Increasing magnet power has an exponential diminishing return. It is somewhat of a red herring in regards to more magnet means better fusion with better containment. The real containment happens with adiabetic behaviour.
Just saying.
Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
-
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
So, in layman's terms, larger would be better
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
Could be an attempt to pry out what you're up to? If it isn't, I'd like to use it as suchladajo wrote:I also have to wonder about patent overlap with Polywell. Afterall, it seems to me that there is significant prior art in the concept of pinched cusps, be they line or point.

Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
More B Field is better, to a point. And that point is probably closer than most realize.paperburn1 wrote:So, in layman's terms, larger would be better
Think in terms of squeezing something between your fingers, you reach a point quickly where more squeeze does not produce more results other than your effort.
The sheath of the plasma is really where the fun happens. And it is driven by circulating currents in the sheath creating their own B Fields.
This is a very complex system where everything is seeking its own balance. It is, IMHO, the epitome of a chaotic system.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
ladajo wrote:This is a very complex system where everything is seeking its own balance. It is, IMHO, the epitome of a chaotic system.paperburn1 wrote:So, in layman's terms, larger would be better
Aptly put.

‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
I have done some rather simple calculations that show that for a given number of amp-turns making the device smaller increases the power inversely. i.e. half the size doubles the power.
Smaller is better.
Where this gets good is in Polywell rockets. And for rockets smaller is intrinsically better.
Smaller is better.
Where this gets good is in Polywell rockets. And for rockets smaller is intrinsically better.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
There is a problem with cylindrical reactors.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.00622.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.00622.pdf
Examining plasma trapping from the context of energy equilibrium yields new perspective on MHD independent of plasma microdynamics, a suggestion as to the form of equilibrium energy distributions and guidance as to how to construct plasma traps with better performance than the cusp- and mirror-derived devices commonly in use. We also see that the MHD equilibrium holds for systems with a magnetic null such as magnetic cusps. Gauge invariance, an intrinsic feature of the electromagnetic system, leads to the observation that the θ component of the vector potential in cylindrically symmetric neutral plasmas acts against confinement. A future paper will examine the design of an optimal trap for a force-free plasma.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Compact Fusion Reactor
Except that half the scale gives us 1/4 the cross section for coils, and corresponding amp-turns. Maybe even worse once shielding is accounted for.MSimon wrote:I have done some rather simple calculations that show that for a given number of amp-turns making the device smaller increases the power inversely. i.e. half the size doubles the power.
Smaller is better.
Where this gets good is in Polywell rockets. And for rockets smaller is intrinsically better.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.