Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Robthebob » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:14 am

I'm unsure what you're talking about as far as waves is concerned. Different machines suffers primarily from different instabilities, or the same kinds, but to compare beam compression to donut machines isnt the right way to go; it depends on the machine. Oh i see, I read what you wrote earlier, but the thing about it is, mag pressure isnt like the volume of a pool. Also it depends on what you mean by stable. I'll give it to you that if it's long term thermal equilibrium MHD stable, then yes, Beta cant be greater than 1, but there are other forms of stability, and for some machines, they dont care about MHD stability. So you cant just say, it's like water in a pool.

I'm going to say it again, that paper you brought up that was 40 years old, that's not how WB effect works (what I was talking about before was ballooning effect, which is due to bad curvature, but that's not the WB effect, I promise). In fact, you know how I know WB effects never happened in those cusp machines and mirror machines? because they couldnt get the beta high enough for the diamagnetic effect to dominate the structure of the machine field. If WB effect really operates on this diamagnetic effect of electrons, you need high density, they never got there anyways, all those fusors and mirror machines couldnt get beta high enough for it to work that way.

For other machines that had high enough beta, there werent really magnetic fields present. I swear it's not something that has been around for a long time. Interactions of external fields and internal fields have happened before, but more specifically interactions of external fields and internal fields due to diamagnetic effects, I cant say, but probably not.
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:25 am


Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:32 am


CharlesKramer
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby CharlesKramer » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:24 am

================================
CBK
Blog: http://www.provideocoalition.com/ckramer

CharlesKramer
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby CharlesKramer » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:46 am

================================
CBK
Blog: http://www.provideocoalition.com/ckramer

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby AcesHigh » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:52 pm


CharlesKramer
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby CharlesKramer » Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:46 pm

================================
CBK
Blog: http://www.provideocoalition.com/ckramer

mvanwink5
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby mvanwink5 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:20 pm

Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Robthebob » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:52 pm

Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Robthebob » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:08 pm

Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:14 am


CharlesKramer
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby CharlesKramer » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:21 pm

================================
CBK
Blog: http://www.provideocoalition.com/ckramer

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:41 pm


Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby Robthebob » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:08 pm

1. So it's good you defined the location, so it's a local beta. You run into problems going from machines to machines, because different machines have different designs. The family of donut machines, generally defining beta at the plasma edge is reasonable. However, once you start looking at beta in other designs, it's not good to compare them. I'll let the sloopy language go, because you did say it's impossible for beta to go above one for any machine, which you didnt specify how you defined beta.

2. The MHD, fluid picture, of viewing it as external pressure balancing internal pressure is useful in some cases, not very useful when the machine doesnt care about the fluid picture. And you said it yourself to not apply models where it's not good to apply it, but your earlier statement was to include all machines (and potentially everywhere), which I assure you is wrong.

3. There are more powerful analytical tools, but yes, you can solve system of differential equations to gain an insight on what's going on inside.

4. Beam compression machines, or as they're commonly (but incorrectly named) inertial fusion, using beams of laser or particles to compress to fusion. They have no magnetic field, because they dont operate like that. Their time scale and configuration also makes it that the MHD picture doesnt do much good.

5. That's not their arguements. Besides, you're statement isnt true anyways. Toks dont always show better results, what they do show is actual results. This is due to the fact that the fusion program in USA is already dominated by only two types of approaches, beam compression and donut machines. You cant say Toks are better because they have results, when there's no results from say stellarators of similar parameters to compare to. You can say Toks have results, and stellarators dont have results, which is a valid statement.

However, you can potentially say that the stellarators back then performed poorly, which is true, but that's due to limitations of technology, which we can overcome now. There are just no other approaches studied as much as Toks; there are no equivalent machine for polywell, stellarators, spheromak, etc, etc to the Toks' JET machine. There is somewhat of a equivalent machine for a type of beam compression machine, that's NIF, to JET, and you can say that NIF underperformed compared to JET (then again I dont know enough about NIF to say much).

Comparing JET's results to WB8, or any existing stellarators, spheromaks, is just flat out unfair. Even after all that, some of the other approaches show better results in terms of certain things compared to Toks (yes, the results of JET), but that's not fair, because the machine designs are wildly different.

6. Liquid lithium walls have never actually been built, which isnt to say that it wont work. However from the problem solution perspective, you have a plan to solve the problem, but you still have the problem, you didnt solve the problem. On the other hand, direct conversion is based on well studied technology and they've built it for other situation, this form of energy capaturing for polywell is most definitely more mature than liquid lithium walls for donut machines.
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Bussard's Polywell patent application is finally dead.

Postby mvanwink5 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:36 pm

Charles, government funded research grew to be leviathan, motivated by its successful application to military purposes. Even now, the polywell research is focused on its military utility. But what happens when the government funding becomes so massive? Two significant negative effects, it decreases the available funding for private research, and it increases the risks as mentioned above. This is not including the effects of reduced profits by the overall stultifying encumbrances of regulations and heavy taxation. In fact, this issue has become so overwhelming that whenever there is a problem, the common refrain is what can the government do to fix it? In the distant past, it was, "oh look, an opportunity." Further, great advances including the well that polywell sprang from, Farnsworth fusors, came from that private research era. Remember Bell Labs? But this positing is moot like wishing lemming would see the error of their ways or that sheep would not continue to jump to their river drowning like the others before them.

Insofar as what others are doing, there are several private approaches going on at this time as you pointed out. If your argument had weight, though, that would not occur as each would "prove" the other different approach would not make sense. In fact, the choice of approach is different simply because of different judgements on the myriad factors and their weightings. How a bureaucrat makes decisions is dependent on a completely different environment. I know this first hand. As an example, a bureaucrat would not fix something until it was "Proven" by several massive failures that it was needed. In the real world, massive failures are too expensive to shoulder and must be avoided. Hence, prevention is preferred.

So, the progress pace we see in a bureaucrat managed project is dictated by a different mindset. By the way, it is obvious why a cathedral sized ITER machine would not be of interest to the Navy, and of course even if it was of interest, why would the Navy do it if the DOE is funding it (see how that works?)

Actually, the issue is that we are in a bureaucrat and political dream world and the consequence is what you see, a result of bureaucrats and politicians making decisions as a reflection of their nature, billions over decades for an ITER dream cathedral.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.


[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests