Talk-Polywell.org :: View topic - The consequences of quasi-neutrality in the cusps

Talk-Polywell.org
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The consequences of quasi-neutrality in the cusps
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Talk-Polywell.org Forum Index -> Theory

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

D Tibbets

Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 964

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:23 am Post subject:

Art Carlson wrote:

What I have presented here is, in my opinion, the most complete and consistent theory of polywell physics there is. Explanations by Bussard and others sometimes contradict themselves, sometimes contradict known physics, and resort to handwaving at an early stage.
The published experimental basis on polywells is too thin to draw any conclusions.
Dr. Nebel's statements about his measurements have not been explicit and extensive enough to draw any firm conclusions, even if we trusted him fully. (I have not received any experimental information from him beyond what he has said here, but I haven't given up hope.)
I have no doubts that Rick is an honest and competent physicist, but physics is hard. His statements should be treated with caution until other, independent experts have had a chance to review them.

All true, with cavats.

The first statment should have aviable inserted before theory.
The lack of published information does not mean there is no information, only that it is unaviable (or made up).
My understanding is that there has been a review by experts, with conclusions that further investigation and refinement is warrented (in the Navy's openion). Weather this leads to a partially or fully sucessful conclusion is up for grabs.

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

alexjrgreen

Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 760
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:01 am Post subject:

Art Carlson wrote:

krenshala wrote:

Art Carlson wrote:

Applying the model to the reactor regime predicts that net power at a reasonable size is hopeless.

My maths are, unfortunately, not up to the majority of what you posted but does this statement mean you think a Polywell could get net power, but only at a ridiculously large size?

That's what the model in it's current form says. One thing that is missing is any consideration of the power load to the in-vessel components and first wall, and especially to the wall behind the cusps. That will kill you long before you have to face the prospects of organizing the distribution of electricity from a 1000 GW reactor to an entire continent.

1000 GW isn't the aim. 100 MW will do fine.
_________________

Billy Catringer

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 221
Location: Texas

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:26 pm Post subject:

Art Carlson wrote:

What I have presented here is, in my opinion, the most complete and consistent theory of polywell physics there is.

Fair enough. I don't think anyone can complain that you have not worked hard at making your case on this forum. Presenting ideas and mathematics in this format and in this venue were not easily done, but you did it anyway.

Art Carlson wrote:

Explanations by Bussard and others sometimes contradict themselves, sometimes contradict known physics, and resort to handwaving at an early stage.

I have noticed some inconsistencies, all of which could have been attributed to slips of the tongue. I am not competent to judge about the "handwaving" nor would I venture to argue with you about the contradictions with known physics, but I find it hard to believe that Doctor Bussard got such stuff by the US Navy, given that it is full of nuclear engineers and has access to nearly any physicist they would wish to consult.

The US Navy is not exactly flush with cash at the moment and has numerous other problems with which to cope, yet it's leadership has seen fit to fund additional research into the Pollywell design after Doctor Bussards death. Despite my misgivings about your claims on this matter, I am obliged to admit that stranger things have happened.

Art Carlson wrote:

The published experimental basis on polywells is too thin to draw any conclusions.

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.

Art Carlson wrote:

Dr. Nebel's statements about his measurements have not been explicit and extensive enough to draw any firm conclusions, even if we trusted him fully. (I have not received any experimental information from him beyond what he has said here, but I haven't given up hope.)

I can appreciate your frustration, but we are talking about the US Navy here, and we are talking about that part of the Navy refrerred to as the "Silent Service." I would imagine that Doctor Nebel would love to sit on your garden fence and crow for you, assuming he has seen the results he and Doctor Bussard predicted.

Art Carlson wrote:

I have no doubts that Rick is an honest and competent physicist, but physics is hard. His statements should be treated with caution until other, independent experts have had a chance to review them.

This is true of anyone proposing some shiny new doohicky. It is easy for one's enthusiasm to override one's good sense and there are very often unanticipated problems separate from the device itself that would render such new devices useless. We have seen that happen numerous times.

Life is all about using energy to survive and produce more life, so naturally, many of us want and would love to see a system of this kind work. But, you can't always get what you want. I don't think any forum participant would claim otherwise.

I have tried very hard to follow your descriptions of the shortcomings of this machine. I now want to see if I have gotten the gist of it.

The first problem seems to be associated with the electrons. You do not believe that the device will temporarily trap them in the center of the machine as Doctor Bussard says it will. In this respect it ulitmately suffers from the same defect as the ealier fusor designs. It will lose too many electrons for it to produce more power than it consumes.

Secondly, you seem concerned that the nucleii will not collide in the center as Bussard predicted and that they will not cycle back into the center of the machine to undergo further collisions. Apparently this is because any voltage that is high enough to prevent them from striking the Magrid, would also cause the plasma to glow or even cause arcs between the magnets and the vessel walls.

It would not surprise me to find that I have gotten this wrong. I am not that conversant in mathematics or plasma physics. Would you be good enough to correct me?

Last edited by Billy Catringer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

TallDave

Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2534

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I have no doubts that Rick is an honest and competent physicist, but physics is hard. His statements should be treated with caution until other, independent experts have had a chance to review them.

Heh, I remember when they said that about Bussard (actually, come to think of it, that's exactly what we were asking for last year!). Well, now Rick has not only reviewed Bussard's results, but built another Polywell and reproduced the key findings. Presumably the review panel has also reviewed Rick's results.

Of course, more independent verification would also be good, as there can be misinterpretations.

I am looking forward to when we can say "OK, WB-7 works. Now what about the loss scaling?"

imaginatium

Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 31

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:00 pm Post subject:

Art Carlson wrote:

What I have presented here is, in my opinion, the most complete and consistent theory of polywell physics there is. Explanations by Bussard and others sometimes contradict themselves, sometimes contradict known physics, and resort to handwaving at an early stage.
The published experimental basis on polywells is too thin to draw any conclusions.
Dr. Nebel's statements about his measurements have not been explicit and extensive enough to draw any firm conclusions, even if we trusted him fully. (I have not received any experimental information from him beyond what he has said here, but I haven't given up hope.)
I have no doubts that Rick is an honest and competent physicist, but physics is hard. His statements should be treated with caution until other, independent experts have had a chance to review them.

I 'm sorry Art, but I cant see the merit, in the premise: since they haven't published the data, it's best to assume, that it is what they say it is not. While you may be a competent physicist, I seriously doubt that you are so much greater a physicist, than Nebel and Bussard, as to have a better grasp of polywell physics - with no first hand experience, and not seeing the experimental data - than the 2 of them, with their combined experience.

Art Carlson

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 794
Location: Munich, Germany

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject:

imaginatium wrote:

Art Carlson wrote:

... Dr. Nebel's statements about his measurements have not been explicit and extensive enough to draw any firm conclusions, even if we trusted him fully. ...

Just what do they say? Nebel has never said what the confinement time of WB-7 is for any set of conditions, nor what scaling laws it does or does not follow. Until he does, then we don't need to worry too much about whether we should believe him even before we see his data.

alexjrgreen

Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 760
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject:

Rick takes Art very seriously... It would be great if Rick was able to publish the data, but that's not possible yet. We need Art to do what he's doing. _________________

cuddihy

Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 106

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:09 am Post subject:

imaginatium wrote:

Art Carlson wrote:

What I have presented here is, in my opinion, the most complete and consistent theory of polywell physics there is. Explanations by Bussard and others sometimes contradict themselves, sometimes contradict known physics, and resort to handwaving at an early stage.
The published experimental basis on polywells is too thin to draw any conclusions.
Dr. Nebel's statements about his measurements have not been explicit and extensive enough to draw any firm conclusions, even if we trusted him fully. (I have not received any experimental information from him beyond what he has said here, but I haven't given up hope.)
I have no doubts that Rick is an honest and competent physicist, but physics is hard. His statements should be treated with caution until other, independent experts have had a chance to review them.

tuum problum es major lackum imaginatum.

Seriously, Art, as a technically-oriented layman (and a Navy trained nuke), I have no touble believing that the Navy R&D arm could find sufficient merit to fund Polywell at the low level it has been despite thinking that the physics doesn't really add up. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for your responsible, honest, and knowledgeable comments on this forum. All science advances occur through skeptical inquiry, not wishful thinking or intriguing concepts alone.

Although I came to this forum as an enthusiastic polywell booster, your comments have done more to elucidate my understanding of the polywell concept and especially plasma physics than any of the other Polywell or focus fusion discussions. To me, it appears you have the heart of a teacher and the rich skepticism of a true scientist. And, despite what I initially thought, a healthy amount of humility.

If polywell experiments prove your model to be wrong or innaccurate, the fleshing out of the theory will only help advance the field in the future.

thanks.

a layman.
_________________
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

MSimon

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 8780
Location: Rockford, Illinois

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:21 am Post subject:

Quote:

Navy trained nuke

What ship?
_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

cuddihy

Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 106

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:31 am Post subject:

MSimon wrote:

Quote:

Navy trained nuke

What ship?

THE 688. First and finest. Still truckin out there, I might add.

And I'm sure still with gobs more EFPH left in her core than she will ever use based on hull life.
_________________
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

choff

Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 338
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:16 am Post subject:

I saw some mention of a non-disclosure agreement that would allow Art to gain access to the data, the downside would be that it would prevent him from telling us what he can find out. I've often wondered if part of the secrecy of the project involves withholding information of a critical component to the machine/concept. That would prevent rivals from sucessfully copying the design, but cause confusion for people trying to understand it more. Of course, if that's the case Rick can't tell us about that either. _________________ CHoff

MSimon

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 8780
Location: Rockford, Illinois

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject:

cuddihy wrote:

MSimon wrote:

Quote:

Navy trained nuke

What ship?

THE 688. First and finest. Still truckin out there, I might add.

And I'm sure still with gobs more EFPH left in her core than she will ever use based on hull life.

DLG(N)-25 been in the bone yard for a few years. Boo. Hoo.
_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack

Joined: 28 Sep 2008
Posts: 1719

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:00 pm Post subject:

There is only one 585 Not that I have ever been on one, but I got told that these were very ahead of their time...

alexjrgreen

Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 760
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject:

Skipjack wrote:

There is only one 585 Wink

Not that I have ever been on one, but I got told that these were very ahead of their time...

Deep. Very deep.

Twenty thousand leagues under the sea at full power.
_________________

Munchausen

Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 84
Location: Nikaloukta

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject:

Come on, get me some reasonable arguments against dr. Carlsons calculations, or go get yourselves a hair cut, a shave and an honest job

Display posts from previous:

	Talk-Polywell.org Forum Index -> Theory	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum