Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:53 pm
I think Rick already did that.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
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.KitemanSA wrote:This seems to be the flow of logic here.
I'm hoping for B.
- 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.
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.Come on, get me some reasonable arguments against dr. Carlsons calculations, or go get yourselves a hair cut, a shave and an honest job
As far as I was reading, Dr Nebel referred to the 1-D computer simulation, as a quantitative guide.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.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.
This is Navy work. You need citizenship, clearance, AND a need to know. Dang, 2 out of 3 ain't good enough!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.
Rick Nebel already discussed this here:KitemanSA wrote:This is Navy work. You need citizenship, clearance, AND a need to know. Dang, 2 out of 3 ain't good enough!
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: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.
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: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.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe my other comments have cleared it up already.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?
Yes, this is the sheath that I've been referring to (might explain some of my earlier confused/confusing comments also).One is the transition from pure plasma to pure field that occurs on the surface of the ball perpendicular to the field.
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)Why shouldn't the electrons have a velocity perpendicular to the field? That is what makes the gyro-orbits.