Why people are so optimistical to Polywell?

[chrismb]

But you've not even done the simple thing of showing the concept is technically feasible!

If you cannot even present some numbers then what is the sense of it. What if numbers say the beam needs to be 100,000 km across? At least we can decide which issues need facing. You are still going to say 'but it is still a concept'. No. It isn't. Humans have already DONE breakeven fusion, but it came in an impractical package.

Bottom line. JC - your idea is nonsense. I have gone to the trouble of examining and listing every experimental attempt at fusion, and yours is a daft idea that lacks basic understanding of; magnetics, quantum tunneling, beam instabilities, emittance growth, Gauss' Law and a zillion other elementary concepts.

It is a badly thought out, unsupportable word salad. My 6 year old has come up with better fusion schemes.

No-one here is coming to discuss this idea with you. No one is 'defending' it against my comments. Why am I the one to receive your contempt just because I'm the one who has picked up on it to discuss?

Come up with some numbers, or stop posting. Don't post anything that is likely to draw me into another post. Done. Finished.

[Joseph Chikva]

But you've not even done the simple thing of showing the concept is technically feasible!

If you cannot even present some numbers then what is the sense of it. What if numbers say the beam needs to be 100,000 km across? At least we can decide which issues need facing. You are still going to say 'but it is still a concept'. No. It isn't. Humans have already DONE breakeven fusion, but it came in an impractical package.

Bottom line. JC - your idea is nonsense. I have gone to the trouble of examining and listing every experimental attempt at fusion, and yours is a daft idea that lacks basic understanding of; magnetics, quantum tunneling, beam instabilities, emittance growth, Gauss' Law and a zillion other elementary concepts.

It is a badly thought out, unsupportable word salad. My 6 year old has come up with better fusion schemes.

No-one here is coming to discuss this idea with you. No one is 'defending' it against my comments. Why am I the one to receive your contempt just because I'm the one who has picked up on it to discuss?

Come up with some numbers, or stop posting. Don't post anything that is likely to draw me into another post. Done. Finished.

Who did reach breakeven?
I do not know anybody. Please inform. I only can say that even Lawson criterion is very optimistic as that does not consider the efficiency of further energy conversion.

Also I said you that ready to discuss method and not real design using the method.
As a few of my ideas are patentable and due to limited validity of patent I am going to file them later.

With enviable stubbornness again and again you repeat the spells that I don't know physics basics.
This is because I said you that there is no any demand to consider quantum tunneling and we need only the proper energy in center-of-mass frame? So it indeed.
Here you need to get out of habit to mix all you ever read in one salad.
Otherwise you wouldn't mention an O-P reaction. And who said "scattering cross section at 10 degrees"? Me?

I also said you and others that there are two variants of realization the method:
-linear
-cyclic
And linear design will not have the length more than 100 m.
It is not 1 or 3 m for Polywell, it is even larger than TOKAMAK.
Cyclic would be much more compact (about ITER size) but have some restrictions.

And who are you saying "stop posting"? You from yourself stop posting nonsenses as you wish.

[93143]

Who did reach breakeven?

Edward Teller and Stanisław Ulam. Also Andrei Sakharov.

Like he said. Impractical.

[Joseph Chikva]

Who did reach breakeven?

Edward Teller and Stanisław Ulam. Also Andrei Sakharov.

Like he said. Impractical.

Never heard. Thanks.
As I know Sakharov together with Zeldovich and Khariton worked on thermonuclear bomb. Then he has engaged mainly with politics.
Never heard about controlled fusion.
First researches in Soviet Union started under the leading of Arcimovich and not Sakharov.
Also very old that time Abram Ioffe had some ideas. And his institute was involved as well. Also Sokhumi nuclear institute where my father worked(theta pinch).

[93143]

This is because I said you that there is no any demand to consider quantum tunneling and we need only the proper energy in center-of-mass frame? So it indeed.

