reddit: We are nuclear fusion researchers, ask us anything

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Postby Robthebob » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:29 am

ladajo wrote:In case you did not catch it, "Trapping" equals "Confinement" and Wiffleball effect. To get Wiffleball, one must hit B=1.


wait, Wiffleball effect was proven? when did this happen, why doesnt the whole world know and what's the remaining problems?

shouldnt they have a demo now?
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

Enginerd
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:29 am

Postby Enginerd » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:49 am

Robthebob wrote:
ladajo wrote:In case you did not catch it, "Trapping" equals "Confinement" and Wiffleball effect. To get Wiffleball, one must hit B=1.


wait, Wiffleball effect was proven? when did this happen, why doesnt the whole world know and what's the remaining problems?

shouldnt they have a demo now?


They do have a demo and apparently some detailed reports as well...
Enough to convince the Navy to keep coughing up more money during
difficult economic times. They just are not sharing.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:00 am

ladajo wrote:Drive voltage would seem to produce about 85% well.

So probably about 15 to get 12.
....

Further detail on WB6 follows that. He (Bussard) talks to t 12.5Kv drive for 10Kv well.
So, at least you are agree too that depth of potential well is not equal to drive voltage.
I also think that depth is time dependent due to processes developing in Polywell permanently from starting of cycle to its end (instabilities and thermalization).
And because of this I am sure that you are too optimistic on Polywell.
Unlike TOKAMAK.

If you or other Polywell's fans talk about "cost effectiveness", you should recall that first TOKAMAKs too were quite cheep small sized devices (table top). And even that time they provided much higher fusion rate (1.5 milliwatt for WB6 ?)
High cost of TOKAMAK's program generally is caused with accompanying engineering sub-programs, results of which mainly would be useful for every more successful fusion concept: (Test Breadeing Module, Superconductors, First Wall, etc., etc., etc.)

Developing of even competitive washing machine costs dearer than the cost for which Polywell fans hope to receive commercially successful reactor.

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

Postby Roger » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:33 am

ladajo wrote:Actually Joseph. The average US Destroyer has about 2 or none for Anti-Ship missiles.


I wont even look it up, I go with none. A little birdie told me, a sparrow I think it was......
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:24 am

Roger wrote:
ladajo wrote:Actually Joseph. The average US Destroyer has about 2 or none for Anti-Ship missiles.


I wont even look it up, I go with none. A little birdie told me, a sparrow I think it was......
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/65004-u-s-navy-guided-missile-destroyer-uss-okane-ddg-77-leaves-deployment.html
Armament:
1 × 29 cell, 1 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems with --> 90 × RIM-156 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk Long-Range Cruise Missiles or RUM-139 VL-Asroc Missiles
The cost of each missile I think is comparable with Harpoon missile.
The number of vertical launch systems is equal to ready to fire missiles' number. But also warship may have stored misssiles as well. Especcially in long missions.
Good luck Mr. Ornithologist.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:12 pm

Joseph, not to sidetrack this conversation, but I can postively tell you that Vertical Launch Ships do not carry "extra" missiles on board for long deployments.

I can also positively tell you that if you look at a VLS ship, and do not see the bolt on Harpoon quad packs, there are no Harpoons. And just because you see a quad pack or two, that doesn't mean each tube is loaded.

Another positive point is that TASM has been retired for a while, and that means no Tomahwak can be shot at a ship. SM series can be shot at ships, but that was not the designed purpose. For that matter you can also shoot Sea Sparrow (ask the Turkish...) or RAM at ships. But again, not the design purpose. So I guess, technically you are right about 'anti-ship' missiles.

But again, I understood your point about monies spent on operations. Please understand mine that the operational funding and research funding worlds rarely, and only on highly contested terms ever cross in the US Navy.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:24 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Drive voltage would seem to produce about 85% well.

So probably about 15 to get 12.
....

Further detail on WB6 follows that. He (Bussard) talks to t 12.5Kv drive for 10Kv well.
So, at least you are agree too that depth of potential well is not equal to drive voltage.
I also think that depth is time dependent due to processes developing in Polywell permanently from starting of cycle to its end (instabilities and thermalization).
And because of this I am sure that you are too optimistic on Polywell.
Unlike TOKAMAK.

