Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:23 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: FRC+IEC ?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Swedem
Tri alpha= FRC+IEC
http://www.patents.com/formation-a-fiel ... 80242.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 5176
Interesting!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am
Posts: 2369
Interesting indeed. The short description seems to be the Polywell turned on it's head. But, I wonder. They say the ions are contained by a FRC magnetic field. And electrons are contained in a deep well by electrostatic means with the application of a tuned magnetic field. That seems contradictory, but I suppose the the details would explain it. How would a magnetic field electrostatically contain a charged particle? I suppose if the ions can be adequately contained by the FRC magnetic field you would have a vertual anode (instead of a vertual cathode in the Polywell. Electrons could then be droped into this positive potential well. Due to inertial, maybe the electrons are stoped deeper inside the RFC magnetic bottle (axial flows, centripical forces on the different weight charged particles may also be involved), and then act as a corresponding negative potential well. This layering might have consequences similar to a Polywell- such as nonmaxwellian distributions, some boosting of ion containment beyond that expected from the magnetic field alone. Is there a excess of electrons like in a Polywell? Interesting problem and I assume that as Bussard suggested-it is a dynamic process, not a static one. Things like POPS, standing waves, resonances, etc. may come into play.

Lots of head scratching could result from this tidbit (titbit if you are from England) of information.

Dan Tibbets

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 5176
Of course that makes yours truly wonder what the secretive Tri Alpha has been up to the past few years... I mean, we always just expected a simple FRC- device for T+D with a mediocre Q at best and a best use in a hybrid reactor. Now this new development suggests something different...
p B11, maybe?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
I have made a comment on the Rostoker/Monkhorst duo previously (http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... 9299#19299). If you do a patent search, then have siimply plastered the whole area with FRC variations. It's as if they are pitching every conceivable variation, and then seeing which might stick.

Again, as commented elsewhere, these things really shouldn't get through the patent system if they are not fully formed utilities and demonstrably functional beyond only a cursory preparatory stage (viz. patents shouldn't clear where they are likely to require extensive further research).

But, hey, if you have a whole university behind you, and they get cudos for the number of patents they hold, then why not push them?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Swedem
Remember the tri-alpha machine is original a marriage of the FRC and MIGMA,
Maglich orginal migma did have colliding free ion beams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migma this would probably not work because ion repulsion. But in a FRC it may be possible to have electrons enough for minimise repulsion, but not so many that the brem-losses become to large. This I think is how they can make the p+B fusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am
Posts: 1946
chrismb wrote:
Again, as commented elsewhere, these things really shouldn't get through the patent system if they are not fully formed utilities and demonstrably functional beyond only a cursory preparatory stage (viz. patents shouldn't clear where they are likely to require extensive further research).

The patent system is kaput. It wouldn't surprise me if there were several patents for astrology. No ill reflection on TriAlpha intended.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
DeltaV wrote:
The patent system is kaput. It wouldn't surprise me if there were several patents for astrology. No ill reflection on TriAlpha intended.
Whether or not this is so, this thread is about a patent. So the discussion will be about the nature of that patent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am
Posts: 1946
chrismb wrote:
DeltaV wrote:
The patent system is kaput. It wouldn't surprise me if there were several patents for astrology. No ill reflection on TriAlpha intended.
Whether or not this is so, this thread is about a patent. So the discussion will be about the nature of that patent.

Jawohl, Herr Oberst.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3959
Lets remember that patents exist to protect intellectual property. There are good reasons that patents are granted for things we don't have reason to suspect will work. People are entitled to protect their IP regardless whether it will work, especially when at the time they need protection for it, they may not know it will work.

Patents don't ever indicate you have a working or even an emergent technology. They only mean that someone, the owner; believes it will work. I'd hate for us to change the system so you couldn't have protection without proof of the issue. That would mean far more secrecy in both research and development, far less security for the inventor and far more fraud and theft.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm
Posts: 256
GIThruster wrote:
Lets remember that patents exist to protect intellectual property. There are good reasons that patents are granted for things we don't have reason to suspect will work. People are entitled to protect their IP regardless whether it will work, especially when at the time they need protection for it, they may not know it will work.

Patents don't ever indicate you have a working or even an emergent technology. They only mean that someone, the owner; believes it will work. I'd hate for us to change the system so you couldn't have protection without proof of the issue. That would mean far more secrecy in both research and development, far less security for the inventor and far more fraud and theft.


Actually, this is wrong. Intellectual property is a legal fiction. Patents exist to encourage invention. This was considered by Jefferson to be worth the loss of freedom by the fiction of owning an idea for a time to be rewarded for having come up with the idea. I agree with Jefferson on this. Patents are a very good idea. However, the idea that one person can OWN an idea or a specific collections of words is fairly ridiculous. Changing patent law has no bearing on your rights. You do not have a right to own an idea. I do agreee with your central point. If you can only patent a fully realized idea, you have no incentive to publish. Your bad idea or non working invention may spark an idea in someone more capable than you to make a workable idea or invention. This is good.

_________________
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
GIThruster wrote:
Lets remember that patents exist to protect intellectual property.
(Wrong... again :roll: )

A "patent" is a commissioning declaration by a monarch and harks back to the time when you gave your idea to a monarch and if he was sufficiently pleased with you then he might commission you to work the idea [for him] as a monopoly.

The idea of a patent is (/was) to encourage people to release into the public clever ideas so that everyone can benefit from them [in due course]. In return, the public give you a period of exclusive use of it. Actually, you (or whatever entity) become the 'assignee'. You no longer own that idea, it is public, but you are assigned particular rights for a period of time.

So, actually, it is precisely and explicitly to make intellectual property public. Not everyone goes down the route of patents, e.g. where they think a process or recipe is too complicated for anyone to figure out or guess. They then protect their IPR by not telling anyone.

For these reasons, a patent claim MUST be something that is doable, make-able, and has an immediate utility. That's why it is called a utility patent! Speculations in the claims are not permitted in patent law, though one is free to make speculations within the specification where the patent describes possible future use and configurations, but this cannot be 'protected', it is merely 'published' ['made public'] to, typically, illustrate the utility of the claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 5176
Quote:
So, actually, it is precisely and explicitly to make intellectual property public.

Exactly, so that there can be progress.
This is also why a patent description (at least where I live) has to be made in a way that others can reproduce it.
The US patent system is, at least from the POV view of people here, severely broken. Patents are granted for about everything, many things had already been invented by somebody else, but the research was done badly. Something like this definitely does not help inventors. When a patent is finally granted it is almost impossible to fight it too. This will not help progress, it will slow it down.

Anyway, lets get back to Tri Alpha.
So Chris, you dont think that this patent covers what they have been so secretly researching the past years?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Posts: 5888
Location: OlyPen WA
So how exactly does "publishing" convey pupblic ownership?

If I make an automobile by the sweat of my brow and the craft of my hands, does putting it on the public street convey ownership to the public? I think not. It is still mine, even if I have presented it to the public (published it).

How does this differ from making a sonata, or a "Great American Novel" or a new process, or anything else that is crafted by the sweat of my brain and the craft of my ingenuity?

If I can "own" the physical property, why not the intellectual?


Chris,
It seems you have a bit of a problem with time. In the following exchange, GIT says "exists" (present tense) and then you say "is a" (also present tence) but use a definition about what WAS. GIT is correct. Patents "exist" to protect... How they developed is interesting, but not necessarily germain.
chrismb wrote:
GIThruster wrote:
Lets remember that patents exist to protect intellectual property.
(Wrong... again )

A "patent" is a commissioning declaration by a monarch and harks back to the time when you gave your idea to a monarch and if he was sufficiently pleased with you then he might commission you to work the idea [for him] as a monopoly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am
Posts: 818
Did someone say Tri-Alpha definitely does not have a working prototype?

Until then, questions and tangents of discussion of potential utility are moot.

The rotational energy:fusion energy ratio of the ion plasma seems to be a significant control variable via ion beam injection ... are they using the central electron-filled well to stop the whole thing flying apart as they spin that plasmoid up? Experimentally they seem to think they've proven rotational energy injection via ion beam technique .... "Overall, this technique not only produces a compact FRC, but it is also robust and straightforward to implement. Most importantly, the base FRC created by this method can be easily accelerated to any desired level of rotational energy andmagnetic field strength. This is crucial for fusion applications and classical confinement of high-energy fuel beams." ...


Quote:
What is claimed is:

1. A method of confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within a chamber, magnetically confining a plurality of plasma ions, and electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons, wherein the step of forming an FRC magnetic field comprises the steps of injectingion beams into a background plasma within the reactor chamber and forming a rotating beam plasma, generating a poloidal magnetic self-field about the rotating beam plasma, and increasing the rotating beam plasma's rotational velocity to increase themagnetic self-field's magnitude beyond the applied magnetic field's magnitude causing field reversal internal to the rotating beam plasma and formation of the FRC.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein step of increasing the rotating beam plasma's rotational velocity includes the step of running current through a betatron flux coil within the chamber inducing an azimuthal electric field within the chamber.

3. The method of claim 2 further comprising the step increasing the current through the flux coil to accelerate the rotating beam plasma to a fusion relevant rotational energy.

4. The method of claim 3 further comprising the steps of injecting high energy ion beams into the FRC and trapping the beams in betatron orbits within the FRC.

5. A method of confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, wherein the step of applying a magnetic field includes energizing a plurality of field coils extendingabout the chamber, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within a chamber, magnetically confining a plurality of plasma ions, and electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons.

6. The method of claim 5 further comprising the step of injecting ion beams into the chamber.

7. The method of claim 5 further comprising the step of generating an electrostatic field within the chamber.

8. The method of claim 7 wherein the step of generating an electrostatic field includes applying an applied magnetic field at a magnitude that corresponds to an electrostatic field that is confining to a plurality of beam plasma electrons.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the step of generating an electrostatic field includes injecting ion beams at a velocity that corresponds to an electrostatic field that is confining to a plurality of beam plasma electrons.

10. A of method confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within a chamber, magnetically confining aplurality of plasma ions, electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons, and injecting ion beams into the chamber, wherein the ion beams are injected substantially transverse to the applied magnetic field.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein the step of injecting the ion beams further comprises the steps of neutrilizing the ion beams, draining the neutralized ion beams' electric polarization, and exerting a Lorentz force due to the magnetic fieldon the neutralized ion beams to bend the ion beams into betatron orbits.

12. A method of confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within a chamber, magnetically confining aplurality of plasma ions, electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons, and tuning the applied magnetic field's magnitude to maintain the a rotating beam plasma at a predetermined radial size.

13. A method confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, injecting beams comprising a plurality of ions and electrons into a plasma of ions and electrons in achamber, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within the chamber, magnetically confining a plurality of plasma ions within the chamber, and electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons within the chamber, wherein thestep of forming an FRC magnetic field comprises the steps of injecting ion beams into a background plasma within the reactor chamber and forming a rotating beam plasma, generating a poloidal magnetic self-field about the rotating beam plasma, andincreasing the rotating beam plasma's rotational velocity to increase the magnetic self-field's magnitude beyond the applied magnetic field's magnitude causing field reversal internal to the rotating beam plasma and formation of the FRC.

14. The method of claim 13 wherein step of increasing the rotating beam plasma's rotational velocity includes the step of running current through a betatron flux coil within the chamber inducing an azimuthal electric field within the chamber.

15. The method of claim 14 further comprising the step increasing the current through the flux coil to accelerate the rotating beam plasma to a fusion relevant rotational energy.

16. The method of claim 15 further comprising the steps of injecting high energy ion beams into the FRC and trapping the beams in betatron orbits within the FRC.

17. A method confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, wherein the step of applying a magnetic field includes energizing a plurality of field coils extendingabout the chamber, injecting beams comprising a plurality of ions and electrons into a plasma of ions and electrons in a chamber, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within the chamber, magnetically confining a plurality of plasmaions within the chamber, and electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons within the chamber.

18. A method confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, injecting beams comprising a plurality of ions and electrons into a plasma of ions and electrons in achamber, wherein the ion beams are injected substantially transverse to the applied magnetic field, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within the chamber, magnetically confining a plurality of plasma ions within the chamber, andelectrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons within the chamber.

19. A method confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of injecting beams comprising a plurality of ions and electrons into a plasma of ions and electrons in a chamber, wherein the step of injecting the ionbeams further comprises the step of neutrilizing the ion beams, magnetically confining a plurality of plasma ions within the chamber, and electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons within the chamber.

20. The method of claim 19 further comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber and forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within the chamber.

21. The method of claim 19 wherein the beams are injected at a velocity and the applied magnetic field is applied at a magnitude that corresponds to electrostatic field within the chamber that is confining for a plurality of plasma electrons.

22. A method confining a plasma of ions and electrons within a chamber comprising the steps of applying a magnetic field to the chamber, injecting beams comprising a plurality of ions and electrons into a plasma of ions and electrons in a chamber, wherein the beams are injected at a velocity and the applied magnetic field is applied at a magnitude that corresponds to an electrostatic field within the chamber that is confining for a plurality of plasma electrons, forming a field reversed configuration (FRC) magnetic field within the chamber, magnetically confining a plurality of plasma ions within the chamber, electrostatically confining a plurality of plasma electrons within the chamber, and adjusting the applied magnetic field's magnitude to maintain the rotating beam plasma at a predetermined radial size.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], pdxpyro, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 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