If I recall correctly, what you seemed to be saying at the time is that if the collision energy could be gotten above the Coulomb barrier, most collisions would result in fusion. This is obvious nonsense, so he challenged it. I think what you meant is that most particles would eventually fuse, which is much more reasonable if you assume your confinement scheme works. Am I wrong?

And who said "scattering cross section at 10 degrees"? Me?

That actually makes perfect sense. If you're talking about Coulomb cross-section, you have to pick a cutoff for the deflection angle because the integral diverges if you don't.

Never heard about controlled fusion.

The 'dry wit' mode of expression goes right over your head, doesn't it? At least in English...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design

It's well above breakeven. It's also wildly impractical as a power plant.

[Joseph Chikva]

This is because I said you that there is no any demand to consider quantum tunneling and we need only the proper energy in center-of-mass frame? So it indeed.

If I recall correctly, what you seemed to be saying at the time is that if the collision energy could be gotten above the Coulomb barrier, most collisions would result in fusion. This is obvious nonsense, so he challenged it. I think what you meant is that most particles would eventually fuse, which is much more reasonable if you assume your confinement scheme works. Am I wrong?

And who said "scattering cross section at 10 degrees"? Me?

That actually makes perfect sense. If you're talking about Coulomb cross-section, you have to pick a cutoff for the deflection angle because the integral diverges if you don't.

Never heard about controlled fusion.

The 'dry wit' mode of expression goes right over your head, doesn't it? At least in English...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design

It's well above breakeven. It's also wildly impractical as a power plant.

Here bellow is the quote from Dr. Rostoker's patent application http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100046687 :

Fusion is the process by which two light nuclei combine to form a heavier one. The fusion process releases a tremendous amount of energy in the form of fast moving particles. Because atomic nuclei are positively charged--due to the protons contained therein--there is a repulsive electrostatic, or Coulomb, force between them. For two nuclei to fuse, this repulsive barrier must be overcome, which occurs when two nuclei are brought close enough together where the short-range nuclear forces become strong enough to overcome the Coulomb force and fuse the nuclei. The energy necessary for the nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier is provided by their thermal energies…

If you do not like the word "majority". Yes, my idea really provides the possibility to majority of particles to react.
Regardless to what you and respectful Chris mean.
Returning to Rostoker's patent I do not see anywhere there the mention of "quantum tunneling".
May be not onle me but Norman Rostoker as well do not know about it. And Chris knows.

So, how big an angle are you proposing to be able to pull back into the beam. 45 degrees? Tell me this, then; what is the scattering cross-section for a 45 degree scatter [or whatever your maximum is] of a deuteron off a triton at 64keV?

In the tread Fusion Cross Section vs. Scattering Cross Section

Dan, I can see that this graph is plotted for scattering of particles at 10 degrees. What you need to take account of is that, for example, scattering at 1 degree.

As I see that you at least know that Coulomb scattering section is calculated as integral.
So, your attempts to cover his nonsenses are especially amusing.
I would like to ask: has scattering integral calculated at 1 or at 10 or at all angles a big difference?
Or may be Chris meant only the angles 1, 10 and 45 degrees without integral? I see so. Because of my bad English?

b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'. There is no energy to be gained by this process, but if your objective is to get a pile of muclear particles then it does that.

What will you tell about reaction of Oppenheimer-Phillips?
Too? It makes sense?

The 'dry wit' mode of expression goes right over your head, doesn't it? At least in English...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design
It's well above breakeven. It's also wildly impractical as a power plant.

I did not understand what you mean with "dry wit"
But I have seen that link. Chris said about

humans have already DONE breakeven but in impractical package

And saw there a lot of about H-bomb history and something on its design.
Have they DONE or only proposed to use underground H-bomb explosion? Something else? Or what?

Summarizing all, I could not see here people who can judge my idea. I do not mean that they are not here. But Chris exactly has not enough knowledge for this - only a porridge in his head

[seedload]

I did not understand what you mean with "dry wit"

Dry wit is a joke that is ironic in nature.