If you or other Polywell's fans talk about "cost effectiveness", you should recall that first TOKAMAKs too were quite cheep small sized devices (table top). And even that time they provided much higher fusion rate (1.5 milliwatt for WB6 ?)
High cost of TOKAMAK's program generally is caused with accompanying engineering sub-programs, results of which mainly would be useful for every more successful fusion concept: (Test Breadeing Module, Superconductors, First Wall, etc., etc., etc.)

Developing of even competitive washing machine costs dearer than the cost for which Polywell fans hope to receive commercially successful reactor.


Joseph,
No one who has any idea about how Polywell works has ever said that electron drive equals well depth. In fact, I am sur ethis has been explained to you several times before. The 80-85% rule. If you actually read any of the refernces I have spoon fed you, you will also find this discussed by the man himself.

The other point you refuse to grasp is that Polywell is an Electrostatic Device, not a "Magnetic Device". Again, please read the references I have given you. "Inertial Electrostatic Confinement" Fusion. IEF.

I also argue that with EMC2 publically stating that "confinement is proven", that means wiffleball is proven, and thus Beta=1 has been done and seen. I point specifically to the 2006 IAC Paper for proof of that argument, as well as the publically seen statements from EMC2, Bussard & Nebel saying confinement has been proven. The entire initial point of WB8 was to test for scaling (as per the contract), not confinement. That also means confinement is proven.

Confinement=Wiffleball="Beta=1"

Do you get it yet?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:43 pm

You have this way of slanting everything to say against other posters on this forum, even when you are finally proven wrong.

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Drive voltage would seem to produce about 85% well.

So probably about 15 to get 12.
....

Further detail on WB6 follows that. He (Bussard) talks to t 12.5Kv drive for 10Kv well.
So, at least you are agree too that depth of potential well is not equal to drive voltage.
I challenge you to point to any post that stated the well depth does equal the drive voltage. Most posters correctly stated that the well was ~80% to 95% of the drive voltage. You maintained that it was more like 4% to 14% (or some such values). Now, when it has been demonstrated that your values were totally wrong, you state this silly streawman about "at least you agree it is not 100%". Please stop talking that kind of trash.
Joseph Chikva wrote: I also think that depth is time dependent due to processes developing in Polywell permanently from starting of cycle to its end (instabilities and thermalization).
And because of this I am sure that you are too optimistic on Polywell.
Unlike TOKAMAK.
Dude, what is research all about? The main folk running this thing (or who WERE running this thing) seemed to think the possible outcomes were good enough to look.
Joseph Chikva wrote: If you or other Polywell's fans talk about "cost effectiveness", you should recall that first TOKAMAKs too were quite cheep small sized devices (table top). And even that time they provided much higher fusion rate (1.5 milliwatt for WB6 ?)
And every Tokamak iteration since has shown time and again that Tokamak is unlikely to be an economical power source. Polywell still has a reasonable chance. But nothing is sure in research.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:40 pm

ladajo wrote:Do you get it yet?
Yes, I've got but do not believe. As Rossi's followers also are saying "proved, tested", etc. Nothing proved and tested only promotional claims for obtaining further financing.
I not believe but know that beta=1 is not possible in any device. Even beta=0.6-0.7 is very high and common for mirror devices (Polywell and others)
Do you get it yet?
And every Tokamak iteration since has shown time and again that Tokamak is unlikely to be an economical power source. Polywell still has a reasonable chance.
At least TOKAMAK is "proved and tested" and reached Lawson criterion. :)
And I see that further dispute does not make sense.
Thanks.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:08 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
And every Tokamak iteration since has shown time and again that Tokamak is unlikely to be an economical power source. Polywell still has a reasonable chance.
At least TOKAMAK is "proved and tested" and reached Lawson criterion. :)
And I see that further dispute does not make sense.
Thanks.
And this very statement is a demonstration that you REALLY don't get it. The Lawson Criterion" DOESN'T APPLY!

Wikipedia wrote:Lawson criterion
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in 1957,[1] is an important general measure of a system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne and the "energy confinement time" τE. Later analyses suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the "triple product" of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum required value, and the name "Lawson criterion" often refers to this inequality.
This state does not apply in Polywell so the Lawson criterion doesn't either. The plasma doesn't "ignite". The products are not used to heat the plasma. It would be counter productive. The process is best served if the products leave the plasma as QUICKLY as possible without hitting the MaGrid.

This is NOT a thermo-nuclear reaction. At least if it works, it will not be one.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:35 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
And every Tokamak iteration since has shown time and again that Tokamak is unlikely to be an economical power source. Polywell still has a reasonable chance.
At least TOKAMAK is "proved and tested" and reached Lawson criterion. :)
And I see that further dispute does not make sense.
Thanks.
And this very statement is a demonstration that you REALLY don't get it. The Lawson Criterion" DOESN'T APPLY!

Wikipedia wrote:Lawson criterion
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in 1957,[1] is an important general measure of a system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne and the "energy confinement time" τE. Later analyses suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the "triple product" of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum required value, and the name "Lawson criterion" often refers to this inequality.
This state does not apply in Polywell so the Lawson criterion doesn't either. The plasma doesn't "ignite". The products are not used to heat the plasma. It would be counter productive. The process is best served if the products leave the plasma as QUICKLY as possible without hitting the MaGrid.

This is NOT a thermo-nuclear reaction. At least if it works, it will not be one.
Ok I do not undarstand and you do.
Number density needed in Polywell? Needed
Confinement time? Also needed.
So, for achiving of Q>1 their product should exceed certain value.
TOKAMAKs achived such limit unlike any others.
But did not achived needed temperature.
Needed value of n(tau)T lower then tripple product limit.
As I understand there is not a problem in Polywell to give to particles needed kinetic energy (ok, let's admit not thermal but oscilation motion as desired) but do have not problems with two other parameters?
Ladajo was delighted with fusion rate 1E9 events/sec. And what rates provides TOKAMAKs in 70s of last century. Not in billions times higher?

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

Postby Roger » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:08 pm

[quote="Joseph Chikva
Armament:
1 × 29 cell, 1 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems with --> 90 × RIM-156 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk Long-Range Cruise Missiles or RUM-139 VL-Asroc Missiles


Sm-2 is ship to surface
RUM-139 VL-Asroc Missiles are anti sub.
Tomahawks are considered land attack weapons

I'll assume it was a simple error you did not mean to make, as said above your point stands in regards to $ value.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:17 pm

Roger,
I think you have a typo. SM2 is surface to air (as are all Standard Missile family members). I can be used against surface, but that is not what it was built to do (primarily).

I could also shoot it at a house, or train, or merry-go round but that again, does not make it a anti-house/train/merry-go-round missile.

Joseph has admitted in the past that his military systems knowledge is internet driven. I try not to hold that against him.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:22 pm

Joseph,
Nothing proved and tested


This is not true. Once again, as you have several times before, it appears that you do not read references offered.

Ladajo was delighted with fusion rate 1E9 events/sec.


Yup. I was happy. That speaks to Polywell confinement and to ability to fuse. For all you know, WB8 has done a magnitude or two better. And eventually, you may even get to know. Inertial Electrostatic Fusion may yet light the way.

TOKAMAK will NEVER be commercially viable.

Too bad you did not get to read the WB6 report.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:03 pm

ladajo wrote:Joseph has admitted in the past that his military systems knowledge is internet driven. I try not to hold that against him.
Ladajo, I live in Georgia and Georgia sitizan and, yes, my knowledge on US military may be only internet driven. My palsma physics knowledge is also books or internet driven.
But have you participated in real battle when you see yies of your enemy? I was in 1992. And you?
Also I saw another 2008 war.
But it does not matter. Especcially we - Georgians lost those both wars.
Even being US Navy's servicemen you also can estimate prices Navy's weapon systems also through internet. Not?
I know for example that each Patriot missile's cost is about 2 million, Harpoons has the same order? And what cost Tomahawk ans that antisubmarine (forgot name) has? Not comparable?
I said that Navy's military equipment and ammunition's cost is so high and Navy spends so much money, that in case of feeling the promizing technology, Navy would find the money needed for Polywell's development.
But I can not see any facts of such Navy's interest.
From internet, my friend, from internet.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests