MSimon wrote:might be acceptable for initial experimental purposes. (360 - 10 second runs).
That should do nicely.
Now how much ?
Good grief. I had to chase down three levels of indirection to find the original comment. It's actually on the MSNBC story comments thread.
Excuse me Simon but I dont get it, are you sure about that?MSimon wrote: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.
I'm guessing Simon is right, if so the mS runs wont do. It may be that 10 seconds will do, or even one second. Regardless, I think run times will have to be longer. WB-7 has about 1 ft interior space, a 160cm WB-8, over 4ft.MSimon wrote:The bigger machine needs longer to reach equilibrium than a small machine.
I don't think so; both Bussard and Nebel have said after WB-7/8 (Bussard called these the remining small-scale experiments) we might as well go ahead and build the 1.5M. I think that's $50M to build it, $100M to solve all the engineering/operation/etc. problems (another $50M for p-B11). The 100MW would presumably be a dodec.No, 200million is for a whole program. 3-5 machines.
The only next useful step is to conclude small scale work (as
described previously) and then undertake a full-scale netpower
demonstration IEF system, to show total plant
feasibility.
It is important to emphasize that there is nothing
significantly new to be gained by further tests at sub-scale
sizes (i.e. less than that needed for net power).
...
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.
:-_)scareduck wrote:
Sure, I'll just reach into my back pocket and ... uh ... missing that spare $20M I had there just a minute ago...