The consequences of quasineutrality in the cusps
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.

 Posts: 794
 Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
 Location: Munich, Germany
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.
I'm hoping for B.
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.
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.
munchasen:
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 couchpotato sport entertainment, a little too highbrow 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).
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 couchpotato sport entertainment, a little too highbrow 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).
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 1D 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.
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.
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!

 Posts: 805
 Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
 Location: UK
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.talkpolywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=5142&highlight=#5142
Ars artis est celare artem.
Art;
Pondering that monoenergetic 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 Magrid and the plasma.
2) Consequently, the electrons will be constrained to move with only sheathtangential components of velocity, i.e. the sheathperpendicular 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?
Pondering that monoenergetic 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 Magrid and the plasma.
2) Consequently, the electrons will be constrained to move with only sheathtangential components of velocity, i.e. the sheathperpendicular 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?

 Posts: 794
 Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
 Location: Munich, Germany
two kinds of sheath
icarus wrote:1) The sheath will lie on the surface of the magnetic field, more correctly the interface between the magnetic field of the Magrid 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 quasineutral 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 sheathtangential components of velocity, i.e. the sheathperpendicular 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 gyroorbits. 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.
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 gyroorbits.
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 gyroradius 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?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests