The consequences of quasi-neutrality in the cusps

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:53 pm

I think Rick already did that.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:01 pm

This seems to be the flow of logic here.

    AC says "when I do the math using plasmas of which I am familiar, Polywell shouldn't work.

    DrB & DrN say "based on our experiments, the Polywell seems to work."

    Conclusion:
    A: DrB and DrN are mistaken
    OR
    B: Polywell doesn't have the plasmas (plasmae?) of which AC is familiar.
I'm hoping for B.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Postby Art Carlson » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:31 pm

KitemanSA wrote:This seems to be the flow of logic here.

    AC says "when I do the math using plasmas of which I am familiar, Polywell shouldn't work.

    DrB & DrN say "based on our experiments, the Polywell seems to work."

    Conclusion:
    A: DrB and DrN are mistaken
    OR
    B: Polywell doesn't have the plasmas (plasmae?) of which AC is familiar.
I'm hoping for B.

After being gently shoved by Rick Nebel, I made quantitative predictions based on my model. Where are the quantitative results from his lab to compare them with? ("seems to work" isn't a lot to go on.) Heck, maybe they even agree.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:42 pm

munchasen:

Come on, get me some reasonable arguments against dr. Carlsons calculations, or go get yourselves a hair cut, a shave and an honest job


If you would like to describe, in your own words or equations, what you think Art has proven with his calculations we can go over it in detail.

Or you can grow your hair and shave your legs, for wearing the cheerleaders skirt would seem to be your job.

It's funny how people who have spent most of their lives watching TV always expect "something to be happening" on the Internet and sometimes resort to trolling comments (like the above) to provoke reactions from others for their own entertainment, when a thread lies necessarily dormant for a while.

Theoretical calculations have never made for couch-potato sport entertainment, a little too high-brow for most I find. Some merely want to see the personal interactions, maybe to liven up their own empty lives?

When Munchasen comes up with the presently known theory, in his own words, or admits he knows nothing about it, I'll post my next installment. (going rate 2 euros per copy).

ankovacs
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:32 am
Location: Espoo, Finland

Postby ankovacs » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:06 pm

Art Carlson wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:This seems to be the flow of logic here.

After being gently shoved by Rick Nebel, I made quantitative predictions based on my model. Where are the quantitative results from his lab to compare them with? ("seems to work" isn't a lot to go on.) Heck, maybe they even agree.


As far as I was reading, Dr Nebel referred to the 1-D computer simulation, as a quantitative guide.
It might be the case that Polywell research will get a major boost when a powerful enough cluster is set up for the proper plasma simulation. Then issues like this one and similar questions can be quantitatively investigated.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:56 pm

ankovacs wrote:
Art Carlson wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:This seems to be the flow of logic here.

After being gently shoved by Rick Nebel, I made quantitative predictions based on my model. Where are the quantitative results from his lab to compare them with? ("seems to work" isn't a lot to go on.) Heck, maybe they even agree.

Oops! You need to be a bit more careful about your deletions. I said the first line of that quote, AC said the second.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:16 am

Art Carlson wrote:After being gently shoved by Rick Nebel, I made quantitative predictions based on my model. Where are the quantitative results from his lab to compare them with? ("seems to work" isn't a lot to go on.) Heck, maybe they even agree.

This is Navy work. You need citizenship, clearance, AND a need to know. Dang, 2 out of 3 ain't good enough!

alexjrgreen
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:29 pm

KitemanSA wrote:This is Navy work. You need citizenship, clearance, AND a need to know. Dang, 2 out of 3 ain't good enough!

Rick Nebel already discussed this here:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=5142&highlight=#5142
Ars artis est celare artem.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:55 am

Art;

Pondering that mono-energetic electron sheath some more.

1) The sheath will lie on the surface of the magnetic field, more correctly the interface between the magnetic field of the Ma-grid and the plasma.

2) Consequently, the electrons will be constrained to move with only sheath-tangential components of velocity, i.e. the sheath-perpendicular component of electron velocity will "suppressed" by the magnetic field.

3) Since the electron number density distribution is derived using the electron speed distribution, that is then without 1 degree of freedom, what effects will that have upon our sheath solution?

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

two kinds of sheath

Postby Art Carlson » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:24 pm

icarus wrote:1) The sheath will lie on the surface of the magnetic field, more correctly the interface between the magnetic field of the Ma-grid and the plasma.

There are (at least) two sheaths under discussion. One is the transition from pure plasma to pure field that occurs on the surface of the ball perpendicular to the field. The one in this thread is the transition from a quasi-neutral plasma to the machine wall that occurs in the cusps parallel to the field.
icarus wrote:2) Consequently, the electrons will be constrained to move with only sheath-tangential components of velocity, i.e. the sheath-perpendicular component of electron velocity will "suppressed" by the magnetic field.

Why shouldn't the electrons have a velocity perpendicular to the field? That is what makes the gyro-orbits. They don't get very far because they're running around in circles, but they are running very fast.
icarus wrote:3) Since the electron number density distribution is derived using the electron speed distribution, that is then without 1 degree of freedom, what effects will that have upon our sheath solution?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe my other comments have cleared it up already.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:32 pm

One is the transition from pure plasma to pure field that occurs on the surface of the ball perpendicular to the field.


Yes, this is the sheath that I've been referring to (might explain some of my earlier confused/confusing comments also).

Why shouldn't the electrons have a velocity perpendicular to the field? That is what makes the gyro-orbits.


Okay, I agree they have a local component perpendicular (and another tangential) that makes up their circular motion, and another tangential along field lines also. So if we resolve the electron velocity into cylindrical polar coordinates using local field lines as the reference frame, then the electrons will have no radial component, as long as gyro-radius remains constant. (I'll see if I can get a sketch together as it is easy to see then)

So as I say, the electrons of this sheath being in this magnetic field (where field potential is largely perpendicular to magnetic field lines) suppresses 1 degree of freedom of their translational energy components. I wonder what this does to the number density relations?


Return to “Theory”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests