Talk-Polywell.org

Superconducting magnets effectively ARE permanent magnets; once you ramp up the current in the coils, you turn off the power and the current in the coils maintains itself indefinitely. You don't continuously supply them with power like you would a normal electromagnet. The only effective differences...

Another concideration for these sims. I assume that the grids are lines in these sims rather than real electromagnets with finite crossections. the magnetic and electric fields are calculated from lines at the center, of the coils, but if i recall correctly, they do have a minor radius, and an part...

this could be interesting to simulate:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.01788

sounds like pons-fleishmann cold fusion.
...which btw i feel should be renamed to something like "solid state fusion", or "condensed matter fusion".

What do you mean by 2D configuration? The video and pictures you see are of the spindle or biconic cusp configuration. ... cylindrical (2-d) quasi-symmetry as opposed to spherical (3-d) quasi-symmetry. presumably the confinement is considerably worse, which suggests the device is used for researchi...

* the earlier picture shows the plasma I glow mode. I assume that's just so we can see it, and that vacuum pressure is actually much higher. * I'm seeing largely a layered 2D configuration. So it makes me wonder: ** what is the theory of confinement? Expected confinement time? ** what kind of data a...

can quantum plasma dynamics be simulated in a reasonable time to a reasonable approximation using monte carlo methods with importance sampling?

https://www.jlab.org/hugs/archive/Sched ... r-Lec1.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0702020

Something based on this would be very cool:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0702020

Using Monte Carlo methods to reduce the time complexity of simulating quantumn field theory models.

The intent is to test machine scaling. And that is why it runs on thousands of cores on a supercomputer. Wait, so it _was_ run on a thousand cores, or it soon will be? Sounds like maybe scalability has already been tested or at least started to? Speculating here... Sounds like the problem has been ...

If all the optimistic comments are true then scalability is a non-issue. So then why was it said that scalability is "next"? Maybe what was really meant is that next is that simulation parameters will be varied to test -machine- scalability as opposed to -algorithm- scalability?!? Two entirely diffe...

The proverbial elephant in the room is the electromagnetic fields from the moving particles.

You can't do scaling until you have the first principles model figured out. There are some physics going on that were not understood, or to a degree even known. It is a very complex system. You can't have the reprentation of first principles figured out until you have the data structures planned ou...

You can't do scaling until you have the first principles model figured out. There are some physics going on that were not understood, or to a degree even known. It is a very complex system. You can't have the reprentation of first principles figured out until you have the data structures planned ou...

ladajo wrote:No, not yet. Scaling is next.

I can share that it runs on 1000+ cells when it runs.
I would not say it is horribly inefficient, I would say it is high fidelity and very defendable.

Wait, so then it doesn't use floating point numbers?

Hard to imagine a scenario where scaling isn't first.

ladajo wrote:It is First Principles based, and supported by coders and The processing power requirements alone exceed anything realistic folks here have access to for any kind of a timely output on a run. "

Ok so you're telling me the algorithm is horribly inefficient.