One more iec fusion devise.

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

One more iec fusion devise.

Post by Torulf2 »


chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: One more iec fusion devise.

Post by chrismb »

Hopelessly confused.

It would have been worthwhile for this person to have studied IEC devices for a while.

There is no chance that a target grid at earth potential will result in a meaningful flow of fast ions towards it. Instead, the ions will simply go in every-which direction away from the 'focussing electrodes', because as far as the ions are concerned, the rest of the chamber is at earth too.

Source ions always need to be at close to the earth potential, and they then accelerate towards a charged electrode.

This person has also done a 'usual trick' of fusion wannabees by taking something out of context. They appear to have used particle losses for [cold] electrostatic traps with potential wells, as the rate at which ions would be lost, whereas his assembly creates no potential wells, it is intended to be an accelerator. Doh!

A scattering collision is like a fusion collision, just that the fusion outcome is some 8 orders of magnitude less likely, so unless one does something clever to keep then herded, and ionised, then it will have zero confinement.

The other 'Doh' thing about the arrangement shown is that all the ions are going in the same direction! The energy in the collisions will be too small.

Summary -
collision energy too small
confinement time zero
scattering losses 100%
potential well reversed and is repulsive, not attractive

Apart from that .... errr...

Why do folks not have the common sense (and balls, sweat and tears) to actually try building something before shooting off their daft theories to bore everyone, and fill up the annuls of academic publications with their guff?

There was another such troll here who did likewise.

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

Re: One more iec fusion devise.

Post by Joseph Chikva »

chrismb wrote:potential well reversed and is repulsive, not attractive
Repulsive well is well? :)
chrismb wrote:Why do folks not have the common sense (and balls, sweat and tears) to actually try building something before shooting off their daft theories to bore everyone, and fill up the annuls of academic publications with their guff?
Are you so rich man thus thinking that is so easy to build fusion reactor for individuals?
Or you think that building of reactor showing viability of concept is only a little bit more expensive than building of e.g. hand-made bicycle at couple thousands USD?
"shooting off their daft theories"
Has person talking about "repulsive well" or "scattering cross section at 1 deg" enough knowledge to judge which theory is daft and which is normal?

daveklingler
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:42 pm
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Re: One more iec fusion devise.

Post by daveklingler »

chrismb wrote: Why do folks not have the common sense (and balls, sweat and tears) to actually try building something before shooting off their daft theories to bore everyone, and fill up the annuls of academic publications with their guff?
Come now. There is a learning process. Be civilized. The writer or people with whom the writer interacts may be on this forum.
There was another such troll here who did likewise.
That sort of comment is technically known as "trolling". Again, I wish you would just refrain.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: One more iec fusion devise.

Post by chrismb »

daveklingler wrote:Come now. There is a learning process. Be civilized. The writer or people with whom the writer interacts may be on this forum.
It would be good if they are. That way, they can reflect on whether sticking their 'learning process' into the public domain to bung up legitimate and properly formed research is something they should be doing.

Too much flotsam bunging up modern science as it is, to suffer the impertinence of a schoolboy's level of fantasy foisted on an already struggling 'search' process to discriminate the important papers in science from the krap.

No-one gives a toss about their lack of understanding and watching them struggling to 'learn'. Their publications should be polished pieces of well-formed and well-researched substance of significance.

This paper looks and appears to be just an algebraic gobbledegook-fest, whose purpose is probably far more to do with bumping up someone's publication rating for their own advancement to a dull academic tenure that would, no doubt, ultimately stand out if only for its exquisite mediocrity.
daveklingler wrote:That sort of comment is technically known as "trolling". Again, I wish you would just refrain.
'Trolling' is the process of being deliberately obtuse or contrary, with the specific intent to annoy the forum members and to destructively interfere with their discussion. The clown in question has proven he does this in spades, like no-one has ever managed to do before on this site. He has got a rise out of the most serene of members here, and he clearly loves doing it, and does it for its own sake. He does not wish to even begin to attempt to understand why people have an interest in the thinking behind the polywell idea, so attempts to ridicule people for discussing it, but in doing so he ridicules himself.

That's quite an opinion d klinger has, for only his 4th post here, when he has had no experience of attempting to discuss matters with certain characters on this forum.

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

Re: One more iec fusion devise.

Post by Joseph Chikva »

chrismb wrote:He has got a rise out of the most serene of members here, and he clearly loves doing it, and does it for its own sake.
• Is repulsive well a well?
• Please define "scattering cross section on 1 deg"
• Please explain how pinch occurs. Then please explain why it is "self-evident" that three unidirectional currents - three coaxial beams of particles with partial charge compensation will not suffer pinch? If:
The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.
I promise that this time I will not laugh loudly.

PS: Will 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping' a typical reaction for deuterium-tritium pair when their collision energy in center-of-mass-frame will be typical for fusion (30-100 keV)?
Whether it is better to answer directly on directly asked questions than constantly to give vent a bile?

Post Reply