ladajo wrote:The plus up was to cover the additional work. Of the 5.3 they have so far invoiced 1.2.
As for the timeline, that is up for some debate. But I do not think 2 years is correct.
thanks for clarification Ladajo. though seems there is still some uncertainty on particulars/timeline quoted. i'm supposing Navy/DOD reports are only ever going to read 'on budget' rather than ever being under or over budget projection - don't know what their burn rate really looks like.
but he's correct in saying the whole 5.3m$ was (primarily) for 'injection' project alone?
hanelyp wrote:Possible means of getting electrons in:
- inject along the right magnetic field line to pass through the cusp. A matter of position and velocity of injection.
- neutral gas stripping. Requires supplemental heating, and is more dependent on annealing.
- negative ions. Pass through cusps about as well as positive ions, then stripped by collisions.
- Pass them thru X-Cusps which over a very small area have NO magnetic field.
Very funny, but Bussard gave the impression he'd DONE it -- figured out how to make a practical fusion machine, jumping the last real barrier -- and prevented from immediately showing that to the world only because funding ended and his equipment burned out.
So you are arguing for a full up (100 MW) machine. Which was Bussard's position in the Google Talk.
I agree.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
hanelyp wrote:Possible means of getting electrons in:
- inject along the right magnetic field line to pass through the cusp. A matter of position and velocity of injection.
- neutral gas stripping. Requires supplemental heating, and is more dependent on annealing.
- negative ions. Pass through cusps about as well as positive ions, then stripped by collisions.
- Pass them thru X-Cusps which over a very small area have NO magnetic field.
do you know if there is an equation describing how 'very small' that area is?
do we know that they are not already utilising corner (X-) cusps for injection? (esp. since it is probably easiest thing to try first)?
KitemanSA wrote: - Pass them thru X-Cusps which over a very small area have NO magnetic field.
do you know if there is an equation describing how 'very small' that area is?
do we know that they are not already utilising corner (X-) cusps for injection? (esp. since it is probably easiest thing to try first)?
Yes, I published a graphic of it before.
Yes, the WB-8 doesn't have X-Cusps. They try to inject the electrons through the point cusps. But their 8X magnetic field makes it 8(?)X as hard the get them through that field.
KitemanSA wrote: - Pass them thru X-Cusps which over a very small area have NO magnetic field.
do you know if there is an equation describing how 'very small' that area is?
do we know that they are not already utilising corner (X-) cusps for injection? (esp. since it is probably easiest thing to try first)?
Yes, I published a graphic of it before.
Yes, the WB-8 doesn't have X-Cusps. They try to inject the electrons through the point cusps. But their 8X magnetic field makes it 8(?)X as hard the get them through that field.
Actually not harder. Just better beam control.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
KitemanSA wrote: - Pass them thru X-Cusps which over a very small area have NO magnetic field.
do you know if there is an equation describing how 'very small' that area is?
do we know that they are not already utilising corner (X-) cusps for injection? (esp. since it is probably easiest thing to try first)?
Yes, I published a graphic of it before.
thanks. i'll search for it.
KitemanSA wrote:
Yes, the WB-8 doesn't have X-Cusps.
ah. maybe i'm confusing with corner Y-cusps.
sorry to be a dunce. remind me under what config/conditions X-cusps appear?
KitemanSA wrote:
They try to inject the electrons through the point cusps. But their 8X magnetic field makes it 8(?)X as hard the get them through that field.
re. MSimons point above - if the difference is that great, surprises me they didn't opt for a more suitable chamber/rig configuration at the outset - talk about making it difficult for yourself.
rcain wrote:
do you know if there is an equation describing how 'very small' that area is?
do we know that they are not already utilising corner (X-) cusps for injection? (esp. since it is probably easiest thing to try first)?
Yes, I published a graphic of it before.
Yes, the WB-8 doesn't have X-Cusps. They try to inject the electrons through the point cusps. But their 8X magnetic field makes it 8(?)X as hard the get them through that field.
Actually not harder. Just better beam control.
ah. that might explain the current choice slightly better. (along with physical constraints mentioned).
ps. i read recently, that a square section funnel (as used for directing fluid), works better than a round section funnel (i haven't seen formal proof of it, but suspect it might well be true). Polywell cusps, and what we are pouring into them are obviously 'significantly' more complicated (sense/chirality of adjacent coils/mag fields, Lorentz, etc) - interesting similarities though.
ladajo wrote:The plus up was to cover the additional work. Of the 5.3 they have so far invoiced 1.2.
As for the timeline, that is up for some debate. But I do not think 2 years is correct.
thanks for clarification Ladajo. though seems there is still some uncertainty on particulars/timeline quoted. i'm supposing Navy/DOD reports are only ever going to read 'on budget' rather than ever being under or over budget projection - don't know what their burn rate really looks like.
but he's correct in saying the whole 5.3m$ was (primarily) for 'injection' project alone?
Well, my own impression is that it covers not only the e-gun plus up, but also the time and effort to do more study. But the main cited reason was "electron injection anomalies"
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 wrote:The plus up was to cover the additional work. Of the 5.3 they have so far invoiced 1.2.
As for the timeline, that is up for some debate. But I do not think 2 years is correct.
thanks for clarification Ladajo. though seems there is still some uncertainty on particulars/timeline quoted. i'm supposing Navy/DOD reports are only ever going to read 'on budget' rather than ever being under or over budget projection - don't know what their burn rate really looks like.
but he's correct in saying the whole 5.3m$ was (primarily) for 'injection' project alone?
Well, my own impression is that it covers not only the e-gun plus up, but also the time and effort to do more study. But the main cited reason was "electron injection anomalies"
)