Near Spherical Magrid

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

GIThruster wrote:Why do you need vacuum to test various magrid configurations? The magnetic permeability of air is so close to vacuum, that one would think if all you're going to do is test configs, and not run fusion experiments (or is this required to "test configurations"), that you could do without all the pain and expense of vacuum...
if all we were interested in was the magnetic field lines produced by the electromagnetics, we could calculate that exactly on a computer fairly easily by just using maxwell's equations.

i think the real thing that needs to be tested for a magrid configuration is how well it traps electrons at beta=1, and how that changes the field lines.

and that's why you need a vacuum. because if you have air in there; if 99% of the particles are random atoms coming in and out and ionizing and thermalizing and all that, it's really going to mess up the dynamics and destabilize the plasma. not to mentions pv=nrt so if the pressure is 1000x the temperature ("friction" of the atoms") is going to be 1000x - i.e. it's going to maxwellianize completely. long story short, from my understanding, you're not going to get a deep potential well and you're definitely not going to get a wiffle-ball effect. so your measurements on how the field lines changes and how well electrons are trapped isn't really going to be meaningful. they ions and electrons are all going to lose their energy to the surrounding air before anything really interesting can happen.

Randy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by Randy »

I really don’t want to give my power transistors away unless we can come up with a system that can at least produce some measurable deuterium fusions (neutron radiation).

D2O can be concentrated by simply boiling water slowly at the boiling point. D2O is heavier than H20, so it will boil off at a slower rate than H2O. Then just use electrolysis to separate the deuterium gas from the oxygen.

Here’s an article I found from several years ago (1997). Concerning simple vacuum systems…

THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT. Sooner or later, every serious amateur needs a vacuum system. Vacuums are crucial if you ever want to experiment with particle beams or make your own optical filters or radiometers, to name a few projects. The systems, however, have a reputation for being complex and costly, discouraging many amateurs from bringing vacuum techniques into their laboratories. But this need not be the case. Vacuum systems adequate for many scientific needs can be easily built and inexpensively maintained. Here's how to construct a system capable of achieving pressures as low as one ten-millionth of an atmosphere.
Image
Figure 1: EVACUATING A GLASS CANNING JAR is achieved with molecular sieve pellets. A plastic shield or a doubled-over pillowcase protects in case of implosion
When it comes to vacuum vessels, think small. Low volumes are easier to seal and pump down. A smooth glass canning jar (having no designs, artwork or scratches, which can weaken the glass) makes an adequate chamber for the vacuum. From a scrap-metal yard, purchase a one-inch-thick aluminum plate to serve as a base. It should be larger than the jar's lid. Secure the lid to the base plate with a generous helping of aluminized epoxy. (If your local hardware stores don't carry it, call Devcon in Danvers, Mass., at 508-777-1100, for the nearest distributor.) The epoxy should ooze out evenly from around the lid when the lid is pressed into place under the weight of a few old books. Wipe away the excess and let the epoxy set.
Next, drill a hole one quarter inch in diameter through the center of the lid and the base plate. If possible, tap the hole to give it threads. Obtain a one-quarter-inch-wide threaded pipe from a hardware store. Coat its threads with epoxy, then screw it through the bottom of the base plate. If you can't tap the hole, just glue in an unthreaded pipe. Draw a bead of epoxy around the pipe as it is inserted to make sure the gap is completely filled with epoxy.
Cut a half-inch-wide hole in an old card table and rest the base plate on the table so that the pipe hangs down through the hole. The pipe's end should be about 10 inches from the floor. If the pipe's end has threads, cut them off and file the edge smooth.
Canning jars are designed to hold a vacuum, so you will most likely be able to screw the jar right into its lid. If you need pressures approaching 10 millionths of an atmosphere, you may want to take special precautions against tiny leaks. You can place a layer of Teflon tape (check your local hardware store) over the threads on the jar's lip before screwing it in. It may be necessary first to put a bead of vacuum grease along the rim of the jar's mouth to ensure an airtight seal. The grease is available from Duniway Stockroom Corporation in Mountain View, Calif. (800-446-8811 or 415-969-8811).
Precautions are needed in case the jar implodes. (It eventually will if you conduct enough vacuum experiments or if the jar has some structural weakness.) On implosion, small glass fragments could hurtle out at nearly the speed of sound! It is therefore absolutely vital that you always keep your vessel under a protective shield whenever you pump it down. If you don't need to see inside, a doubled pillowcase affords the necessary protection. Otherwise, cover the jar with a clear, thick-walled plastic container, such as a three-liter plastic soft-drink bottle with its neck cut off. Additionally, Ace Glass in Vineland, N.J. (800-223-4524 or 609-692-3333; catalogue no. 13100-10), sells a protective plastic coating that will hold the glass together in case of a catastrophe. Half a liter will run you about $28 and is well worth the cost for the protection. Use it in addition to, not in lieu of, a shield.
For many applications, sorption pumps are the vehicles of choice for creating a good vacuum. They have no moving parts; instead they work by chilling a type of substance, called a sorbent, to a temperature at which it absorbs gases. Activated charcoal works, but a molecular sieve is better. Molecular sieves are little pellets with so many microscopic nooks and crannies that they have fantastically large surface areas; a one-gram pellet may have more than 1,000 square meters of surface.
Image
Figure 2: HEATING THE MOLECULAR SIEVE drives off any moisture in the pellets.
When chilled, air molecules get caught in these microchasms. A 50-gram supply can pump a one-liter volume down to 10 millitorr in 20 minutes. (Atmospheric pressure is about 760 torr.) Half a gallon of molecular sieve from Duniway Stockroom sells for about $35.
To hold the sorbent, you need to obtain a Pyrex bulb approximately one inch in diameter and three and a half inches long, with a one-quarter-inch glass tube neck. A local glassblowing shop will probably make you one for less than $30. Fill it with the sorbent, then stuff in a little glass wool on top to keep the molecular sieve in place. Over the neck of the glass tube, slip a short length of flexible tubing, called Tygon tubing (check your local hardware store).
Before it can be used, the molecular sieve must first be activated—that is, it must be baked. Wrap the bulb with heating tape, available from Omega Engineering in Stamford, Conn. (800-826-6342 or 203-359-1660; model no. FGS0031-010). The 12-inch-long piece sells for $20. Or cannibalize an old toaster for its heating element. In either case, be sure that the heater does not cross over itself and that all of it touches the bulb. Wire in a dimmer switch to control the temperature of the heater.
To monitor the temperature, use a thermocouple probe (Omega, model no. 5TC-GG-J-30-36, $33) wired to a digital voltmeter. Place the probe against the bulb between windings of the heating tape and then wrap the bulb with aluminum foil. Safely secure the bulb so that the neck points downward and turn on the current. Adjust the current so that the voltage from the thermocouple increases by 18 millivolts, the signal that the sieve has reached the correct baking temperature of 350 degrees Celsius. The heat drives off the trapped molecules, including water vapor, which will condense on the bulb's neck and drip out. Leave the heater on until the neck is completely dry. Turn off the heater and pinch off the Tygon tubing to prevent the sieve from absorbing moisture from the air while the bulb cools. And you're ready to connect it to your vessel.
You will need to chill the sorbent with liquid nitrogen. Don't worry--liquid nitrogen is inexpensive (less than $1 per liter) and easy to obtain (try the Yellow Pages under "Welder's Supplies"). It can be safely handled if you exercise some common sense. Store it in a large plastic drink cooler--10 liters will last a weekend. Make sure the container does not have a spigot at the bottom. Do not put the lid on tight, or else pressure from the boiling nitrogen will build up inside and burst the container.
To pump the air out of the canning jar, immerse the Pyrex bulb in the liquid nitrogen. The molecular sieve will suck the air out of the glass chamber, producing a vacuum as low as 10 millitorr.
A few hints. Thoroughly wash and dry the vacuum-vessel assembly before using it, making certain not to touch the inside with your fingers. I'm told that a fingerprint can outgas (evaporate under low pressure) for years if not removed. To drive off moisture, bake the vessel above 100 degrees C for an hour. The epoxy will also outgas, as will any plastic seals in the lid of the canning jar and any coating on the inside of the lid. Minimize the surface area of these materials exposed to the vacuum. If more than about one square centimeter of any of the materials is exposed, consider coating it with vacuum grease, which outgases at a much lower rate.
You can insert a vacuum gauge between the sorption pump and vessel. To measure pressure in the tens of millitorr range, you'll want a thermocouple gauge or a Pirani gauge. These devices exploit the fact that the thermal conductivity of a gas drops sharply from a constant at about one torr to essentially zero at one millitorr. You can purchase a complete thermocouple gauge from Kurt J. Lesker Company in Clairton, Pa. (call 800-245-1656 or 412-233-4200) for about $200. The electronically inclined can save about $150 by buying a type 531 thermocouple vacuum tube for $45 (part no. KJL5311) and then building a simple power supply and amplifier circuit. Pirani gauges, however, are much more versatile and are quite easy and inexpensive to build.
For more about vacuum systems, visit the SAS World Wide Web site and the Bell Jar's site I gratefully acknowledge insightful conversations with George Schmermund, an amateur scientist from Vista, Calif., and with Steve Hansen, editor of the Bell Jar, a newsletter of vacuum experiments and the best amateur science quarterly I've seen.
End of Article.