Dry wit sounds serious but is not. It is almost sarcastic but not necessarily so.

In this case, he is talking about an H-bomb which is well above break even but very impractical. The fact that it kinda wipes out stuff is the impractical part of it and the basis for the 'dry wit'.

[Joseph Chikva]

I did not understand what you mean with "dry wit"

Dry wit is a joke that is ironic in nature.

Dry wit sounds serious but is not. It is almost sarcastic but not necessarily so.

In this case, he is talking about an H-bomb which is well above break even but very impractical. The fact that it kinda wipes out stuff is the impractical part of it and the basis for the 'dry wit'.

Thanks for explanation.
But H-bomb is very practical for its purposes.
One bang and loose one city. Second bang - second city.
I meant about that breakeven when device produces net power in electricity form. Or in the other words Controlled Fusion.

Now I understand why Andrei Sakharov. But if H-bomb, there were three not one program leaders: Sakharov, Zeldovich and Khariton. Further all three 3-fold Socialistic Labor Heroes.

[Betruger]

Language doesn't seem like the problem here.

[93143]

If you do not like the word "majority". Yes, my idea really provides the possibility to majority of particles to react.

You need to read more carefully. I have no problem with the above statement; only with previous ones that didn't say the same thing.

A lot of the problem here consists in you misunderstanding people and concluding that they are idiots, and then becoming obstinately impervious to contrary evidence. Being scornful of people because they use unfamiliar terminology is not just the wrong way to approach English; it's the wrong way to approach science.

There seems to be some of this going on in the other direction as well, but I still feel we're being more fair to you than you are to us. From your other thread: "Required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for D+T reaction is about 90 kEV in center-of-mass frame when cross section is maximum and equal to 5 barns." This statement is so badly worded that, taken at face value, it creates a strong impression that you have no idea what you're talking about.

...

Back to "majority": What you initially said was that the relative speed of the beams would be such that the majority of particles would overcome the Coulomb barrier. This phrasing, coupled with the fact that the description is of a uniaxial beam-beam system, seems to imply that the majority of collisions would result in fusion, which is not reasonable. Additionally, chrismb seems to have interpreted it as implying energy sufficient to fuse without quantum tunneling (since the phrase "Coulomb barrier" describes a classical phenomenon); if you had meant that, it would have implied a lack of understanding of what fusion cross section actually describes.

Saying that the majority of particles will react (without the proximate mention of relative speed) is a different statement, and takes confinement quality into account. It is therefore much more reasonable.

...

As for O-P stripping... If I had to guess, I'd say he meant that the D-T reaction would give you a hydrogen with three neutrons, which would promptly blow off a neutron, resulting in a proton, a neutron, a triton, and a net energy loss of 2.2245 MeV.

As I see that you at least know that Coulomb scattering section is calculated as integral.
So, your attempts to cover his nonsenses are especially amusing.
I would like to ask: has scattering integral calculated at 1 or at 10 or at all angles a big difference?

Well, yeah, it depends on the cutoff. If the cutoff is 45 degrees, the calculated cross section will be lower than if it were 1 degree or 10 degrees. The question is, how much lower? What is the large-angle scattering cross section, and how does it compare with the fusion cross section? If your confinement scheme can only handle scattering below a certain angle, and you end up with the cross section for scattering above that angle being substantially greater than the fusion cross section, then your scheme will not fuse the majority of particles before they escape. That's what he meant.

Summarizing all, I could not see here people who can judge my idea. I do not mean that they are not here. But Chris exactly has not enough knowledge for this - only a porridge in his head

After my first skirmish with him on the subject of electrostatics, I'd have agreed with you. I now believe that the trouble was at least partly due to terminology issues (we're both English speakers; what does that tell you?), and that his confidence in his physical understanding is only somewhat greater than warranted.

