Why people are so optimistical to Polywell?

Discuss how polywell fusion works; share theoretical questions and answers.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

chrismb wrote:
93143 wrote:the Navy has re-funded the project and reinstated the gag order.
WRONG!

That perversion of the truth needs to be corrected every time it is repeated.
I don't know where you get your information?
My understanding that the Navy funding was withdrawn in ~ 2005 while ~ 2 million dollars was still in the contract. This was refunded for WB7 research. Near the end (during the review, some additional "keep alive funding was provided. The recovery act sponsored funding of ~ 10 million dollars for WB8 research was a new contract. As for a gag order, there certainly was one on Bussard, unless you calling him a liar. Whether there is a current gag order is an implied assumption (?). Certainly there has been no publishing of WB7 experiments or review.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:Of course not all ions are confined and conditioned in this manner. Some just have too much energy, and may escape if they hit a cusp and fly to the vessel wall, stealing energy from the magrid in doing so.
I do not see any other possibility for ions to have too much energy besides instability.
I am repeating once again: instability's wave accelerates some ions at the expense of energies of others.

Also you see the advantage for Polywell in its spherical geometry. I know one very effective way to fight with instabilities - creation of a strong longitudinal magnetic field that dramatically expands the stability area. In spherical geometry it is impossible.
You are stuck on instabilities, which may or may not be important depending on various conditions and definitions. If you are picturing a columnated beam of charged particles, any perturbation could be considered an instability. Certainly there can be standing wave and traveling wave effects. These can be harmful or useful depending. This wave interaction I believe is the basis for POPS enhancing effects..
Local Coulomb collisions (instabilities if you wish to call them that), I believe, are generally the mechanism for most thermalization. Fusion plasmas are generally considered to be weakly coupled, which means that there are local effects, but they do not dominate over globel effects like space charge (potential well).
I wonder if you are confusing thermalized plasma with an monoenergetic plasma. In a thermalized plasma, there is a high energy tail that is significantly hotter than the reference- average temperature. In a more monoenergetic plasma this highe energy tail has not yet formed through difficult to avoid thermalization. The potential well determines the average temperature of either type of plasma, but initially at least there is no significant high or low energy tail. It is the Coulomb collisions that leads to the energy spread. The ions have close to the full potential well energy, so it does not require much upscattering before escape the potential well. Bussard mentioned this and predicted the potential well energy required to contain upscattered ions for reasonable amounts of time. I'm not sure I followed is arguement, but his arguement seemed to be that ~ 20% excess energy was required, rather than the much higher level that Carlson predicted- based I believe on his assumption that the average temperature of the plasma was derived from a Maxwell Boltzman distribution, not a claimed monoenergetic plasma, where the average temperature is much closer to the mean temperature with a significantly smaller thermal spread. Keep in mind that in a Tokamak the maximum average temperatur obtainable may be in the range of 10-15 KeV, while most of the fusion would be occuring at the less prevelent ions near the end of the high energy tail, so you have to be certain you retain these higher energy ions. In a machine with monoenergetic plasmas the average temperature ideally matchs the fusion target temperature- perhaps 80 to 200 KeV depending on the fuel. You are actually happy to see the upscattering ions escape, so they do not compound the thermalization cascade, etc., provided you can figure out how to avoid too much input energy loss. Annealing is a key for this as it impeads the thermalization and thus the numbers of ions above some level that you want to get rid of.

As far as a cylindrical geometry being better than a spherical, I don't think so. There is a symmetrical center to a sphere, but not in a cylinder. If there is any convergence in a cylinder it is primarily linear or two dimensional, while it is three dimensional in a sphere. In a cylinder your density would increase as the square of any focus, a sphere density would increase as the third power of any focus. And, before you argue that you are doing things at the ends of the cylinder to direct ions towards the middle between the ends, you are only trying to convert the cyclindrical geometry into a pseudo spherical geometry.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

D Tibbets wrote:You are stuck on instabilities, which may or may not be important depending on various conditions and definitions.
I am not stuck on anything. I only see the program with refined and very beautiful idea and not clear continuation.
I also liked Astron of Christafilos also for its idea's refinement. But where is now Astron? Does anybody recall Astron?
Or some other not less thoughtful ideas?
Where are they?
Not interesting why?
Because not me but nature "sticks" on instabilities.
When you are interested in something and information is available only of a single particle's behavior, program develops with problems, logically comes idea about instabilities. That is simplest explanation of problems.

And I did not hear about staying wave of two-stream instability that can be used. But that can stop and destroy the beams, can shoot particles out from the potential well. And this is more simple explanation of problems. And not oil&gas lobby.
D Tibbets wrote:Local Coulomb collisions (instabilities if you wish to call them that), I believe, are generally the mechanism for most thermalization. Fusion plasmas are generally considered to be weakly coupled, which means that there are local effects, but they do not dominate over globel effects like space charge (potential well).
It is not truth: Coulomb collisions and instabilities are not the same.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Perhaps they are not the same, it depends on how narrow your definitions are. If you wish to weaken my generalist viewpoint, explain if two stream instabilities can occur in a collisonless plasma.

Also, if you wish a list of critical issues that needed to be addressed, from Bussard's viewpoint, read the Velencia paper .

