Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:45 pm
actually, no.rjaypeters wrote: Surely* you know the derivation of the pb&j shorthand?
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
actually, no.rjaypeters wrote: Surely* you know the derivation of the pb&j shorthand?
Protons, Boron-11 & Joules - in reference to the lack of neutron production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion)happyjack27 wrote:what's this about pb&j? i prefer ham, myself.
What?! You haven't read and remember everything that has been written on this forum?happyjack27 wrote:actually, no.rjaypeters wrote: Surely* you know the derivation of the pb&j shorthand?
i want 1m RADIUS circumscribed spherical volume. i.e. square root[(coil radius) squared + (distance from center of coil midplane to absolute center) squared] = 1 meterrjaypeters wrote:
On to business: Do you want 2m diameter or 3m diameter for the bent rings? And subsequent work?
doesn't matter. i can scale the current arbitrarily. and it doesn't make a difference for the polywell anyways. so long as the coils are all in the correct direction _relative to each other_, it's all good. and btw, you can flip the coil current direction just by appending ", -1.0" to the end of each line for that coil.Also, the inverted WB-6 implies (requires?) the current to run in the opposite direction (clockwise) from what I have used in the past (counterclockwise). Does the current direction matter?
If, as it sounds, those are all consequences of the lorentz force, then they wouldn't require any code modifications; they are already modeled as the lorentz force. This is a _direct_ simulation of per-particle (well, with a representation ratio) classical (relativistic) electrodynamics. assuming the lorentz force and biot-savart equations are correct, and the time scale is fine enough, it logically follows that everything that follows from MHD is modeled correctly. (and likewise, if they are incorrect, everything is incorrect in the same way)D Tibbets wrote:I had forgotten, or ignored the concise data in Table 2 of the above referenced paper.
Useful information, though keep in mind this is the pre recirculation epiphany of WB6. The confinement time of electrons of ~ 2 ms in the test machine, and 120 ms (?) in a reactor represents the lifetime of each electron, and the time available for thermalization processes to catch up. My understanding of recirculation is that the primary confinement time may be less, but recirculation more than makes up for this. Also, I believe the aviable thermalization time is limited by the primary confinement, while the recirculated electron is reset to initial conditions. A distinct advantage if electron thermalization time vs electron e-gun input costs is considered. At some point in the evolution of your modeling, this would have to be incorperated into the picture.
Dan Tibbets
What is the difference?"this is not a model, it is a simulation."
from merrian-webster:icarus wrote:happyjack:What is the difference?"this is not a model, it is a simulation."
almost all those errors are actually "limitations associated with availability of computing power", which is just a catch-all really. i believe the largest source of error in my sim is the limited particle count ("spatial" approximation). as stated above. i'm counting on the MHD being what's important and being approximately "correct enough" to have a phase space evolution qualitatively and topologically identical (or very similiar) to a simulation with a 1:1 representation ratio.Usually the largest sources of error with numerical modelling of this sort comes from imperfect boundary conditions, spatial and temporal resolution; all limitations associated with availability of computing power. I don't think you are quite as far along as you seem to be expounding.
Any idea (or effort) yet of the size of your errors that have been produced with the long train of assumptions and shortcuts that you have put into your 'simulation' to get around the lack of computing power?i'm counting on the MHD being what's important and being approximately "correct enough"
Code: Select all
//Deformed coils, 15 deg. central angle, 1m central radius
//deformed coil perimeter (ideal and segmented) = 3.964m
//Unbent coil radius = 0.6305m; ideal unbent circumference = 3.962
//segmented unbent circumference = 3.968
//+x coil deformed begins
32
0.911, 0.572, 0.0, 0.903, 0.566, 0.113
0.903, 0.566, 0.113, 0.877, 0.877, 0.226
0.877, 0.877, 0.226, 0.830, 0.511, 0.341
0.830, 0.511, 0.341, 0.776, 0.446, 0.446
0.776, 0.446, 0.446, 0.776, 0.350, 0.524
0.776, 0.350, 0.524, 0.776, 0.241, 0.583
0.776, 0.241, 0.583, 0.776, 0.123, 0.618
0.776, 0.123, 0.618, 0.776, 0.0, 0.631
0.776, 0.0, 0.631, 0.776, -0.123, 0.618
0.776, -0.123, 0.618, 0.776, -0.241, 0.583
0.776, -0.241, 0.583, 0.776, -0.350, 0.524
0.776, -0.350, 0.524, 0.776, -0.446, 0.446
0.776, -0.446, 0.446, 0.776, -0.524, 0.350
0.776, -0.524, 0.350, 0.776, -0.583, 0.241
0.776, -0.583, 0.241, 0.776, -0.618, 0.123
0.776, -0.618, 0.123, 0.776, -0.631, 0.0
0.776, -0.631, 0.0, 0.776, -0.618, -0.123
0.776, -0.618, -0.123, 0.776, -0.583, -0.241
0.776, -0.583, -0.241, 0.776, -0.524, -0.350
0.776, -0.524, -0.350, 0.776, -0.446, -0.446
0.776, -0.446, -0.446, 0.776, -0.350, -0.524
0.776, -0.350, -0.524, 0.776, -0.241, -0.583
0.776, -0.241, -0.583, 0.776, -0.123, -0.618
0.776, -0.123, -0.618, 0.776, 0.0, -0.631
0.776, 0.0, -0.631, 0.776, 0.123, -0.618
0.776, 0.123, -0.618, 0.776, 0.241, -0.583
0.776, 0.241, -0.583, 0.776, 0.350, -0.524
0.776, 0.350, -0.524, 0.776, 0.446, -0.446
0.776, 0.446, -0.446, 0.830, 0.511, -0.341
0.830, 0.511, -0.341, 0.877, 0.547, -0.226
0.877, 0.547, -0.226, 0.903, 0.566, -0.113
0.903, 0.566, -0.113, 0.911, 0.572, 0.0
//+x coil deformed ends
//+y coil deformed begins
32
0.572, 0.911, 0.0, 0.566, 0.903, -0.113
0.566, 0.903, -0.113, 0.547, 0.877, -0.226
0.547, 0.877, -0.226, 0.511, 0.830, -0.341
0.511, 0.830, -0.341, 0.446, 0.776, -0.446
0.446, 0.776, -0.446, 0.350, 0.776, -0.524
0.350, 0.776, -0.524, 0.241, 0.776, -0.583
0.241, 0.776, -0.583, 0.123, 0.776, -0.618
0.123, 0.776, -0.618, 0.0, 0.776, -0.631
0.0, 0.776, -0.631, -0.123, 0.776, -0.618
-0.123, 0.776, -0.618, -0.241, 0.776, -0.583
-0.241, 0.776, -0.583, -0.350, 0.776, -0.524
-0.350, 0.776, -0.524, -0.446, 0.776, -0.446
-0.446, 0.776, -0.446, -0.524, 0.776, -0.350
-0.524, 0.776, -0.350, -0.583, 0.776, -0.241
-0.583, 0.776, -0.241, -0.618, 0.776, -0.123
-0.618, 0.776, -0.123, -0.631, 0.776, 0.0
-0.631, 0.776, 0.0, -0.618, 0.776, 0.123
-0.618, 0.776, 0.123, -0.583, 0.776, 0.241
-0.583, 0.776, 0.241, -0.524, 0.776, 0.350
-0.524, 0.776, 0.350, -0.446, 0.776, 0.446
-0.446, 0.776, 0.446, -0.350, 0.776, 0.524
-0.350, 0.776, 0.524, -0.241, 0.776, 0.583
-0.241, 0.776, 0.583, -0.123, 0.776, 0.618
-0.123, 0.776, 0.618, 0.0, 0.776, 0.631
0.0, 0.776, 0.631, 0.123, 0.776, 0.618
0.123, 0.776, 0.618, 0.241, 0.776, 0.583
0.241, 0.776, 0.583, 0.350, 0.776, 0.524
0.350, 0.776, 0.524, 0.446, 0.776, 0.446
0.446, 0.776, 0.446, 0.511, 0.830, 0.341
0.511, 0.830, 0.341, 0.547, 0.877, 0.226
0.547, 0.877, 0.226, 0.566, 0.903, 0.113
0.566, 0.903, 0.113, 0.572, 0.911, 0.0
//+y coil deformed ends