As for you, the language barrier combined with your evident unwillingness to try to understand things, or even acknowledge that you might not already understand them, is preventing me from making a judgment with any degree of confidence. I will grant that you have a much better grasp of physics than MTKeshe of nasaspaceflight.com infamy (now that guy could sling a word salad), but beyond that I'm not sure...

Twice in the past I have nearly posted to this thread, but decided that it wasn't worth it and deleted my post. Your attitude is not encouraging to those who might otherwise want to discuss things with you.

[Joseph Chikva]

If you do not like the word "majority". Yes, my idea really provides the possibility to majority of particles to react.

I have no problem with the above statement;

Ok

only with previous ones that didn't say the same thing.

A lot of the problem here consists in you misunderstanding people and concluding that they are idiots, and then becoming obstinately impervious to contrary evidence.

The main problem now and here is that you attempt to cover to be gentle not clever statements. Like that how people say here in Georgia - I can join the handle from any direction of pot. But pot has not round shape in our case and all directions are not equal.

"Required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for D+T reaction is about 90 kEV in center-of-mass frame when cross section is maximum and equal to 5 barns." This statement is so badly worded that, taken at face value, it creates a strong impression that you have no idea what you're talking about.

...

Back to "majority": What you initially said was that the relative speed of the beams would be such that the majority of particles would overcome the Coulomb barrier. This phrasing, coupled with the fact that the description is of a uniaxial beam-beam system, seems to imply that the majority of collisions would result in fusion, which is not reasonable. Additionally, chrismb seems to have interpreted it as implying energy sufficient to fuse without quantum tunneling (since the phrase "Coulomb barrier" describes a classical phenomenon); if you had meant that, it would have implied a lack of understanding of what fusion cross section actually describes. Saying that the majority of particles will react (without the proximate mention of relative speed) is a different statement, and takes confinement quality into account. It is therefore much more reasonable.

This is only grammar issue and again please see the Dr. Rostoker's patent application. I do not know about your qualification but Rostoker is Ph.D. of Irvine University.
He did not use quantum tunneling for describing the process. I think that simply he had not any necessity for that. And what do you think?
90 keV as I remember I mentioned as answer on claim of my very respectful opponent that I need many MeVs. Yes, I am repeating now that I need 90 keV or near that. As according to different sources the cross section reachs its maximum of 5 barns at different collision energy in center-of-mass frame: 64 keV, 75keV by one Russian 90 keV. Also here in one thread I found out very interesting thing written by Dan Tibbets that after maximum fusion section falls down slower than scattering section. It would be very useful for my method.

As for O-P stripping... If I had to guess, I'd say he meant that the D-T reaction would give you a hydrogen with three neutrons, which would promptly blow off a neutron, resulting in a proton, a neutron, a triton, and a net energy loss of 2.2245 MeV.

Thanks that you teach me about the possibility of event the probability of which is equal to that President of my country will want to change his sex on opposite for becoming woman.
I did not know -many thanks.
At what cross section? As I remember Chris told about all or majority particles would destroy via that mechanism and in result I would get a pile of particles.
And what do you think?

Well, yeah, it depends on the cutoff. If the cutoff is 45 degrees, the calculated cross section will be lower than if it were 1 degree or 10 degrees. The question is, how much lower? What is the large-angle scattering cross section, and how does it compare with the fusion cross section? If your confinement scheme can only handle scattering below a certain angle, and you end up with the cross section for scattering above that angle being substantially greater than the fusion cross section, then your scheme will not fuse the majority of particles before they escape. That's what he meant.

May be because of my bad English but I see he meant scattering cross section on certain angle. So, misunderstanding what is the scattering cross section.
It is not a problem if that gentleman then would charge me that I do not know physics basics. Yes, I do not know many things. And only the God knows everything. But who claims? Chris?

If your confinement scheme can only handle scattering below a certain angle, and you end up with the cross section for scattering above that angle being substantially greater than the fusion cross section, then your scheme will not fuse the majority of particles before they escape.

My confinement scheme will hold all particles scattered even at 90 degrees as self-magnetic field will return all scattered particles back to right direction. Also passing of some momentums to electron stream will be observed increasing the temperature. Then electrons oscillating in the same self-magnetic field will radiate that thermal energy.

[93143]

The main problem now and here is that you attempt to cover to be gentle not clever statements. Like that how people say here in Georgia - I can join the handle from any direction of pot. But pot has not round shape in our case and all directions are not equal.

...I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying at all. Wait - wait - I think I got it - you think I'm trying to cover for chrismb because he said stupid, ignorant things. (I still don't get the pot analogy, though...)

You are wrong. I'm trying to explain because I believe that the things he said were not stupid or ignorant, but rather the result of miscommunication due both to your very difficult-to-parse English and to his propensity to jump to conclusions.

This is only grammar issue

Exactly. I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong about cross section and collision energies. I'm trying to explain how he misunderstood you, and why he was saying what he did in response.

As for O-P stripping... If I had to guess, I'd say he meant that the D-T reaction would give you a hydrogen with three neutrons, which would promptly blow off a neutron, resulting in a proton, a neutron, a triton, and a net energy loss of 2.2245 MeV.

Thanks that you teach me about the possibility of event the probability of which is equal to that President of my country will want to change his sex on opposite for becoming woman.
I did not know -many thanks. :)

That reaction won't happen unless at least 2.2245 MeV is available in the CoM rest frame, possibly more. It makes sense if you're talking about multi-MeV-range collisions, as chrismb was for reasons I hope I've explained adequately.

May be because of my bad English but I see he meant scattering cross section on certain angle. So, misunderstanding what is the scattering cross section.

There are actually a few things he could have meant. I picked what I thought was the most likely; that he meant 45 degrees or more.

He could also have meant the cross section near 45 degrees, say within 5 degrees in either direction.

Or he could have meant the differential cross section at 45 degrees.


I think I should refrain from further elaboration for the moment, and wait to see if chrismb shows up again to comment. He probably knows what he meant better than I do.

My confinement scheme will hold all particles scattered even at 90 degrees as self-magnetic field will return all scattered particles back to right direction. Also passing of some momentums to electron stream will be observed increasing the temperature. Then electrons oscillating in the same self-magnetic field will radiate that thermal energy.

I'm not arguing that either, since I haven't had time to analyze your proposal. I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind his statements, such as I've been able to infer. And I will point out that he has no reason to believe you when you make such claims about your confinement scheme without numbers or analysis backing them up.

[Joseph Chikva]

and to his propensity to jump to conclusions.

I like your definition.

PS: I think that even if MeVs collision energy the probability of that reaction with birth of hydrogen isotope with 3neutrons will be near zero.
Also as I mentioned above in D+He3 case "O-P stripping" or stripping of deuterium to proton is a target reaction.
D+He3=p+He(3+1)

[Joseph Chikva]

I'm not arguing that either, since I haven't had time to analyze your proposal. I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind his statements, such as I've been able to infer. And I will point out that he has no reason to believe you when you make such claims about your confinement scheme without numbers or analysis backing them up.

I am afraid that if you have not time you will have not that even in case of providing of numbers.
It's excellent if you have corresponding qualification for arguing.
Because as I said it earlier, I disappointed with discussion level here. It is not difficult communicating with some persons "jumping to conclusions".
When you would find time I will share you with some numbers that I am ready to disclosure.

[chrismb]

Come up with some numbers, or stop posting.

I said you that ready to discuss method and not real design using the method.

..

When you would find time I will share you with some numbers that I am ready to disclosure.

Bullshit you got numbers to discuss.

You can go pander your stuff on other forums, but your bluff has been called here, and you have been found wanting.

When you do these 'numbers' for 9', then just remember that the magnetic field an ion produces is not one in its inertial frame - a bunch of ions all moving together generate no magentic field that the others experience. With as many electrons coming one way as ions the other, for space charge neutrality - where's the magnetic field gonna come from?