Questions about a notional all-up Polywell

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Questions about a notional all-up Polywell

Post by djolds1 »

Duane:

Could you find out whether a Polywell reactor output can be increased or decreased while it is running? Also, how fast is it's startup sequence?

Mike
Vae Victis

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

Post by MSimon »

What do you mean by start up sequence?

1. From atmospheric pressure
2. From vacuum with no fuel flow
3. From vacuum with fuel flow and cold electron guns
4. From vacuum with fuel flow and hot electron guns
5. From the time you turn on the HV

===

If you choose #5 it is in the range of 1 to 100 ms.


********************************************

Polywell should be able to be modulated by grid voltage and/or fuel flow.

How much? No one knows.

Estimates of max/min go from 1.1 to better than 9 to 1.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

If your talking about #1 above- starting from atmoapheric pressure.
It might take a few hours to a few days to pump down and condition the chamber (allow for outgassing of water, etc. from the walls).

If MSimon's 1:9 min/max power applies, with a ~ 1 ms startup time, a series of 10 reactors could throttle quickly between 1-90 X power. Of course a series of reactors would probably be less efficient(with more waste heat) than a single reactor. A more reasonable approach might be a low power reactor- say 50 MW used for regular power in a space ship, while a 5-10 GW reactor is used to power the engines when needed. This would allow more adaptability, and lower radiation loads while keeping a reactor (the little one) running. If the smaller reactor is placed between the big reactor and the rest of the ship, it could serve double duty by helping to shield ther rest of the ship without as much innert weight penalty. I suspect going much below ~ 20-30(?) MW maximum power reactors would be impratical as the excess energy (Q) would be getting uncomfortably close to breakeven .

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

And when you've taken some klingon phaser fire and your main power reactor fails, at least you've got 20 MW for impulse drives.

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Post by pfrit »

MirariNefas wrote:And when you've taken some klingon phaser fire and your main power reactor fails, at least you've got 20 MW for impulse drives.
Dude, Klingons use disrupters, not phasers. Get with the program.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

vernes
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by vernes »

pfrit wrote:Dude, Klingons use disrupters, not phasers. Get with the program.
You get a medal!
It will look great on your red shirt.

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

Post by Roger »

vernes wrote:
pfrit wrote:Dude, Klingons use disrupters, not phasers. Get with the program.
You get a medal!
It will look great on your red shirt.
Obviously on the Command track.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Post Reply