Should EMC2 publish reasons to go over Rider´s limitation?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Should EMC2 publish reasons to go over Rider´s limitation?

Post by jlumartinez »

Polywell and Monkhorst-Rostoker FRC system are 2 different IEC fusion ways to achieve fusion breakeven conditions. According to Rider´s papers about IEC devices all them are restricted to not achieve net power fusion.

But those research state that they have overcame those limitations and they are ready to develop net fusion power using the same fusion reaction (p+B11)

I found a paper ("Energy gain calculations in Penning fusion systems using a bounce-averaged Fokker–Planck model", by Miley in Physics of Plasmas, 2000) where another IEC fusion technology (which also creates an electrostatic well as Polywell) claims also to be able to overcome those limitations. They propose to achieve gains over 100 (Q> 100). Physics of Plasmas is a well-known peer-reviewed issue.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... s&gifs=yes

It would be great if all they join efforts to make a general critic to Rider´s limitations, and have strong evidence to stop skeptics´s complains.

Opinions ?

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

I always found it strange that a single student discredits an entire promising field regarding fusion, and then starts working in a non-fusion related job. Somehow, that he did a slippery job does not surprise me.

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Post by cuddihy »

Zixinus wrote:I always found it strange that a single student discredits an entire promising field regarding fusion, and then starts working in a non-fusion related job. Somehow, that he did a slippery job does not surprise me.
Monkhorst has done a critique of Rider's approach, in which he says it is not possible to do the general sort of analytic approach that Rider uses, and in particular that the form of the velocity distribution equations Rider uses are wildly inappropriate and even non-sensical in that application.

Of course, some others disagree.
http://sci-phys-plasma.caeds.eng.uml.ed ... -98-18.htm
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

The link, and even the site itself does not work.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

I have searched (using Google Scholar ) the papers where Monkhorst-Rostoker have done the calculation to limit Rider´s results (" Fundamental limitations on plasma systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium",2001 and "Colliding Beam Fusion Reactors",2003) and also and article by Nevins and the response of Monkrorst- Rostoker

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001APS..DPPUP1055R
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p3rh75r4n381366w/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5375/307a

It seem that Rider made a generic approach to all IEC devices but each one has different parameter to calculate its gain limits. If Rider is wrong once it would invalidate partially his results. Monkrorst- Rostoker base their justification in non-Maxwellian plasmas, just the same as appears in a Polywell reactor.

They have get funds to keep on researching. The main difference, in my opinion, between then and Bussard is that they have many technical papers published (one of them in Science Magazine, 1997 ). All these papers helps to find investors because they give a strong base to justify the project budget.

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Post by JoeStrout »

jlumartinez wrote:They have get funds to keep on researching. The main difference, in my opinion, between then and Bussard is that they have many technical papers published (one of them in Science Magazine, 1997 ). All these papers helps to find investors because they give a strong base to justify the project budget.
Yes, exactly. Bussard's research, in contrast, was all done under a publishing embargo, except for the very early work. This is unfortunate in the extreme, and is why I'm personally hoping the Navy contract remains unfunded — it's poisoned money, in the sense that it prevents any other money from flowing.

Still, it's very good to see the Monkrorst-Rostoker papers; their objections to Rider most likely apply to Polywell machines as well (as you pointed out).
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Post by cuddihy »

Zixinus wrote:
The link, and even the site itself does not work.
Strange, that link was working last week. Paul Dietz pointed me to it after I responded to some of his comments on Rand Simberg's blog.

Anyway, that message board was in response to a Rostoker article published in a journal (Science) in 1998. I won't attempt to summarize the content, but the tone was that Rostoker didn't provide any more justification for his assertions than [edit] Nevins [/edit deleted Rider].
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

Are there other scientific criticisms of Dr.Rider's work?

rexxam62
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:13 pm

Wikify Fusion

Post by rexxam62 »

Zixinus wrote:Are there other scientific criticisms of Dr.Rider's work?
I found this forum thread on Bremsstrahlung losses. It is very informative and Tim Ligon even made some posts there. Have a look:

Tom Ligon, Rider & Bremsstrahlung losses

//Rexxam62

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

Another criticism to Rider´s thesis. It´s a pity but the link inside this webpage doesn´t work.
http://fusor.net/old-boards/songs.com/m ... -1584.html

We have collected a big list of papers which refute Rider´s ideas. It´s strange, at least, that a physical theory have so many criticisms...
Last edited by jlumartinez on Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rexxam62
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:13 pm

Post by rexxam62 »

jlumartinez wrote:Another criticism to Rider´s thesis. It´s a pity but the link inside this webpage doesn´t work.
http://fusor.net/old-boards/songs.com/m ... -1584.html

We have collected a big list of papers which refute Rider´s ideas. It´s strange, at least, that a mathematical theory have some many criticisms...
what in gods name does this mean:

"The nearly aneutronic fuels are not merely more difficult, but are impossible, unless you can find a very large loophole." ?

So both Dr Todd Rider and Dr Arthur Carlson thinks Dr Bussards Polywell fusion is impossible?

Well one thing is for sure the Sun comes up everyday. Just like the birds was flying around in the skies before the Airplane.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

what in gods name does this mean:
"The nearly aneutronic fuels are not merely more difficult, but are impossible, unless you can find a very large loophole." ?
It means that "No one should try with aneutronic fuels, anyone saying anything else is whacked. Unless we can find the magical pixie dust that will help us solve all our problems!"

Let me quote Arthur C. Clarke:
# "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

At least Carlson states that D-T fusion breakeven (an also D-D) is possible in IEC reactors. Maybe, at the end (if pB11 is not reachable) Polywell will may work with D-T. It will be a big step anyway

rexxam62
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:13 pm

Post by rexxam62 »

jlumartinez wrote:At least Carlson states that D-T fusion breakeven (an also D-D) is possible in IEC reactors. Maybe, at the end (if pB11 is not reachable) Polywell will may work with D-T. It will be a big step anyway
um whats the point with fusion and radiation? you can just do fission then.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

Fusion has much more advantages than fission, not only radiation. Aneutronic fusion has another else advantage because it doesn´t produce radiation. But even the radiation of a normal neutronic fusion is x1000 lower than fission because it doesn´t produce radioactive sub-product . In case of D-T fusion the [[helium produced]] (EDIT: the tritium used) is just radioactive for 10-20 years, not thousands of years as happens with fission. D-T Neutronic fusion only radiates the metal of the fusion reactor.

We are expecting direct aneutronic fusion from Polywell just from the first moment. First it has to conquest normal D-T or D-D fusion. Even this, it will be a great step forward!!! Later the aneutronic fusion will be the next challenge.
Last edited by jlumartinez on Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply