SO Dr NEbel wants to build a 1.6 meter, 100MW net power WB-8

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

SO Dr NEbel wants to build a 1.6 meter, 100MW net power WB-8

Post by Roger »

No power windows, No Carburetor, No Exhaust, No Grids, NO Cooling, Pulse mode like WB-6 & 7.

RV batteries and capacitors. Grid power ?

Because I'm not sure we're talking the about Bussards old 200 million figure. Wasnt 200 mill for a few the size of WB-6, then the proof of concept ?

What I'm really asking is if Dr Nebel built Wb-7 for 1.8 mill. Whats a 1.6 meter Polywell going to cost ?

18 million ? I dunno, you tell me.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

Please post a cite for this where he said this.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Back to Alan.

Post by Helius »

Again back to Alan Boyle:

"We're looking at power generation with this machine," Nebel said. "This machine is so inexpensive going into the 100-megawatt range that there's no compelling reason for not just doing it. We're trying to take bigger steps than you would with a conventional fusion machine."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 36887.aspx

Not being compelled not to is not the same as being compelled to, so I guess his views are kind of .... nuanced.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Back to Alan.

Post by Roger »

Helius wrote: Not being compelled not to is not the same as being compelled to, so I guess his views are kind of .... nuanced.


How much money ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Because I'm not sure we're talking the about Bussards old 200 million figure. Wasnt 200 mill for a few the size of WB-6, then the proof of concept ?
No, $200M is for the 100MW machine.
Fusion R&D Phase 1 - Validate and review WB-6 results: 1.5 - 2 years / $3-5M
Fusion R&D Phase 2 - Design, build and test full scale 100 MW Fusion System: 5 years / $200M
http://www.emc2fusion.org/

That's not only a working BFR, that's a p-B11 machine. It's maybe $150M for a D-D, according to Valencia.
Because of this B4R3 scaling of fusion output, which makes
fusion power scale as the 7th power of size, and the corollary
5th power scaling of system gain, it is obvious that little can
be gained short of building the next system at full-scale.
Further tests at the present small scale (1/10 of that needed)
will not tell much more than is already known - and R&D at
2 or 3 times the present level still does not come remotely
close to reaching the conditions to prove net power.
To demonstrate net power requires a full-scale system, that
can be run steady-state, cooled and with controllable timing
and power supplies. And this can be done only with a
funding level of $ 150 M (DD) to $ 200M (pB11), over a
program duration of about five-years of carefully directed
and guided effort. Given this level of funding and the
DT&E it will pay for to achieve pB11 net power from a full
scale demonstration system, a full scale demo plant could
signal the eventual end of dependence on oil and all other
fossil fuels by CY 2013. Subsequent full scale synthetic
fuels and direct electric power plants could then be built over
following decades by ca. CY 2030-2040. And work could
begin on the application of such systems to
superperformance space power and space propulsion
systems, as well. The cost of this program is less than 1/8
that of the present magnetic fusion program of the US DoE.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Like Helius says, it sounds like he's looking ahead at the best path from an eventual successful evaluation. Not that he's committing to the evaluation (this august officialy, or anytime if it happens privately) being successful.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Dave, I know what Bussard said. Bussard wanted to build 2 more smaller machines, ( We know Bussard wanted to build a dodec. ) before going large.

Dr Nebel just built a 35cm machine for 1.8 mill. How much is the same machine sized to 160cm ?

TallDave wrote:
Fusion R&D Phase 1 - Validate and review WB-6 results: 1.5 - 2 years / $3-5M
What does the above quote mean ? It means build those 2 machines.

Quite frankly its clear to me that for that 3-5mill one can build 2-3 small machines.

I think Nebel knows that if he builds WB-8 as s 1.6 meter 100MW size, and it exceeds break even, that its a game breaker. Much Like Simons LN2 cooled WB-7x, in strategy.

I'm mean...... think of the headlines.

It may be that Nebel handles the politics better. If so what is his strategy? If Nebel came up with Q=1.1 or so.... folks will be saying "Toka - what ?" I think about the way Dr Nebel has played his hand, during 2007, hes done well... Like.... Nebel blogs. I think that plays into his grand strategy.

Whats the one thing that would open up the coffers ?

