Talk-Polywell.org

Elsewhere, MSimon wrote:Most significant is that the Navy calls Polywell "Applied Research".

Which says the science is more or less proved.

VERY promising. It looks like the core scaling assumptions outlined by Bussard in the Valencia paper are holding up.

Based on this, isn't it time to do detailed engineering studies on the first-cut implications. QED rockets, etc?

I'm going from vague memory of those papers, but what new info do we have to improve on the studies hosted at askmar as pdf's?

djolds1 wrote:VERY promising. It looks like the core scaling assumptions outlined by Bussard in the Valencia paper are holding up.

My takeaway from discussions a few months back about the current round of funding, that I had with a source I trusted, was that this next round of contracts IS designed to actually prove out the scaling effects (and also to get some better diagnostics, and to develop specific hardware (ion guns, etc) to operate a Polywell reactor).

(Too bad I met this contact at a retirement seminar, since we are both leaving the Navy within the next few months... Would have been nice to keep an insider contact...)

Be Safe
Mumbles

Mumbles wrote:

djolds1 wrote:VERY promising. It looks like the core scaling assumptions outlined by Bussard in the Valencia paper are holding up.

My takeaway from discussions a few months back about the current round of funding, that I had with a source I trusted, was that this next round of contracts IS designed to actually prove out the scaling effects (and also to get some better diagnostics, and to develop specific hardware (ion guns, etc) to operate a Polywell reactor).

(Too bad I met this contact at a retirement seminar, since we are both leaving the Navy within the next few months... Would have been nice to keep an insider contact...)

Be Safe
Mumbles

That sounds about right. WB-7 proves the science. WB-8 proves the scaling.

If WB-7 had neutron counts on the order of WB-6, even if they did 500 runs their knowledge is going to be iffy. Order of magnitude stuff.

WB-8 with 4,000X neutrons per shot - changes on the order of 5% or more in output should be easily discernible.

That also says that reaction constants should be known to within 5% (if they hold) - good enough for engineering work.

Won't they need some protective shielding at 5%, I remember Tom saying if WB6 had produced even 1% it would be have been dangerous.

choff wrote:Won't they need some protective shielding at 5%, I remember Tom saying if WB6 had produced even 1% it would be have been dangerous.

WB-8 is probably going to require shielding. WB-9 definitely.

BTW what I was trying to explain was that at 10,000 neutrons into the detector per shot, an increase of the neutron rate to 10,500 is statistically significant.

However, with 3 neutrons per shot you would need an increase to 6 or more to be sure of statistical significance.

So in one case a change in operation that produced a 5% difference would be easy to detect while in the other case a change of 100% is not certain.