Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:40 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 5177
So I dont know whether I understand what they are saying.
If I read it correctly, they are saying that they beat Tri Alpha to a 1/3 scale version of a fusion reactor. No net energy yet, or at least not practically. Anyone got more on this?
People in the comments seem to think they are shady.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/helion ... clear.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:15 am
Posts: 144
I don't know Wallace (the CEO) but Seattle is where most of the FRC research has been done recently. I would guess that this is a spinoff company. FRC translation and compression has been studied for a long time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am
Posts: 2369
Based on the limited information at the link, it seems thay have tested a ~1 Tesla and 1 KeV machine with D-T. Goal is a demo at ~ 10 Tesla and 5 KeV. From this I'm assumeing they are limiting thier efforts to making the D-T reaction work. Is it reasonable to assume that this is the pontential limiting capacity for reverse field pinch systems (like Tokamaks)? All other things being equal, if the Polywell concept works with D-D reactions it would have a large advantage in cost and complexity (no need for excess tritium production- lithium blankets, buryllium, etc.).
I could see both systems employed if the Polywell ends up being less compact than the RFS. D-D burning Polywells produces power for the grid and tritium as a byproduct. RCS systems uses that tritium in mobile applications like ships without the need to generate endogenous tritium. Tokamaks would be left out in the cold, as would laser confinement unless thay can greatly improve and economise the laser systems beyond the NIF level.


Dan Tibbets

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Posts: 794
Location: Munich, Germany
Thanks for the tip. Please keep me informed if you learn any more. The info in the link is very meager. Perhaps suspiciously so. "Exclusivity – World‐wide license to core technology of fusion engine and improvements" sounds like they have a patent. If so, we should be able to dig it out. The idea itself is old, so the question is how they deal with the known difficulties. One of these is that FRCs, when scaled to reactor sizes, are supposed to be unstable. (Actually they are supposed to be unstable at laboratory size, which they are not, but it will probably get worse when scaling up.) For you tokamak haters: The topology of an FRC machine is linear, so it is much simpler than a (toroidal) tokamak, and it operates naturally at high beta, so the power density is 2 orders of magnitude higher than for a tokamak..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13590
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Skipjack wrote:
So I dont know whether I understand what they are saying.
If I read it correctly, they are saying that they beat Tri Alpha to a 1/3 scale version of a fusion reactor. No net energy yet, or at least not practically. Anyone got more on this?
People in the comments seem to think they are shady.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/helion ... clear.html


Did you see Homer Simpson standing near the plant in the PDF? I wonder if he has been trained in plant operation?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 5177
Quote:
Did you see Homer Simpson standing near the plant in the PDF? I wonder if he has been trained in plant operation?


Yeah, I saw that. ;)
This is not the first time I have seen Homer used to show the size of a machine of sorts. Still kinda odd choice. Maybe they wanted to emphasize that the machine is easy enough to operate, that you can even let a "genius" like Homer near it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Swedem
This is from the Pulsed High Density (PHD) Experiment.

More info here.
http://www.nifs.ac.jp/itc/itc16/content ... 8-Gota.pdf
http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/ ... -Final.pdf
http://hifweb.lbl.gov/ICC2000/Magnetize ... 1_Oral.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
Art Carlson wrote:
"Exclusivity – World-wide license to core technology of fusion engine and improvements" sounds like they have a patent. If so, we should be able to dig it out. The idea itself is old..

There is a ream's worth of patents, look under Rostoker and/or Monkhorst. They've been pumping out what look like Uni-based [california/florida, viz.well-funded] patent applications for some considerable time, yet I've never been able to figure out what it is that they are claiming that is new. Perhaps this is why most remain patent applications (save for a neutral beam colliding scheme of Rostoker's dating back to 1990).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Posts: 794
Location: Munich, Germany
Torulf2 wrote:

It looks like they are using some of the same graphics, and the Seattle area code of the CEO matches the UW, so there is probably more than a coincidental relationship here. That's good. John Slough is an old buddy of mine. He was running the experiment I did my Ph.D. work on. Definitely serious. Keep your eye on this one (but watch your pocketbook).

There are a lot of interesting things to say about this concept. For example, direct conversion: You can magnetically compress the configuration till it starts burning, then let it expand against the field. If you are lucky, you get more electrical energy out than you put in to begin with. This is the most attractive direct conversion scheme I know of. Another thing, wall loading: Since this thing is zipping down a tube, it you decide the heat and/or neutron flux to the wall is too large at your design point, you can simply make your tube a bit longer and send the plasma down it a bit faster. Can I proselytize anyone to convert from polywell to FRC?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Posts: 498
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Art Carlson wrote:
It looks like they are using some of the same graphics, and the Seattle area code of the CEO matches the UW, so there is probably more than a coincidental relationship here. That's good. John Slough is an old buddy of mine. He was running the experiment I did my Ph.D. work on. Definitely serious. Keep your eye on this one (but watch your pocketbook).

There are a lot of interesting things to say about this concept. For example, direct conversion: You can magnetically compress the configuration till it starts burning, then let it expand against the field. If you are lucky, you get more electrical energy out than you put in to begin with. This is the most attractive direct conversion scheme I know of. Another thing, wall loading: Since this thing is zipping down a tube, it you decide the heat and/or neutron flux to the wall is too large at your design point, you can simply make your tube a bit longer and send the plasma down it a bit faster. Can I proselytize anyone to convert from polywell to FRC?


Interesting. I was the one who commented about them being shady in the "NextBigFuture". I was noting the lack of technical detail in their website and presentation. I was not aware that UofW was a hotbed of FRC research.

Sure, you can try to "convert" us from polywell to FRC. I'll be happy if any of these fusion concepts lead to commercial power generation. I don't care which one it is.

I believe Norman Rostoker's idea (Tri-Alpha) is also an FRC or some variant of it. I notice that Norman is also in his 80's. Hopefully, his partner, Hendrick Monkhorst, is as much the driver behind this as Norman Rostoker.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Posts: 794
Location: Munich, Germany
Art Carlson wrote:
The idea itself is old, so the question is how they deal with the known difficulties. One of these is that FRCs, when scaled to reactor sizes, are supposed to be unstable. (Actually they are supposed to be unstable at laboratory size, which they are not, but it will probably get worse when scaling up.)


But, from http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/ ... -Final.pdf:
Quote:
Most importantly, the FRC remains in a stable regime with regard to MHD modes such as the tilt from formation through burn.

and
Quote:
Finally, in the reactor scenario outlined for PHD, the FRC at no time exceeds the empirical regime where stability and good confinement has been observed throughout the entire formation process through burn.


Other tit/tid/teat bits from http://hifweb.lbl.gov/ICC2000/Magnetize ... 1_Oral.pdf:
Quote:
Given the observed scaling with size and density, the required radius at a density of 1024 m-3 for a DT fusion burn with a gain > 1 is found to be ~ 1 cm.

and
Quote:
The PHD fusion envisioned also provides for a simple direct conversion of the plasma into directed thrust. Of all fusion reactor embodiments, only the magnetically confined plasma in the Field Reversed Configuration (FRC) has the linear geometry, low confining field, and high plasma pressure required for the direct conversion of fusion energy into high specific impulse and thrust, and would thus have direct applicability to deep space flight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am
Posts: 2369
Skipjack wrote:
Quote:
Did you see Homer Simpson standing near the plant in the PDF? I wonder if he has been trained in plant operation?


Yeah, I saw that. ;)
This is not the first time I have seen Homer used to show the size of a machine of sorts. Still kinda odd choice. Maybe they wanted to emphasize that the machine is easy enough to operate, that you can even let a "genius" like Homer near it.



Homer Simpson may be a simpleton, but remember that he prevented what would have been the greatest nuclear accident in Springfield's history! :wink:


Dan Tibbets

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Posts: 794
Location: Munich, Germany
I asked a plasma physicist friend of mine in Seattle. He never heard of the company or the guy, but he did remark
Quote:
There is another company under Simon Woodruff and he is also set to seek startup capitol for a fusion venture along the lines of Helion Energy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Tidbit
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Brisbane, Australia
People, please!

The proper saying is "tidbit".

:lol:

Regards
Polygirl

_________________
The more I know, the less I know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Swedem
I post an ilustration of it in an old tread.
I have to remake it I think.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... c&start=15


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: djolds1 and 6 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group