NET POWER.

Then there will be enough to fund programs at a 1/2 dozen Universities.

NET POWER will get attention, in the Military and in Congress.

WE have a very small size of Cadre to get this off the ground, we all know that. IS Nebel parlaying his next move so that he can take this bigger and wider ? I would think so.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
No, $200M is for the 100MW machine.
No, 200million is for a whole program. 3-5 machines.

At least:

1) Dodec
2) Prove scaling
2) Prove PB-11 fusion
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: SO Dr NEbel wants to build a 1.6 meter, 100MW net power

Post by Roger »

Roger wrote:No power windows, No Carburetor, No Exhaust, No Grids, NO Cooling, Pulse mode like WB-6 & 7.

RV batteries and capacitors. Grid power ?

Because I'm not sure we're talking the about Bussards old 200 million figure. Wasnt 200 mill for a few the size of WB-6, then the proof of concept ?

What I'm really asking is if Dr Nebel built Wb-7 for 1.8 mill. Whats a 1.6 meter Polywell going to cost ?

18 million ? I dunno, you tell me.

I cant believe that with the brain trust we have here, no one is capable of a straight answer.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The biggest single scale up material cost is power supplies.

I imagine a number of experiments will need to be done as well.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

MSimon wrote:The biggest single scale up material cost is power supplies.

I imagine a number of experiments will need to be done as well.
Right, no RV batteries.

Let me guess 6 to 9 million, for Vacuum chamber and the coils. Another 8 to 12 million for power supply ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Roger wrote:
MSimon wrote:The biggest single scale up material cost is power supplies.

I imagine a number of experiments will need to be done as well.
Right, no RV batteries.

Let me guess 6 to 9 million, for Vacuum chamber and the coils. Another 8 to 12 million for power supply ?
I figure 5 to 20 MW at $1 a watt. That may be a little high. Probably good enough for estimating. Super conducting magnets: $5 to $10 million for the first set. Going down to $2 million in production. Cooling system at about $5 to $20 million for the first one.

I think production units will be able to get by with smaller supplies that have 1 to 10 second pulse capability. Maybe a flywheel for start up. 5 to 100 MJ.

We will want continuous operation for experimental purposes to study stability etc. If the supplies are modular (I have a design) capacity might be added as requirements dictate (esp additional current).

Then a big pot of $$$ for technical experiments (alpha erosion for one, POPS for another). Lots of $$$ for engineering. Safety systems will especially be a low hardware cost, high design cost effort.

I'd like Rickover like specifications for the whole operation - i.e. max allowable normal leakage equivalent to 1 drop of reactor coolant water in 300 years operation per reactor. Why so stringent? With 100,000 reactors total leakage will be about a liter a year (more or less). It will be dispersed. Still. I'd like to have an emission rate so low that it makes no measurable difference in the background outside the plant perimeter.

Of course if you want to shorten the development cycle considerably then you need to be doing things in parallel that could be done cheaper in series. So multiply by 2X to 5X to reduce the time by 1 year. 10X to 30X for a 2 year reduction. 100x or more to cut 3 years off the 5 year $200 million plan. You also have to know that the harder you push the schedule the bigger the chances of failure (at least in the alloted time frame).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

I'm talking about one machine, just like WB -7, just 160cm instead of 30cm coils.

Thats all, just a bigger version of WB-7.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Roger wrote:I'm talking about one machine, just like WB -7, just 160cm instead of 30cm coils.

Thats all, just a bigger version of WB-7.
Hard to do because of the coil scaling laws. On time goes down as the square of the linear size or something like that due to coil heating.

Say WB-7 can run for 10 mS. If it is a "squared" scaling law you are now down to 10/25 (.4) mS of run time at 1.5 m. Wrong way. The bigger machine needs longer to reach equilibrium than a small machine.

I think 30 cm coils cooled with LN2 is about the limit for a continuous operation experimental machine. Maybe double that.

If you are going to 1.5 m, you are going with superconductors. If you run D-D and don't care about coil longevity (1 hr estimated) we can make do with some specially constructed MRI magnets (water jackets for alpha/neutron cooling). That might be acceptable for initial experimental purposes. (360 - 10 second runs).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply