EMC2 news

[Tom Ligon]

The name EMC2 had the same problem. Google it and you'll find a slew of EMC and EMC two or EMC squared variants. One is a major corporation.

I don't recall any legal warnings. I have run into people who thought a totally unrelated company must be dabbling in fusion.

I once worked for "Value Engineering", which changed its name to VSE Corporation. If you asked what VSE stood for, they'd give you a deadpan look and say "VSE." The abbreviation becomes the corporate identity, and one reason for the name change was to stop identifying the company with just a narrow slice of engineering economics expertise.

But with EMC2, it was just a clever way of abbreviating Energy Matter Conversion Corporation, which described the focus of the company's efforts. As opposed to LockMart's hobby, which is just a sideline in a huge corporation that has swallowed several historical aircraft companies plus who knows what else, and is into all sorts of stuff.

[Tom Ligon]

Alright, I did a little homework and found out who owns the website. Alas, TalkPolywell won't allow me to attach a .pdf, so the whole expose is not convenient to upload, but I'll give you the gist and how I found it.

To find out about a domain, you can use whois.net, and put in the domain name you want to look up. This should return a slew of information on it, including the name and maybe the contact info on the owner. I put in the domain name as

FUSIONONE.CO

This returns a hit on

Registrant Name: Randall Volberg
Registrant Organization: Fusion One Corporation
Registrant Address1: 548 Market Street
Registrant City: San Francisco
Registrant State/Province: California
Registrant Postal Code: 94104
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Country Code: US

Don't know the guy. Aside from an association with one reported former EMC2 employee, I'm not convinced that this outfit has any claim of being a new embodiment of EMC2, which to the best of my information is still quietly doing business in as non-public a way as they can manage.

I'm off to the woods for a few days on an errand I can't put off, but when I come back I hope to hear from Dr. Park and clear up this situation.

In the meantime I'm getting a distinctly fishy smell off of Fusion One. I have been approached by outfits before that wanted me to join in a fusion effort, and I've declined because they were not associated with EMC2, but wanted me aboard so it would look as if they were. I'd suggest treating them with curious caution for now.

[paperburn1]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/randall-volberg-39177445

yep , His pages do not seem to mesh as it should in his education,and other things on his brag sheet.

And here
http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/pitches/ilumati

and here
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/randall-volberg

and here
https://twitter.com/neurogenian

Feels like snake oil to me.

[Teemu]

Or it could be just another non-EMC2 polywell project like other non-EMC2 polywell-like projects, whether private, open source or university based.

I couldn't find at least by first sight any part where they claim to be the EMC2 company re-organized.

One option is that EMC2 couldn't employ Paul Sieck anymore due to financial reasons, but Paul Sieck feels that the patent doesn't really contain anything that would severely restrict any competition, so he joined one of those other polywell projects. Whether that is going to go anywhere, just like other non-EMC2 polywell projects haven't really gone anywhere whether private, open source or university based, we shall see.

[Giorgio]

yep , His pages do not seem to mesh as it should in his education,and other things on his brag sheet.

And here
http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/pitches/ilumati

......

Feels like snake oil to me.

After having seen the video of the show I tend to agree with you....

[ScottL]

So is this patent going to prevent EMC2 from having theirs granted?

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100284501

[ladajo]

Neither other patent should be a threat to EMC2. Both are wrong as to the functional aspects of the device embodied in Park's submission. The critical divergences are with Grid Bias and Start-up to steady state process. To put it simply, the other patents don't work.
The core point EMC2 makes in the submission is that in order to get the machine to function, you cannot bias the grids, and the plasma start-up cycle must be very fast in order to force WB mode quick enough to allow for sufficient confinement. Then for steady state, one must consider why EMC2 is using neutral beam injection. It is a complex ballet of particle physics that requires precise timings and intensities to pull off the act.
Read Park and Co.'s work carefully, make a flowchart for the process and components and you will see. This is not what these copy cats have submitted. They essentially tried to jump that patent gun by submitting on publically available information at the time on what EMC2 was doing. If they try to challenge in court, they will lose, and are missing key aspects of developmental research that EMC2 accomplished but did not publish until now.

[ladajo]

Neither other patent should be a threat to EMC2. Both are wrong as to the functional aspects of the device embodied in Park's submission. The critical divergences are with Grid Bias and Start-up to steady state process. To put it simply, the other patents don't work.
The core point EMC2 makes in the submission is that in order to get the machine to function, you cannot bias the grids, and the plasma start-up cycle must be very fast in order to force WB mode quick enough to allow for sufficient confinement. Then for steady state, one must consider why EMC2 is using neutral beam injection. It is a complex ballet of particle physics that requires precise timings and intensities to pull off the act.
Read Park and Co.'s work carefully, make a flowchart for the process and components and you will see. This is not what these copy cats have submitted. They essentially tried to jump that patent gun by submitting on publically available information at the time on what EMC2 was doing. If they try to challenge in court, they will lose, and are missing key aspects of developmental research that EMC2 accomplished but did not publish until now.

[choff]

I worry about corruption and bribery at the Patent Office, you can never know for sure the rights won't get stolen out from under.

[ladajo]

No matter the corruption, both patents ignore key considerations that EMC2 has kept quiet on until now. As I said above, read the details in all three.

[Skipjack]

US patent application has been posted now:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Par ... 0150380114

[mvanwink5]

Skipjack, thank you very much for that link, very kind. I wonder if the patent grant was what has been holding up funding?

edit:
PS I guess I missed the earlier posts on EMC2 patent filing when I was out of town. Catching up...

[Tom Ligon]

Ah, good. We had seen the international patent, but this is US patent!

And again, it is good to see "An apparatus generating nuclear fusion reactions ..." from the very cautious and conservative Dr. Park.

[crowberry]

Alright, I did a little homework and found out who owns the website. Alas, TalkPolywell won't allow me to attach a .pdf, so the whole expose is not convenient to upload, but I'll give you the gist and how I found it.

To find out about a domain, you can use whois.net, and put in the domain name you want to look up. This should return a slew of information on it, including the name and maybe the contact info on the owner. I put in the domain name as

FUSIONONE.CO

This returns a hit on

Registrant Name: Randall Volberg
Registrant Organization: Fusion One Corporation
Registrant Address1: 548 Market Street
Registrant City: San Francisco
Registrant State/Province: California
Registrant Postal Code: 94104
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Country Code: US

Don't know the guy. Aside from an association with one reported former EMC2 employee, I'm not convinced that this outfit has any claim of being a new embodiment of EMC2, which to the best of my information is still quietly doing business in as non-public a way as they can manage.

I'm off to the woods for a few days on an errand I can't put off, but when I come back I hope to hear from Dr. Park and clear up this situation.

In the meantime I'm getting a distinctly fishy smell off of Fusion One. I have been approached by outfits before that wanted me to join in a fusion effort, and I've declined because they were not associated with EMC2, but wanted me aboard so it would look as if they were. I'd suggest treating them with curious caution for now.

Tom, is there any news on what is the story on Fusion One?

[D Tibbets]

After reading the patent application (without the images/ illustrations) I have several observations and questions.
Example dimensions and B fields are given with resultant predictions on requirements to reach Beta near one. Several hundred GW of initiating plasma energy is needed in a 5 Tesla, and ~ 50 cm wide magrid (?) wi Not given is the energy needed at smaller diameters and lower B fields. The example of WB6 was at 0.1 to 0.2 Tesla, volumes of perhaps 1/5th as much. I'm uncertain if 50 KeV plasma is used for calculating the startup energy or if it assumes a lower but more dense plasma. For this argument I will assume they are equivalent (lower KeV and higher density cancel out)
The plasma pressure creating the Beta= 1 condition is ~ sqr root of density * energy.

If my presumptions are accurate, then WB6 at ~ 10 KeV and ~ 0.2 times the volume and 0.02 times the B field would need a startup energy / confined energy of 0.2 * 0.2 * 0,02 0r 0.0008 times as much or about a few hundred MW. This is perhaps consistant with Mini B startup plasma injection energies of several hundred MW.

This is a difference of ~ 1000 compared to WB6 input energies reported as being about 500 KW. That is a big difference and suggests that WB6 never came close to approaching Beta=1. There are some considerations though. WB6 , at least in the earlier patent application had a electron confinement perameter about 20 times higher than MiniB. 60 passes * proportion of 30 cm diameter versus 7 passes * same proportion of ~ 15 cm diameter. At similar velocities (not much different between 10 KeV and 7 KeV) This low Beta electron cup confinement is a significant difference, but Mini B had hugh relative corner cusp areas compared to WB6- wider cusps and smaller total surface area. Point were smaller. Added to that is the unknown losses to the internal coaxial cables in Mini B that were used to measure local B fields. In other words I do not know where in this spectrum a low Beta cusp confinement for electrons would fall. 60 passes may be too much, but Mini B passes is certainly on the low end. The confinement time is based on the number of passes, times the diameter / average spaae. WB6 would be expected to have twice the confinement time because it is twice as wide. Also critical is the average electron speed. With no or minimal potential well the average speed is the injection speed. With a deep potential well with a parabolic shape the average speed may be only a fraction of the injection speed, thus longer containment times . The only indication I have of this average speed is Bussard's comments that the electrons traveled about 10 million cm/s in WB6, but at 10 KeV the injection speed would be closer to ~ 40 million cm/s.

Using these three arguments- larger size, better relative low cusp electron confinement (combined with the harmful effects of Mini D internal coaxial cables), and lower average speed may increase the WB6 effective electron confinement times to as much as 100 times longer. This is certainly an optimistic assessment and is based on uncertain assumptions but does bring the seemingly incompatible sets of data into agreement , at least within a order of magnitude. Otherwise one or the other sets of data must be highly flawed.

I suspect WB6 did not come close to Beta=1, but it may have reached 0.1 or 0.1 regions.

Keep in mind that WB6 had ~ 20 times the electron injection current, filling a large volume but against less magnetic pressure, and with an unknown relative injection efficiency. I have added some numbers in the past in another thread based on multiple assumptions and came up with a WB6 electron injection efficiency of perhaps 5%. Mini B was perhaps about 1/2 of this. Certainly this could maintain a plasma pressure against a relative magnetic field strength more easily. Weather it could build pressure from a low Beta condition (once neutral gas puffers provided a source of dense low temperature plasma), further heat the resultant plasma, and maintain the conditions is a gray area, but at least not completely inconsistent.

Note that my convolutions to show possible confinement time variations between these two test machines easily covers the difference between the reported confinement times of ~ 20 microseconds versus ~ 200 microseconds. Even if the MiniB had significant recirculation (which I doubt for several reasons) the final confinement times (including recirculation) of ~ 20 microseconds versus 2000 microseconds falls within my hand waving comparison. How close was WB7.0 to WB6 configuration, including the electron injectors, etc.? The direct comparisons would be useful.

There are multiple other issues I could ramble on about, but this is enough for this post.

PS: Except to point out that in Mini B the coaxial cables inside the magrid would become an increasing significant loss target for electrons (or ions) as Beta was increased- B field pushed outward. a 0.7 Beta may have been the max Beta obtained by Mini B, not so much due to cusp confinement of the injected cool plasma, but by losses to these cables. There are several caveats here also, but enough rambling.

Dan Tibbets