Simon mentioned these to me, just thought I'd share on a new topic since I know a lot of others are probably as hungry for news as I am, and there does seem to be a bit of new info here. Hopefully Rick doesn't mind.
Dr. Miller:
First of all, our work has been peer reviewed. An independent panel of experts has looked at these results. I don’t believe that there was anyone on the panel who has less than 40 years experience working with magnetic confinement. It included senior professors and people who have managed the fusion program. We asked them for their honest opinions and that’s exactly what we got. We are proceeding with our program in line with their recommendations.
Secondly, the talk-polywell blog has a large variety of people who post there. There are Phd plasma physicists as well people from the general public. I think that’s a good thing. Science needs to be accessible to people.
---------
Mr. Bowery:
Yes, there are neutrons and the numbers are consistent with the plasmas we are measuring. However, neutrons can be deceptive. A lot of fusion researchers have gotten in trouble in the past by relying on these types of measurements. You need to know where they come from and that's difficult to measure.
We probably don't want to read too much into that "proceeding," but overall I find both the neutron counts and the healthy skepticism encouraging.
I'm wondering what the next step really is. From the commentary below, I get:
Alan writes:
It sounds as if the scale of the experiment is such that you have to calibrate what you're seeing in terms of output, and they need additional data points at higher energies to really get a sense about the workability of the design.
While Simon writes:
The next obvious step is a continuous operation reactor (seconds to minutes) about the size of the WB-7.
If the largest potential source of error is scaling assumptions, I would assume the next logic step is to build bigger. If the concern is reaction sustainability, then you build a continuous reactor.
We know that they will have ion injection guns soon because the navy contracted for one (to be delivered) with keep-alive funding. That implies longer burn times, if not continuous operation.
And they said, "larger," so it should be a "Larger, continuous operating Machine."
Aero wrote:We know that they will have ion injection guns soon because the navy contracted for one (to be delivered) with keep-alive funding. That implies longer burn times, if not continuous operation.
And they said, "larger," so it should be a "Larger, continuous operating Machine."
Guessing, I would expect them to be power (input) constrained, no?
Mr. Bowery:
Yes, there are neutrons and the numbers are consistent with the plasmas we are measuring. However, neutrons can be deceptive. A lot of fusion researchers have gotten in trouble in the past by relying on these types of measurements. You need to know where they come from and that's difficult to measure.
We probably don't want to read too much into that "proceeding," but overall I find both the neutron counts and the healthy skepticism encouraging.
Dave, not just the neutron counts.....
Sooooooo....
We are measuring plasmas
That possibly speaks to what instrumentation was installed on WB-7, BUT..
that's difficult to measure
My take is, the measured plasmas are consistent with measured neutrons. But we dont know what caused the neutrons, thats...
You need to know where they come from and that's difficult to measure
Sorry Dr Nebel for mashing up your words in the quotes.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
are the neutrons coming from a beam-beam core reaction or are they coming from a beam - inventory gas reaction?
The former = good. The latter = not so good.
With a continuous operation device you can get a collimated beam of neutrons and determine where they are coming from.
Of course the best option is a continuous operation larger device. If I had to choose one a continuous operation smaller device would be my preference.
For one thing you could time the neutron bursts with the beam motion. If the bursts happen when the beams are in the core that would be pretty good evidence.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Aero wrote:We know that they will have ion injection guns soon because the navy contracted for one (to be delivered) with keep-alive funding. That implies longer burn times, if not continuous operation.
And they said, "larger," so it should be a "Larger, continuous operating Machine."
Guessing, I would expect them to be power (input) constrained, no?
-Dave
I think the ion gun is for WB-7. I dont read anymore into it than that.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
are the neutrons coming from a beam-beam core reaction or are they coming from a beam - inventory gas reaction?
Exactly so Simon. I see you seem to be following up on my previous comment. If I was Dr Nebel I would want a definitive answer, so how to go about getting an answer?
I'm guessing this question was not answered as of yet by WB-7. Could the new contracts be for instrumentation necessary to discern such things? Or does Nebel have some clue as to the source of the neutrons, and wishes to jump to a WB-100MW?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Now lets see who else can reproduce these neutrons and determine if they are being produce as/when expected by the Bussard's theory.
Bussard had a good grasp on the physics of this process, I just hope the experiments do it justice. It is slightly worrying that it seems Nebel is proceeding along the lines of the peer-review committee. You know what they say about things designed by committee.
Bussard didn't get this thing to where it was by consulting a committee. Most times it is raw intuition from a gifted individual that trumps the reams of paperwork and good intentions of the "system" of institutional science. Nebel's got some big shoes to fill here.
Roger, why do you think the ion injection gun would be for WB-7? That experiment is over and the review is complete. It might be for WB-7, but it just as well might operate over a range large enough to feed a larger machine.
Now lets see who else can reproduce these neutrons and determine if they are being produce as/when expected by the Bussard's theory.
Bussard had a good grasp on the physics of this process, I just hope the experiments do it justice. It is slightly worrying that it seems Nebel is proceeding along the lines of the peer-review committee. You know what they say about things designed by committee.
Bussard didn't get this thing to where it was by consulting a committee. Most times it is raw intuition from a gifted individual that trumps the reams of paperwork and good intentions of the "system" of institutional science. Nebel's got some big shoes to fill here.
I don't think it's going to be designed by committee, but they can be directing on what should be tested next to confirm where the neutron's are coming from.