Vahid and Aslan,
I think you will find that most here agree. It is better to get along and not compete. Acceptance is the key. Enough politics though. Too easy to open a can of worms.
Aslan,
I am sorry, I thought you were associated with Vahid's team. Fair enough. So what is you current project? I am sure we would be interested to hear that as well. There are many folks here, as you may well know, with diverse backgrounds and expertise. Sometimes, you may find the insights very useful, or at least the debate.
Vahid,
So now that you have done the PIC sim, and obviously have been playing with fusors, when do you think you will start your next step, and what is it? It would be interesting to know how you plan to crack the nut and your ideas and plan on how to move the project forward. As with us here, I am guessing that project funding is a potnetial issue.
For both of you, Persia has a great history with science, I and think it is cool that you have a chance to continue in the history.
New Polywell Reactor Article in Journal of Fusion Energy
ladajo,
1- He is not in our group but he has asked to join us.
2- We think that our group articles published in prestigious scientific journals, will help to approve this project.
3- Our first step after funding, will be WB7 or WB8 or a 32 faces Polywell.
.
1- He is not in our group but he has asked to join us.
2- We think that our group articles published in prestigious scientific journals, will help to approve this project.
3- Our first step after funding, will be WB7 or WB8 or a 32 faces Polywell.
.
Engineering Is the Art of Making What You Want from What You Can Get at a Profit. ( MSimon )
The first thing that Dr. B. wanted to do after the more robust WB6 (that got called WB7) was to try a square plan-form version of WB6/7. I personally think that it would be beneficial to make it a bowed square plan-form version. And it should be quite easy to build.
PM me if you are intersted in discussion this.
PM me if you are intersted in discussion this.
Hi, Kiteman,KitemanSA wrote:The first thing that Dr. B. wanted to do after the more robust WB6 (that got called WB7) was to try a square plan-form version of WB6/7. I personally think that it would be beneficial to make it a bowed square plan-form version. And it should be quite easy to build.
PM me if you are intersted in discussion this.
In larger reactors, I think that we have two methods in square-shaped Magrids:
1 - Two adjacent square, the sides are not parallel. (The corners of squares are adjacent.)
2 - Two adjacent square, the sides are parallel. ( The sides of squares, are adjacent.)
In the first case, the cusp can be larger. This is not good.
In the second case, non-parallel current carrying wires repel each other. In a real-size Polywell reactor, maybe we can't keep togther, two wires carrying high direct currents. Maybe it is impossible. (40000turns*100Ampers== 4 Mega Amper)
..
If you mean another shape, please send it.
.
Engineering Is the Art of Making What You Want from What You Can Get at a Profit. ( MSimon )
That is an aspect I had not considered. A circle is the strongest shape for containing an expansive force like the parallel (or near parallel) wires repelling each other. I don't know how much distorting force would be pushing on the sides of the magnet casing at 5-10 Tesla, but I'm guessing this is considerable. Even strong stainless steel starts to creap ( loses strength at temperatures below ~ 500-550 degrees C. Circular forms are more tolorant from an engineering perspective. If P-B11 fusion ever works, there may be less thermal stress on the magrid, and this might be an area where this advanced fusion fuel eases some engineering concerns.
ie: since you are not using steam as the primary means to generate electricity, you do not need to push the steam temperature to maximize efficiency. You can use faster coolent flows, and or less heating from neutrons in order to keep the structure cooler, thus gaining structural advantages along with durability and life cycle costs.
Dan Tibbets
ie: since you are not using steam as the primary means to generate electricity, you do not need to push the steam temperature to maximize efficiency. You can use faster coolent flows, and or less heating from neutrons in order to keep the structure cooler, thus gaining structural advantages along with durability and life cycle costs.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
[/quote]vahid wrote:D Tibbets wrote:If he is running a Polywell. The abstract seems to indicate that they were running a computer simulation.
If he/ they have produced fusion at ~ 10^7 neutrons/ second, it could be from a 'simple' fusor. The best amateur fusioneers are reaching near this level. So, this does not imply an operating Polywell. Even > 10^9 neutrons /s might be obtainable if they have reproduced Hirsch's ion fed fusor from the early 1970's. The U. Wisconson at Madison has tried to do this, their results as of last year were ambiguous. Perhaps if they are presenting at this years conference in Early Dec. they will have expanded results.
Dan Tibbets
You are absolutely right about that.
In this study, we didn't do experimental study in connection with Polywell device. Of course we hope to do it in the future.
In this work, we just showed that in Polywell methode; unlike MCF (Tokamaks, et. al.); we don't need to produce very high magnetic field. There is an optimum magnetic field value to produce appropriate potential well depth in a Polywell reactor. If the reactor's magnetic field is more or less than the optimum value, the potential well depth is reduced.
This phenomena can reduce the cost of Polywell reactor.
When you refer to an ideal magnetic strength for maximizing the potential well, are you referring to Beta= one conditions, or the strength of the potential well related to the accelerating voltage on the e-guns or magrid? Bussard claimed a potential well of ~ 80% to 85% of the accelerating voltage.
Increasing that to ~ 95-100% would have some advantage for input energy costs. But, up scattered electrons are undesirable. With the potential well at ~ 80% of the accelerating potential an electron that is upscattered by ~20% may be recovered through recirculation. With the potential well near 100% of the accelerating voltage, any upscattering of an electron would result in it's loss. Of course if the potential well = the accelerating potential all of the exiting electrons energy would be recovered up to that 100 %. You would lose upscattered electrons faster, but the energy carried away per electron may be less as they leave earlier in their upscattering cascade. This may effect thermalization issues along with energy input costs. The picture is complex. I think that more electrons would escape but the energy loss per upscattered electron may be less be equivalent amount(?). The total loss may be equivalent from the perspective of the potential well. With recirculation extending the electrons lifetime by a factor of 10 to 100, the initial difference between the injection energy is diluted by recirculation. Also, the current needed to maintain the potential on the magrid against voltage droop due to the electron current to the walls may provide a gain. This may not be worth much with high Q efficiency, but for lower Q's like with P-B11, this may be a significant margin.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
This is a poor graphic of what Dr. B was planning to do.vahid wrote:Hi, Kiteman,KitemanSA wrote:The first thing that Dr. B. wanted to do after the more robust WB6 (that got called WB7) was to try a square plan-form version of WB6/7. I personally think that it would be beneficial to make it a bowed square plan-form version. And it should be quite easy to build.
PM me if you are intersted in discussion this.
In larger reactors, I think that we have two methods in square-shaped Magrids:
1 - Two adjacent square, the sides are not parallel. (The corners of squares are adjacent.)
2 - Two adjacent square, the sides are parallel. ( The sides of squares, are adjacent.)
In the first case, the cusp can be larger. This is not good.
the magnets would be connected together, prehaps at the corners or perhaps better away from the corners. Since there is no line like cusp, it seems this makes the smallest set of cusps of any of his designes except maybe the dodecahedral unit. I think a bowed version of this would be the place to start.
This iw what tombo drew up under my coaching.vahid wrote:
In the second case, non-parallel current carrying wires repel each other. In a real-size Polywell reactor, maybe we can't keep togther, two wires carrying high direct currents. Maybe it is impossible. (40000turns*100Ampers== 4 Mega Amper)
..
If you mean another shape, please send it.
.
This is Dr. B's MPG machine.
This is my bowed version of same.
The corners would need to be connected as stated above.
These next four are different views of a varient of the bowed unit. This is the most difficult to make, but not too hard I think.
Yes, their work ''The dependence of the virtual cathode in a Polywell™ on the coil current and background gas pressure'' is one of our refrences.ladajo wrote:Vahid,
Have you read Joe Khachan and his work on well depth dependancy? It would seem to be very similar to yours.
.
Engineering Is the Art of Making What You Want from What You Can Get at a Profit. ( MSimon )
Thank You, kiteman.
The first shape isn't good because of cusps increasing.
Other 6 shapes are very suitable with very small cusps.
Your ideas are very good.
It seems, construction of it will be more difficult.
Do you have some Suggestions about constructing them?
The first shape isn't good because of cusps increasing.
Other 6 shapes are very suitable with very small cusps.
Your ideas are very good.
It seems, construction of it will be more difficult.
Do you have some Suggestions about constructing them?
Engineering Is the Art of Making What You Want from What You Can Get at a Profit. ( MSimon )
Dan Tibbets,
In this work we assumed that potential well depth is about 80% of accelerating voltage. So, we showed that if the magnetic field strength be more than optimum value, this depth starts to decrease.
In this work we assumed that potential well depth is about 80% of accelerating voltage. So, we showed that if the magnetic field strength be more than optimum value, this depth starts to decrease.
Engineering Is the Art of Making What You Want from What You Can Get at a Profit. ( MSimon )
[/quote]
The first one is Dr. Bussard's design and he seemed to think that the cusps would DEcrease and the sphericity would improve such that the overall output would gain by a factor of ~5. It is also by far the easiest of the three to build.vahid wrote: Thank You, kiteman.
The first shape isn't good because of cusps increasing.
Yes, but not for free. Co-mention in the patent would be plausible payment.vahid wrote:
Other 6 shapes are very suitable with very small cusps.
Your ideas are very good.
It seems, construction of it will be more difficult.
Do you have some Suggestions about constructing them?