The above article should give you a general idea of how to achieve a high vacuum without having to resort to using diffusion pumps. I would first use a roughing pump (the one offered by GIThruster) then I’d use a simple sorption pump with a large diameter connection tube to drop the vacuum chamber to a very low level.

I wouldn’t even think about using an ‘Igloo” cooler to hold liquid nitrogen. Most likely the guy’s at the welder supply house would refuse to fill it for you anyway – because they’d think you were an idiot. Instead I’d call a veterinarian or look at a farm & ranch supply house for a liquid nitrogen Dewer (used for artificial insemination of livestock). Or look for a real Dewer on ebay.

~Randy

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

Post by D Tibbets »

Cryogenic pumps are used, but mechanical vane pumps are much easier to use, cheaper in the long run (especially if you buy used) and wii reach similar vacuums. Cryogenic pumps are sometimes used as secondary pumps to improve the vacuum, though again, a diffusion pump is probably cheaper. For looking at plasmas, a modest vacuum of a few hundred Microns (milliTorrs) will work. For real Polywell conditions you need vacuums of ~ 0.1 Microns or better. This is the relm of good tight chambers, and good diffusion pumps or turbomolecular pumps.

A good source for most things vacuum is the"Bell Jar" forum.

http://www.belljar.net/


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

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

The trouble most homemade vacuum systems have is with the wires pass through, which is not in the above system. IMHO, one of the best solutions is to use an acrylic or polycarb vessel and simply heat a copper bar, then pass it half way through the acrylic. This is what Jim Woodward did. There are also dedicated pass through connections one can buy. If you're impedance matching your system you'll want to spend the money, which is not all that much. They also operate by heating and melting the vessel they pass through. If you have a choice, Polycarb is the superior material because of its lower vapor pressure. An acrylic aquarium is however, much cheaper.

If the container can afford to be metal (doubtful) you might consider a vacuum oven as they often have pass throughs and are cheaper than you'd guess. If you can settle for E-4 Torr, my Welch Duo-Seal is on offer but the recipient needs to pay the shipping. I honestly don't see a reason to pursue E-6 with an expensive pump. Before spending what will certainly be thousands of dollars on that, I'd run the Welch to E-3T and E-4T and see if you get any variation in test results. If you don't, you know you don't need to go to harder vacuum.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by D Tibbets »

J B Weld epoxy works well. The problem with any plastic, epoxy, etc. is outgassing. Once, plasma is present the outgassing/ sputtering is magnified. I have sprinkled sand onto and pressed into the surface of the epoxy as it is curing to provide a less exposed plastic surface. Whether this helped or not is unknown.

D 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 »

rjaypeters wrote:Bowed magrid variation:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=1 ... 30c20819b8
With some help, I finally figured out how to display images from Photobucket. I had to begin with [img]and%20end%20with[/img] . What was throwing me was the extra information included with the page address: a question mark and other information. Once I deleted everything after http:// that would not be included with a typical address on a hard disk- directories and file name it worked. I don't know if you can do this with FaceBook images.
See the administration forum for how this was accomplished.

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

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

Post by rjaypeters »

Tibetts/Icarus With A Twist:

Image

Image

Image

Apparently Photobucket is a lot friendlier for this kind of sharing. Facebook and Flickr don't make it so easy to find the code that ends with .jpg. D. Tibbets, Thanks for curing my photoposting envy!
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

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

Post by rjaypeters »

Tibbets Triple with the Icarus Split:

Image Image Image

I will do another version With A Twist.

EDIT: I realized this morning, 19 Oct, these pictures are in error. I will replace them later.

Re-edit: Pictures fixed.
Last edited by rjaypeters on Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

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

Post by rjaypeters »

Tibbets Triple with Icarus Split with a Twist:

Image Image

Image Image

Since this concept has six magnetic elements, is it the closest to the current wiffleball prototypes?

EDIT: I realized this morning, 19 Oct, these pictures are in error. I will replace them later.

Re-edit: Images corrected.
Last edited by rjaypeters on Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Randy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by Randy »

Hi Everyone,

For calculating the magnetic forces between two coils I use an FEA program called FEMM. The FEMM program is free to the public and dirt simple to learn to use. I use it to calculate the forces on the rotors of magnetic bearings. After you have entered the geometry of the problem, the program will number-crunch a magnetic solution for you. From the solution page you can select an object and have the program perform a ‘force from Maxwell stress tensor’ calculation on that object. Sounds big and fancy but it’s just a mouse click and it calculates and displays the x and y components of the magnetic forces acting on that object.

Also, I’ve used the output of the program to display pictures of magnetic field line shapes and magnetic flux densities on this forum before.

Again the FEMM program is free and very easy to use.

http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage

Hope this information is helpful to you.

~Randy

kbaugh
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Fairfax VA

Post by kbaugh »

Is there some quantifiable figure-of-merit to say if any of these variants is "better" than the WB-6 configuration? Do we even have a criteria for saying that a particular grid configuration is "acceptable" or "unacceptable"?

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

Post by rjaypeters »

Randy,
FEMM looks like a 2-D program, but don't we need a 3-D analysis? The FEMM site points to Radia, a 3-D program.

kbaugh,
Figure-of-merit? I don't know. I'm just playing with geometry now.

I am toying with learning FEMM or Radia to do the analyses. Because of my ignorance of things magnetic, I'm not the best choice for the job.

Further, I'd like the readership (or some subset) to advise on which variants to investigate...
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

rjaypeters wrote:Further, I'd like the readership (or some subset) to advise on which variants to investigate...
for that i imagine the brainstorming thread would be a better source.

i'm partial to hanelyp's configuration on pg 1, tombo's inverse wb-6 on pg 5, mine and hanelyp's cusp conversion / disruption techniques on pg 26, and out of curiousity my whacky minimal 6-coil design on same page.

(i'm calling "conversion" putting an electromagnet over a line cusp parallel to the surface (hanelyp's suggestion), and "disruption" as shown in my picture on pg. 26)

from this page i'd take the bowed octahedral grid w/every other coil removed. (not shown)

(i think the inverse-bowed ones are going to have HUGE cusp losses through the centers of the electromagnets.)

as runner-ups, i'd take my single-coil octahedral on pg 25 (on which cusp disruption/conversion could be tested) and tombo's 32-face configuration on pg 5 (which is an octahedron w/the edges bisected)

(all these options would require a 3-d analysis.)

Randy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by Randy »

rjaypeters wrote:Randy,
FEMM looks like a 2-D program, but don't we need a 3-D analysis? The FEMM site points to Radia, a 3-D program.
...
I am toying with learning FEMM or Radia to do the analyses. Because of my ignorance of things magnetic, I'm not the best choice for the job.
...
rjaypeters,

Yes FEMM is a 2D program and this is what keeps it simple. I like simple and you can arrange most magnetic problems as a 2D model to find what you’re looking for. But you are correct that FEMM cannot solve the 3D field arrangement in a magrid.

I’ve looked at Indrick’s [not spelled right] code (“C”) and Radia as well. Radia would be my first choice to tackle a 3D magrid field problem. You are aware that Radia is a Mathematica package. You need a copy of Mathematica to run it. I have an old copy of Mathematica (v5.1) not even sure the Radia package would work with it. I’ve also looked at some example Radia code and it does not look simple. Guess I’ll download Radia and see if I can even play with it. One good note, I have an OpenGL package loaded into my copy of Mathematica. So I can have Mathematica render the 3D solution onto an excellent OpenGL pane where it can easily be manually rotated to observe the solution from different viewpoints.

~Randy

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

Post by rjaypeters »

Randy,
I don't have Mathematica, not sure I can convince my spouse to spend $2500 (or even $250 for M. Home which might not work?). Drat.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Post Reply