fusion report

[Joseph Chikva]

How can you imagine this? If NRL staff provide to author information about laser fusion method researched in their laboratory there was not even slight mention about another approach linked with the same laboratory?

What are you yammering about? Since when, other than a minor attachment back in the 1980(?) time frame, has NRL had ANYTHING to do with Polywell? Not only do you not know English well, you have no knowledge of Navy R&D organizations. Your bias shows in the conclusions to which you leap blindly.

Really?
Who financed and still finances emc2? DOE, my grandfather or who?
Where in this thread you can see my conclusions?

“yammering”?
How we can call the person when he spoke about creation of nickel enrichment facilities for several thousands dollars?
Who was that person? Me or you?

[Joseph Chikva]

And one more question is: are you really sure that Tri Alpha people "are solving the issues mentioned in the report"?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhPl...19e6108T

Large field reversed configurations (FRCs) are produced in the C-2 device by combining dynamic formation and merging processes. The good confinement of these FRCs must be further improved to achieve sustainment with neutral beam (NB) injection and pellet fuelling. A plasma gun is installed at one end of the C-2 device to attempt electric field control of the FRC edge layer. The gun inward radial electric field counters the usual FRC spin-up and mitigates the n = 2 rotational instability without applying quadrupole magnetic fields. Better plasma centering is also obtained, presumably from line-tying to the gun electrodes. The combined effects of the plasma gun and of neutral beam injection lead to the high performance FRC operating regime, with FRC lifetimes up to 3 ms and with FRC confinement times improved by factors 2 to 4.

"Must be further improved" we (you and me) have not idea how strongly they must improve.
Very good if "mitigates instability" even without usage of quadrupoles. But where we can see the picture of influence of this type of instability on confinement?
When they speak "improved by factors 2 to 4" what is the target parameter?
And again, the report has its author who writes about "worthy of reviewing" and only he decides what approach is worthy and what is not.
I only can say that single article of number of authors means that one stage of R&D has been perform but that can not and does not provide the proof of viability of concept.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

How can you imagine this? If NRL staff provide to author information about laser fusion method researched in their laboratory there was not even slight mention about another approach linked with the same laboratory?

What are you yammering about? Since when, other than a minor attachment back in the 1980(?) time frame, has NRL had ANYTHING to do with Polywell? Not only do you not know English well, you have no knowledge of Navy R&D organizations. Your bias shows in the conclusions to which you leap blindly.

Really?
Who financed and still finances emc2? DOE, my grandfather or who?

ONR, a totally different organization.

Where in this thread you can see my conclusions?

You conclude that since NRL participated with 3 papers, none of which were re Polywell, they must think it a flop. Your bias is that it is a flop so you jump to that ridiculous conclusion.[/quote]

[Joseph Chikva]

ONR executes its mission through:
-Science & Technology Departments
-ONR Corporate Programs
-Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)
-ONR Global Office

I have concluded nothing except that I said that you can write your own report yourself including there all approaches you considering as "worthy". And issue is only in your creditability vs. creditability of author of discussing report.
One more my conclusion that it is very naive to think that if authors were in cooperation with NRL, they are not aware with programs being under supervision with ONR as those two organizations are not totally different but are the higher - the subordinate organizations. And I assume that people responsible in fusion programs NRL are aware what is ONR doing in the same field. At least, if you like to speak about "board of experts" as I understand that board is formed with experts from both organizations plus may be some (very few) invited people as well.

[KitemanSA]

“yammering”?
How we can call the person when he spoke about creation of nickel enrichment facilities for several thousands dollars?
Who was that person? Me or you?

Yes, yammering. Who was the person? Neither. And your continuing implication that I said it is just another example of your continuous lying (or could they just be repeated STUPID mistakes?)

But the matter is not in energy that has to be spent.
But for enrichment process very serious and specific facilities are required.

