Near Spherical Magrid

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by KitemanSA »

icarus wrote:kitebait:
I would have thought that playing with legs would have little to do with "the physics of getting a net power reactor"..... and then the bait ...." Opinions are like ....
... seeing as you are well-prepared to go down this route anyway .... and what the hell would you know about "the physics of getting a net power reactor?

Satisfied, is that the bite you were looking for? How big is your opinion?

See we can both bait but where did it get you in the end?
Bait? What bait? Am I baiting you by noting human nature? Do you deny being human? I merely differed with your opinion, noting that opinions are like... (all opinions, not just YOUR opinions...). This message of yours truly has the appearance of a tinge vanity and a touch of paranoia. Please stop. I am NOT out to "get" you, but if you make a bold statement of opinion as you did, please expect that someone may just disagree with it.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

OFF TOPIC: (mostly)
Yawn, get a life.

You've presented nothing in the way of numbers, or at least the usual hand-wavy qualitative arguments, to back up this weak notion of structural failure being brought on by the radical 45 degree repositioning of the stand-offs. Just what is your point here ... (besides the baiting which is obvious)?

Just take it somewhere else, send me a Personal Message if you must and leave the other good people here out of your personal vendetta.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

KitemanSA wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:How about a dual-coil spherized octahedron?
WHY? If the currents run opposite, there is no field, if they run the same, the effect is the same as with one coil. So... why?
M...I...C..."See you real soon"

K...E...Y... "Why? Because I like you."

Seriously, just playing with geometry. I acknowledge the field will be much weaker with opposing currents, but will it be zero?

EDIT: Every octant is surrounded by a coil with current running in one direction. And as I look at it, half of the mag field orientations are in and half are out. That's probably not good...
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

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

Post by KitemanSA »

icarus wrote:Just take it somewhere else, send me a Personal Message if you must and leave the other good people here out of your personal vendetta.
Pot? Black?

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

Post by KitemanSA »

rjaypeters wrote: Seriously, just playing with geometry. I acknowledge the field will be much weaker with opposing currents, but will it be zero?
The way I learned it was that two adjacent (touching or close to it) wires carrying equal and opposite currents have a field that is effectively null beyond a few radii. Maybe I learned it wrong?
rjaypeters wrote: EDIT: Every octant is surrounded by a coil with current running in one direction.
No, every octant is surrounded by two coils with current that runs in two directions (or one direction if the currents are the same, in which case why not just use a single loop).
rjaypeters wrote:And as I look at it, half of the mag field orientations are in and half are out. That's probably not good...
That basic configuration (I think) is the MPG made into an octahedral machine rather than the cuboctahedron origianlly constructued. Not a bad idea with one coil, dual opposites eliminate, dual sames are redundant, I think.

Of course, Dr. B. started out implying a magnetically protected grid maching and then seemed to convert to a grid enhanced magnetic machine. Your design may return to a magnetically protected grid, i.e. no field except RIGHT at the grid. Maybe not. Hmmmm....

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

The more I think about it, the more these look a lot alike (other than sizes and colors):

Image Image

The coil currents run in the opposite directions along each arc, but I have to take back what I wrote above, all of the currents are counter-clockwise (if you want it that way) around each octant.

But dual-coil doesn't have any large openings where four coils meet.

I think we'll have a better idea when Happyjack27 runs This + That.

Oh, well. Off to pointilize.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

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

Post by KitemanSA »

rjaypeters wrote: The more I think about it, the more these look a lot alike (other than sizes and colors):
Almost identical except the first has an X-Cusp and the second a short line like cusp... unless
rjaypeters wrote: The coil currents run in the opposite directions along each arc, but I have to take back what I wrote above, all of the currents are counter-clockwise (if you want it that way) around each octant.
you do this in which case I still don't think there will be much of a field.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

The simplest, I think, interdigitation:

Image Image
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Post Reply