EMC2 news

[rjaypeters]

Solo, I thought relativistic energies would be too much of a good thing for polywell electron injection, but when I think "polywell electrons" and add "relativistic," I next think about the air-propellant cruiser/SSTO Dr. Bussard envisioned years ago. The operative phrase there is "relativistic electron beam." Sadly, this new technique may have too low an efficiency for this purpose.

[D Tibbets]

Solo, I'm unsure of your calculation. Are you using electron gyro radius or electron gyroradius. Cusp confinement at Wiffleball conditions is proportional to the species gyroradius and is generally considered as unacceptable if the ions gyroradius is the limiting factor. If ions are leaking at a higher rate they will pull electrons with them to some degree- quasi neutrality and bipolar flows considerations. In Mini- B there was no mention of any significant potential well formation. The density of hot electrons from the injection of 7000 eV e- gun was insufficient. As such there would be little electrostatic confinement of ions so the ion gyro radius was possibly the limiting factor in the machine when the higher Beta was reached. I'm unsure how that effected the enhanced hot electron confinement, but I suppose that it would leave much room for improvement in a machine designed/ capable of developing a deep potential well.

Tom Ligon, Plasma/ electron confinement within a cusp might be further illustrated by George Miley's bipole experiment. He used a single ring electromagnet with electron beams focused into it from both sides. With some positive charge on the magnet, improved electron confinement within the cusp was achieved. I don't think it was a tremendous amount, but...

Dan Tibbets

[rjaypeters]

I hope polywells get a slice of this money:

Bill Gates and Tech Billionaires Launch Clean Energy Coalition

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/ene ... -coalition

And the other fusion candidates, too!

[Skipjack]

New Patent Application by Park and EMC2!!!

Pub. No.: WO/2015/191128 International Application No.: PCT/US2015/020040
Publication Date: 17.12.2015 International Filing Date: 11.03.2015
IPC:
G21B 1/05 (2006.01)
Applicants: ENERGY MATTER CONVERSION CORPORATION [US/US]; 9155 Brown Deer Rd., Suite 4 San Diego, CA 92121 (US)
Inventors: PARK, Jaeyoung; (US).
KRALL, Nicholas Anthony; (US).
SIECK, Paul Earl; (US)
Agent: BLUMENTHAL, David A.; (US)
Priority Data:
61/951,387 11.03.2014 US
14/645,306 11.03.2015 US
Title (EN) METHOD AND APPARATUS OF CONFINING HIGH ENERGY CHARGED PARTICLES IN MAGNETIC CUSP CONFIGURATION


https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/ ... PCT+Biblio

[crowberry]

Great finding Skipjack!

Here is a link to the PDF of the 70 pages patent document http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2015191128A2.pdf.

[choff]

I hope it's a different guy at the Patent office than the one Nebel had to put up with.

[Tom Ligon]

The title of the patent is METHOD AND APPARATUS OF CONFINING HIGH ENERGY CHARGED PARTICLES IN MAGNETIC CUSP CONFIGURATION, however the abstract specifically mentions that the confinement is for fusion: "The electron injector produces a plasma potential well within the reaction chamber to confine ions and accelerates ions to fusion relevant energies within the reaction chamber."

So the claim is not just for a novel plasma apparatus, but that it is intended to go for fusion. That's pretty assertive language for the normally cautious Dr. Park, especially as the latest machine was not intended to come anywhere near fusion condition, but was just to study electron confinement.

[ScottL]

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100284501

Whats the major difference between EMC2's patent and this one?

[bennmann]

One of the listed "Inventors" is https://www.linkedin.com/in/sieck

He has a company listed called "Fusion One"

http://imgur.com/BKFctPC

"Fusion One is a research and development team with one goal: commercialize cusp field inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) reactors that produce steady-state, net gain fusion energy."

I have been unable to find anything else about this company out. Perhaps he listed it on his Linkedin too early? Anyone else able to find anything?

[Giorgio]

Here it is:
http://www.fusionone.co/

"F1-A
THE FUSION ONE POLYWELL REACTOR
FUSION ONE HAS MADE A NUMBER OF DESIGN ADVANCEMENTS TO THE POLYWELL RESULTING IN A NEXT-GENERATION REACTOR CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING HIGH RATES OF FUSION ENERGY. F1-A WILL PAVE THE WAY TO LARGER SCALE DESIGNS CAPABLE OF BREAKEVEN ENERGY AND ULTIMATELY NET GAIN FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES 2016."

Quite a bold statement!

[palladin9479]

Well I'll be damned, they finally got around to building an actual demo reactor. Looks like 2015 was spent securing funding and getting the required engineering talent together to actually build a working fusion reactor. Would also explain the lack of public information, they had to make sure they were ready before pulling the trigger.

Here's to a successful future gents

[nferguso]

The "Reactor" section of the website says construction starts in 2016. There's no specific information about the reactor, other than it is "confidential".

[AcesHigh]

I wonder if they shouldn't drop calling it F1, or they will spend all their money on a legal battle with FIA which probably has the acronym as a trademark for Formula One.

[paperburn1]

They will now!

[hanelyp]

I wonder if they shouldn't drop calling it F1, or they will spend all their money on a legal battle with FIA which probably has the acronym as a trademark for Formula One.

As I understand trademark law, a trademark is specific to a line of business. So a fusion reactor called F1 would not infringe on a trademark with the same name for auto racing. Which is not a guarantee so idiot wouldn't try to take it to court anyway.