For Uranium, I will concur. For Nickel this is not proven. I suspect I could build an "enrichment" plant for under a couple of $100k, especially if I had an MRI facility to work in.
As a fallback option, please note that Neodymium magnets are permanent (no power needed) and provide ~5x the field strength of the ORNL Calutron. They are not cheap, but they use NO power and can be limited to the actual arc of the seperator rather than encasing the entire seperator completely.

I still think I could do it.

[KitemanSA]

ONR executes its mission through:
-Science & Technology Departments
-ONR Corporate Programs
-Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)
-ONR Global Office

I have concluded nothing except that I said that you can write your own report yourself including there all approaches you considering as "worthy". And issue is only in your creditability vs. creditability of author of discussing report.
One more my conclusion that it is very naive to think that if authors were in cooperation with NRL, they are not aware with programs being under supervision with ONR as those two organizations are not totally different but are the higher - the subordinate organizations. And I assume that people responsible in fusion programs NRL are aware what is ONR doing in the same field. At least, if you like to speak about "board of experts" as I understand that board is formed with experts from both organizations plus may be some (very few) invited people as well.

Not if ONR doesn't want them to, at least not necessarily any more so than we do.

[Joseph Chikva]

“yammering”?
How we can call the person when he spoke about creation of nickel enrichment facilities for several thousands dollars?
Who was that person? Me or you?

Yes, yammering. Who was the person? Neither. And your continuing implication that I said it is just another example of your continuous lying (or could they just be repeated STUPID mistakes?)

But the matter is not in energy that has to be spent.
But for enrichment process very serious and specific facilities are required.

For Uranium, I will concur. For Nickel this is not proven. I suspect I could build an "enrichment" plant for under a couple of $100k, especially if I had an MRI facility to work in.
As a fallback option, please note that Neodymium magnets are permanent (no power needed) and provide ~5x the field strength of the ORNL Calutron. They are not cheap, but they use NO power and can be limited to the actual arc of the seperator rather than encasing the entire seperator completely.

I still think I could do it.

I am still saying you that you are too far from reality.
If this would be so easy as you think very poor and less developped countries also will have nuclear capabilities.
Good luck.

[Skipjack]

Must be further improved" we (you and me) have not idea how strongly they must improve.
Very good if "mitigates instability" even without usage of quadrupoles. But where we can see the picture of influence of this type of instability on confinement?
When they speak "improved by factors 2 to 4" what is the target parameter?
And again, the report has its author who writes about "worthy of reviewing" and only he decides what approach is worthy and what is not.
I only can say that single article of number of authors means that one stage of R&D has been perform but that can not and does not provide the proof of viability of concept.

I understood it as "must be further improved with the following methods". Which he subsequently describes. The FRC lifetimes have essentially trippelt and the confinement times have been qudrupelt. According to Slough, 2 ms confinement that he achieved (also more than the 1 ms mentioned in the report) are enough for T+D. Tri Alpha is going for PB11 and they need more than that, but I suppose they could do D+D as a first step.

[Joseph Chikva]

I understood it as "must be further improved with the following methods". Which he subsequently describes. The FRC lifetimes have essentially trippelt and the confinement times have been qudrupelt. According to Slough, 2 ms confinement that he achieved (also more than the 1 ms mentioned in the report) are enough for T+D. Tri Alpha is going for PB11 and they need more than that.

I've read a lot of "must be improved".
And speaking about "trippelt" and "qudrupelt" do you know the start point?
As in TOKAMAK case in comparison with first experiments lifetime was improved millions times and nevertheless we still have not commercial fusion today.
And if Helion has already achieved desirable parameters (I was mistaken if so) let's they go forward. Nevertheless I did not hear about any progress in this direction. And have well stated doubts on feasibility of this approach.

[KitemanSA]

I still think I could do it.

I am still saying you that you are too far from reality.
If this would be so easy as you think very poor and less developped countries also will have nuclear capabilities.
Good luck.

This just shows three things.
You have a total lack of discrimination (Uranium vs Nickel).
You have a total lack of ability to conceive anything new.
You have a total lack of ability to imagine you may be wrong.

Oops, and a fourth thing,
You have a total lack of ability to acknowledge when you have been shown to be factually incorrect.

[Skipjack]

And speaking about "trippelt" and "qudrupelt" do you know the start point?

Here is the link the full article in case you have not found it yet.
It gives a more detailed presentation of the situation and the related data:

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet ... ypassSSO=1

Edit, this part of the summary may give you more of a clue on where they are at with their device:

The HPF operating regime described in the present paper
yields much of the improvements in plasma stability
and confinement that are required before attempting FRC
sustainment in the C-2 device. In the middle of the FRC
lifetime (1 ms), the FRC global power losses are 4 MW
for HPF discharges, which is within reach of the available
injected NB power. FRC sustainment may be possible in
near-term experiments, with increased NB power and pellet
refueling.

[Joseph Chikva]

And speaking about "trippelt" and "qudrupelt" do you know the start point?

Here is the link the full article in case you have not found it yet.
It gives a more detailed presentation of the situation and the related data:

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet ... ypassSSO=1

Edit, this part of the summary may give you more of a clue on where they are at with their device:

The HPF operating regime described in the present paper
yields much of the improvements in plasma stability
and confinement that are required before attempting FRC
sustainment in the C-2 device. In the middle of the FRC
lifetime (1 ms), the FRC global power losses are 4 MW
for HPF discharges, which is within reach of the available
injected NB power. FRC sustainment may be possible in
near-term experiments, with increased NB power and pellet
refueling.

Ok, thank you.
I will read.

[Joseph Chikva]

This just shows three things.
You have a total lack of discrimination (Uranium vs Nickel).
You have a total lack of ability to conceive anything new.
You have a total lack of ability to imagine you may be wrong.

Oops, and a fourth thing,
You have a total lack of ability to acknowledge when you have been shown to be factually incorrect.

1. I am saying that enrichment method comprising in different isotopes gyroradii difference, should be quite universal. It would be equally successful either for helium, uranium and for pollonium as well.
2. Method is as new as humans found out an existence of isotopes. But that is quite expensive for embodyment. Because high current cyclotrons (the most common accelerators for such applications) worth several and tens millions and not hundreds.
3. Please, be right and be not wrong and in this case I will recognize my wrongfulness with pleasure. But now on the contrary - I am right and for separating of significant quantities of Nickel isotopes (grams in months) you need tens millions worthy facilities and so you are wrong.
Good luck.

[KitemanSA]

Cyclotrons? What are you babbling about?

You, with your apparent total lack of imagination, might need to build a facility that is 2/3 CENTURY out of date. Doesn't mean others are as limited as you.

Oh, and by the way, can you show me where I mentioned an amount of output per unit time? I don't recall having done so, but it has been a while.

[Joseph Chikva]

Cyclotrons? What are you babbling about?

You, with your apparent total lack of imagination, might need to build a facility that is 2/3 CENTURY out of date. Doesn't mean others are as limited as you.

Oh, and by the way, can you show me where I mentioned an amount of output per unit time? I don't recall having done so, but it has been a while.

Yes, my little friend. Cyclotrons.
I understand that you respect only new things published somewhere like NextBigFuture, but 2012 Mar 18 High beam current operation of a PETtrace™ cyclotron for 18F- production. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22476015

PETtrace Radiotracer Production System
http://www.isotopia-mi.com/image/users/ ... id=3636787

http://www.advancedcyclotron.com/cyclot ... ybrid/tr24
YOUR FACILITY COSTS $2M - $4M + Cyclotron* $2M - $4M + Cyclotron* $8M - $15M + Cyclotron*
MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONAL COSTS $50K - $300K/yr* $50K - $300K/yr* $500K - $1M/yr*

Do you want more links?