywell yet.
Well, there you go. WB6 had pulse length order 1msec.emc3 wrote:7) toks has pulse length more than hours already, polywell should be in millisecond order this moment.
Since ions in the sun are radially confined by a force other than magnetism, and ions in the Polywell are radially confined by a force other than magnetism, perhaps he was expecting you to understand that "Polywell" can be thought of as a "mini sun"; except that the confining force in Polywell (electro-statics) is many orders of magnitude stronger than the force (gravity) in the sun so Polywell can be many orders of magnitude smaller too.emc3 wrote:why do you say "cant even get stable plasma for longer than a few minutes" ?
8 ) "why not just make a mini sun ??"
...... what do you mean the mini sun?
"come to think of it, why arent we just making mini suns?"
...... oh, come on, 303, i do not get you.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Number density of particles in Polywell? Once Dan said 10^22 m^-3 at 10T MaGrid. This corresponds to true?KitemanSA wrote:A 100MW Polywell should fit inside a shipping container, a 100MW tok may not ever be feasible. The smallest "economical" tok I've seen discussed is ~10GW. A Polywell may be able to fit in a frigate, the ITER wouldn't fit in a supercarrier.
If no, I am afraid that at 2 T Polywell will have the same order as TOKAMAK number density and consequently comparable power density.
Be a little down to Earth and first create stationary economical reactor, then power unit for supercarriers, then if feasible even for small boats.
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:49 pm
Don't really know, don't really care. Dr. B mentioned a 1.5m radius 100MW DD machine and a 2m radius pB11 machine, so I guess my "shipping container" statement isn't precisely true, but the volume is about right.Joseph Chikva wrote:Number density of particles in Polywell? Once Dan said 10^22 m^-3 at 10T MaGrid. This corresponds to true?KitemanSA wrote:A 100MW Polywell should fit inside a shipping container, a 100MW tok may not ever be feasible. The smallest "economical" tok I've seen discussed is ~10GW. A Polywell may be able to fit in a frigate, the ITER wouldn't fit in a supercarrier.
If no, I am afraid that at 2 T Polywell will have the same order as TOKAMAK number density and consequently comparable power density.
Not sure what I said to make you think I thought any differently, though power for a supercarrier might be LOWER priority than power for a frigate only because they already have suitable non-fossil fuel power sources.Joseph Chikva wrote: Be a little down to Earth and first create stationary economical reactor, then power unit for supercarriers, then if feasible even for small boats.
First, make it work.
Second, top-up / improve the stability of the grid.
Third, replace current nasty power plants like coal.
Fourth (or maybe second if the DOE gets in the way), provide on base power for military bases.
Fifth, replace fossil fuel plants on ships.
This is about the same priority I would place on LFTRs too.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Again: "Jesus said, apostle Paul said"KitemanSA wrote:Don't really know, don't really care. Dr. B mentioned a 1.5m radius 100MW DD machine and a 2m radius pB11 machine, so I guess my "shipping container" statement isn't precisely true, but the volume is about right.Joseph Chikva wrote:Number density of particles in Polywell? Once Dan said 10^22 m^-3 at 10T MaGrid. This corresponds to true?KitemanSA wrote:A 100MW Polywell should fit inside a shipping container, a 100MW tok may not ever be feasible. The smallest "economical" tok I've seen discussed is ~10GW. A Polywell may be able to fit in a frigate, the ITER wouldn't fit in a supercarrier.
If no, I am afraid that at 2 T Polywell will have the same order as TOKAMAK number density and consequently comparable power density.Not sure what I said to make you think I thought any differently, though power for a supercarrier might be LOWER priority than power for a frigate only because they already have suitable non-fossil fuel power sources.Joseph Chikva wrote: Be a little down to Earth and first create stationary economical reactor, then power unit for supercarriers, then if feasible even for small boats.
First, make it work.
Second, top-up / improve the stability of the grid.
Third, replace current nasty power plants like coal.
Fourth (or maybe second if the DOE gets in the way), provide on base power for military bases.
Fifth, replace fossil fuel plants on ships.
This is about the same priority I would place on LFTRs too.
We all or at least me do not know B-value for "1.5m radius 100MW DD machine and a 2m radius pB11 machine". As when I have repeated Dan's "10^22 at 10 T" Ladajo objected me saying that B should not be higher 2T for commercial reactor. At what B the 1.5 m DD reactor will produce 100MW?
And first priority for fusion is to be ready to the end of oil era and not installation of fusion power plants on warships.