As far as being a footnote in history, that is certainly possible. Bussard already is one on the nuclear fission rocket and Riggatron version of the
Tokamak.

And, whatever you call the effect, or view the machanics of the effect, the 2005 paper I referenced modeled a similar system and concluded it was not a showstopper. More importantly, it has been experimentally shown not to be a showstopper- based on WB5 and WB6 conclusions. WB 7 may also have demonstrated this, but details (if positive) are even more hidden.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:
chrismb wrote:
93143 wrote:the Navy has re-funded the project and reinstated the gag order.
WRONG!

That perversion of the truth needs to be corrected every time it is repeated.
I don't know where you get your information?
My understanding that the Navy funding was withdrawn in ~ 2005 while ~ 2 million dollars was still in the contract. This was refunded for WB7 research. Near the end (during the review, some additional "keep alive funding was provided.
Dan,
I think tses contention is that the Navy didn't institute a gag order, EMC2 claimed proprietary info.

Of course, that may just be a back-door way to maintain the gag order. What was that I said about otherwise useless historians?

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

D Tibbets wrote:Perhaps they are not the same, it depends on how narrow your definitions are.

My definitions have not matter. But matter is in the sense: elastic Coulomb collisions and instabilities caused via collective MHD effects are not the same.
D Tibbets wrote:If you wish to weaken my generalist viewpoint, explain if two stream instabilities can occur in a collisonless plasma.
I do not know how can we consider a rather dense (10^22 m^-3 as you declared) plasma as collisonless.
But in fact 2-stream instability as I know was discovered by John Pierce when he invented vacuum tube for RF generation. He invented e.g. highly successful traveling wave tube but had many other ideas.
One of his tubes had two cathodes producing two coaxial electron beams with different velocities. Tube did not work, Pierce investigated why and discovered a new phenomena.
As I know usually the density of electron beams has about 10^12 order of magnitude, electron-electron Coulomb cross section much lower than for ions due to their higher relative velocity. Nevertheless instability appeared.

And I don't speak without adducing any proof.
Regarding my project I had consultations with one Russian physicist working now in one fusion program in USA as theorist.
He has told me that anyway it is necessary to avoid from injection electrons into the media where electrons are already exist.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

error

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Personally, I am optimistical on Polywell because I don't know any better.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

:D

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

seedload wrote:Personally, I am optimistical on Polywell because I don't know any better.
Good luck.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

KitemanSA wrote: Dan,
I think tses contention is that the Navy didn't institute a gag order, EMC2 claimed proprietary info.

Of course, that may just be a back-door way to maintain the gag order. What was that I said about otherwise useless historians?
I was referring to the Bussard claimed gag order prior to 2006.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:Perhaps they are not the same, it depends on how narrow your definitions are.

My definitions have not matter. But matter is in the sense: elastic Coulomb collisions and instabilities caused via collective MHD effects are not the same.
D Tibbets wrote:If you wish to weaken my generalist viewpoint, explain if two stream instabilities can occur in a collisonless plasma.
I do not know how can we consider a rather dense (10^22 m^-3 as you declared) plasma as collisonless.
But in fact 2-stream instability as I know was discovered by John Pierce when he invented vacuum tube for RF generation. He invented e.g. highly successful traveling wave tube but had many other ideas.
One of his tubes had two cathodes producing two coaxial electron beams with different velocities. Tube did not work, Pierce investigated why and discovered a new phenomena.
As I know usually the density of electron beams has about 10^12 order of magnitude, electron-electron Coulomb cross section much lower than for ions due to their higher relative velocity. Nevertheless instability appeared.

And I don't speak without adducing any proof.
Regarding my project I had consultations with one Russian physicist working now in one fusion program in USA as theorist.
He has told me that anyway it is necessary to avoid from injection electrons into the media where electrons are already exist.
If you are considering only space charge and wave based interference, then close collisions may not need to be invoked. But for coulomb scattering scattering, collisions are needed. The point is mostly moot in any case, except for arguments sake. We are arguing over nomenclature, not physics. If you really want to study Potential well possibilities and experimental results you need to research through the Bussard/ EMC2 papers, and also the research with gridded fusors. I suggest you dig through the literature. A couple of places to start follows. Dig through the articles and their bibliography. You will find a lot of more informative and authoritative information than my weak, layman's knowledge and understanding.

http://fsl.ne.uiuc.edu/IEC/Miley_IEEE%2 ... 997%29.pdf

http://fsl.ne.uiuc.edu/IEC/Miley_IEEE%2 ... 997%29.pdf

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

I'm just optimistic that, with all the approaches being tried, we're headed towards a nuclear fusion naissance and, whether the Polywell works out or not, I believe Bussard's (and Ligon's) efforts to spread the word will have had a positive effect on that.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Dan,
I think tses contention is that the Navy didn't institute a gag order, EMC2 claimed proprietary info.

Of course, that may just be a back-door way to maintain the gag order. What was that I said about otherwise useless historians?
I was referring to the Bussard claimed gag order prior to 2006.

Dan Tibbets
Right, but I think Chris's "WRONG" wasn't.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

Nor was 93143's "the Navy has re-funded the project and reinstated the gag order."
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Post Reply