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
Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
303 wrote:and cant even get stable plasma for longer than a few minutes,
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.
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.
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.

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

Post by emc3 »

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+
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?

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Betruger wrote:At this point Tokamaks ought to take a time out while the fusion alternatives catch up in budget.
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.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

emc3 wrote:5) radiation is common for plasmas let's say x-ray
No, wide spectrum beginning from long RF
emc3 wrote:6) nuclear (neutron) radiation from P-B11 will be much less than D-D or D-T
Really? What is easier for realization? And what has been realized at this moment?

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

the sun , works pretty good , without aid of machinery or engineering

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

303 wrote:the sun , works pretty good , without aid of machinery or engineering
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.

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

Post by tomclarke »

303 wrote:the sun , works pretty good , without aid of machinery or engineering
Actually the power density in the sun is pathetically low: 276uW/cc, or 276W per 1m^3.

Totally useless for practical fusion energy.

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

and u cant turn the bloody things off for 4 billion years ;0

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

emc3 wrote: my 2 cents for you: (i know toks have some issues)
After inflation and taxes this is worth maybe 0.00003 oz Au.
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,
At least 10s of billions, if not 100s.
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
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: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.
Your proof for this absurd statement? All available statements from EMC2 has indicated WB behavior has been observed.
emc3 wrote:7) toks has pulse length more than hours already, polywell should be in millisecond order this moment.
Well, there you go. WB6 had pulse length order 1msec.
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.
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.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

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.
Number density of particles in Polywell? Once Dan said 10^22 m^-3 at 10T MaGrid. This corresponds to true?
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.

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

thanks joseph, in a way that is what i meant

nature suggests a spherical configuration, hydrogen & helium - runs itself with enough fuel

why not start with that , get it to work, improve it , start throwing in pb11 or whatever in the mix

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

apologies, im intellectual midget compared to you guys, guess im just obsessed with stars , especially since the incredible videos coming back from NASA solar observatory , absolutely mindblowing .. ill shut up now and let u guys discuss more sober issues

randomencounter
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:49 pm

Post by randomencounter »

303 wrote:the sun , works pretty good , without aid of machinery or engineering
I think you fail to understand the gravity of the situation.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
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.
Number density of particles in Polywell? Once Dan said 10^22 m^-3 at 10T MaGrid. This corresponds to true?
If no, I am afraid that at 2 T Polywell will have the same order as TOKAMAK number density and consequently comparable power density.
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: Be a little down to Earth and first create stationary economical reactor, then power unit for supercarriers, then if feasible even for small boats.
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.
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.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
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.
Number density of particles in Polywell? Once Dan said 10^22 m^-3 at 10T MaGrid. This corresponds to true?
If no, I am afraid that at 2 T Polywell will have the same order as TOKAMAK number density and consequently comparable power density.
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: Be a little down to Earth and first create stationary economical reactor, then power unit for supercarriers, then if feasible even for small boats.
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.
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.
Again: "Jesus said, apostle Paul said"
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.

Post Reply