The allegation that the present specification is not enabling is incorrect. In support of this assertion, the Office Action refers to the paper by Morozov. The system describing in the Morozov paper has densities 1.0x10^14 /cc and confinement time of seconds. In contrast, the plasmas resulting from the system according to the invention can have ion densities ~ 1.0x10^17 /cc (see page 19 line 22). Consequently, the required confinement times drop by at least 3 orders of magnitude. In fact, the different in confinement time is actually greater because of non-Maxwellian nature of the plasma, as described further bellow.
But there is not a principal difference as Dr. Nebel is going to achieve the density 1.0x10^17 /cc with utilization of very strong magnets (10T).
With the same success Russians also can improve magnetic field. And it would not be a big problem for them.
Page 4
However, the plasma described in the present application is not in local thermodynamic equilibrium. ….. This gives an ion distribution at the center which is close to monoenergetic and strongly radial is direction. ….
In page 3 he also writes about quantity of electrons passes equal to 16800.
I could not find how much passes should be done by ions. But does Dr. Nebel state that after number of passes ions will keep “strongly radial direction”?
Where are forces allowing that?
Why don't they try to patent it just as a neutron sorce instead of energy device. Call it "Farnsworth fusor on steroids" and the questions about breaking even, recirculation, power density and scaling become moot.
Also interesting that the examiners, like so many others, make assumptions based on LTE without realizing it.
Cusp-plugging makes an appearance too.
A very interesting document.
geleto -- if you read down, they actually do claim additional uses as a neutron source.
Here's Rick on annealing. The Chacon paper can found with a search here on T-P.
2. The general rule of thumb on ion collisions is that ion collisions in the core add angular momentum to the ions (thermalization) while collisions in the edge remove angular momentum. The reasons edge collisions remove angular momentum is that as the ions reach their radial turning point, their angular velocity exceeds the radial velocity. Consequently, thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction. The collision rate gets big because the velocities are small. The upshot of this is that if you want to look at the effect of collisions on ions, you have to do something like bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck where you take into account the collisions at all points in the ion orbit. There are two places this is discussed in the literature. The original work is:
M. ROSENBERG and N. A. KRALL, Phys. Fluids B, 4,1788 (1992)
There is also a 1993 paper by these authors (I don’t have good access to Journals here) but I think the correct one is the one above. Of course, the Chacon paper also looks at this.
Last edited by TallDave on Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
from what i read of the patent log so far, same old, same old objections. people seem to assume that Polywell is principally a magnetic containment device, which it is not and that it's use of velocity space is the same as conventional use of thermal space which it is not. some other engineering objections about flux cutting and stuff.
from what i can see Morozov's ideas are based on entirely different concepts ('myxina' and Galatea Traps if you will). i can find out little about his area work, but is certainly isn't anything like a Polywell from what i understand. I don't understand why it was even referenced as a source of objection. There are better sources if you want objections - just ask Art Carlson.
strikes me that the only truly convincing answer to Polywell 'enablement' questions will be based on reliable scaling data - which we assume Nebel is in the process of determining as we speak.
PS. considering Polywell is a US Defence contract, i wonder if its not in their interests to pull some strings with the examiners.. Disgraceful suggestion, I know.
The examiners assert the device will not work, that the WB6 readings are cross talk and arching. Using that logic they could argue that gridded Farnsworth Hirsh and Elmor Tuck Watson fusors don't work, since they produce far less output than Polywell. It would be interesting to see what the examiners would say to a reapplication with WB7 or 8 results.
rcain wrote:from what i can see Morozov's ideas are based on entirely different concepts ('myxina' and Galatea Traps if you will). i can find out little about his area work, but is certainly isn't anything like a Polywell from what i understand. I don't understand why it was even referenced as a source of objection.
As I understand the main difference is in injection method.
In Morozov's device injection of plasmoids and they are positioning the device as thermal.
In Polywell injection of electrons creates virtual cathode attracting and confining then ions. In all probability examiner thinks that it is the same way for thermalization. I think the same.
Joseph Chikva wrote:... In all probability examiner thinks that it is the same way for thermalization. I think the same.
thermalisation, might indeed turn out to be a problem. however, 'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence suggest that 'critical' thermalisation is avoided in the Polywell regime. the geometry and and timing are very particular by design.
Nebel is right to point the examiner back to 'common knowledge of the Art' in that regard. IMHO.
Joseph Chikva wrote:... In all probability examiner thinks that it is the same way for thermalization. I think the same.
thermalisation, might indeed turn out to be a problem. however, 'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence suggest that 'critical' thermalisation is avoided in the Polywell regime. the geometry and and timing are very particular by design.
Nebel is right to point the examiner back to 'common knowledge of the Art' in that regard. IMHO.
Dr. Nebel is wrong that after a number of passes ions will move "strongly radially". As there is not any forces in Polywell returning ion in "right" radial direction. If average declination in each scattering event 0.02 rad and particles experience 5000 scattering events, what direction will that have? For note: 6.28 rad equal to 360 deg.
I have never seen "'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence". Only speculations of Kiteman, Dan and now Georgio in this thread.
If not speaking anything about instabilities.
And as I understand examiner also is at least Ph.D too.
Joseph Chikva wrote:I have never seen "'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence". Only speculations of Kiteman, Dan and now Georgio in this thread.
You have never seen the calculations because you refuse to read the papers, so you choose to be ignorant and now you complain? You are funnier with each post Joseph.
Joseph Chikva wrote:... In all probability examiner thinks that it is the same way for thermalization. I think the same.
thermalisation, might indeed turn out to be a problem. however, 'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence suggest that 'critical' thermalisation is avoided in the Polywell regime. the geometry and and timing are very particular by design.
Nebel is right to point the examiner back to 'common knowledge of the Art' in that regard. IMHO.
Dr. Nebel is wrong that after a number of passes ions will move "strongly radially". As there is not any forces in Polywell returning ion in "right" radial direction. If average declination in each scattering event 0.02 rad and particles experience 5000 scattering events, what direction will that have? For note: 6.28 rad equal to 360 deg.
I have never seen "'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence". Only speculations of Kiteman, Dan and now Georgio in this thread.
If not speaking anything about instabilities.
And as I understand examiner also is at least Ph.D too.
As TallDave pointed out, here is Nebel's response to your criticism:
2. The general rule of thumb on ion collisions is that ion collisions in the core add angular momentum to the ions (thermalization) while collisions in the edge remove angular momentum. The reasons edge collisions remove angular momentum is that as the ions reach their radial turning point, their angular velocity exceeds the radial velocity. Consequently, thermalization takes energy from the angular direction and puts it in the radial direction. The collision rate gets big because the velocities are small. The upshot of this is that if you want to look at the effect of collisions on ions, you have to do something like bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck where you take into account the collisions at all points in the ion orbit. There are two places this is discussed in the literature. The original work is:
M. ROSENBERG and N. A. KRALL, Phys. Fluids B, 4,1788 (1992)
There is also a 1993 paper by these authors (I don’t have good access to Journals here) but I think the correct one is the one above. Of course, the Chacon paper also looks at this.
The way it looks, even if WB8 produces 1000 times the output of WB7, and even if WB8.1 fuses P-B11, the examiner will still refuse to grant patent based on the previous final rejection.
Joseph Chikva wrote:...As I understand the main difference is in injection method.
In Morozov's device injection of plasmoids and they are positioning the device as thermal.
In Polywell injection of electrons creates virtual cathode attracting and confining then ions. In all probability examiner thinks that it is the same way for thermalization. I think the same.
by your own reasoning then, the 'main' difference must be that Polywell is a non-thermal device (supposing i have understood you currently).
as to:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Dr. Nebel is wrong that after a number of passes ions will move "strongly radially". As there is not any forces in Polywell returning ion in "right" radial direction. If average declination in each scattering event 0.02 rad and particles experience 5000 scattering events, what direction will that have? For note: 6.28 rad equal to 360 deg.
I have never seen "'reasonable' calculations and a good deal of experimental evidence". Only speculations of Kiteman, Dan and now Georgio in this thread.
If not speaking anything about instabilities.
And as I understand examiner also is at least Ph.D too.
can i also respectfully reiterate Gorgios's recommendation to you - and first please READ THE BLOODY PAPERS, before you start claiming facts about subject you admit you can know nothing of.
hint: if you simply prefix anything you say with 'In my opinion...' then I'm sure your will get along here much better and irritate people a little less.
as to 'restoring forces' in a Polywell - there is a bloody great potential well. Additionally, the net (and localised) effects we are looking for are measured statistically and are established by the geometry of the device. Particles not contributing positively to the regime, (tend to) get expelled from the system (and are recirculated).