*
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/ ... works.html
*
The solicitation:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... =1&au=&ck=
H/T marc b
WB-8 Coming
WB-8 Coming
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
DrB wanted to rebuild WB6 as (appearantly WB6) and then build two more, WB7 and WB8 that had square plan-form and pentagonal plan-form magnets respectively. Well, the WB7 name got usurped as the rebuilt WB6, so maybe the WB8 will be what was supposed to be WB7. Or maybe they will just jump to WB8. Whatever it is, this seems to be the source of the "I believe we will know the answer for the Polywell in ~ 1.5-2 years" statement. Oh boy!!
Hard to say at this time. I did give Rick a heads up on some used MRI magnets and all he said was "interesting". This is the picture from the link I sent him:TallDave wrote:Still cu, though, you think? Or will they chop up an MRI?
I guess the B scaling is relatively important in terms of the various factors. It would make sense as a factor to vary.
http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/2009/04/10/mri/
So he is well aware of the idea.
Maybe he will drop a hint here at some time.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I think what we have to assume is that EMC2 will have ~$2M over ~2years. That is the data we have now. What do you think they can get from that? From my POV, either one slightly larger Cu (perhaps chilled Cu) or two same scale Cu systems. I get that via a very BOE type calc as follows.
$1.8M yielded 2 years of people and place, plus 1 set new facilities Plus 1 new small scale Cu machine.
~$450k yields about 1 year people and place plus minor mods to 1 machine. (I am WAGing that $450k as $300k from the Jan09 +$50k from each of the three earlier ones.) Thus,
People and Place = ~$400k/year
New Facilities = ~ $500k
New Small scale machine =~$500k.
No new facilities needed and ~$2M over two years means ~$1200k for new machines.
Would be much cheaper if done with private money, but...
$1.8M yielded 2 years of people and place, plus 1 set new facilities Plus 1 new small scale Cu machine.
~$450k yields about 1 year people and place plus minor mods to 1 machine. (I am WAGing that $450k as $300k from the Jan09 +$50k from each of the three earlier ones.) Thus,
People and Place = ~$400k/year
New Facilities = ~ $500k
New Small scale machine =~$500k.
No new facilities needed and ~$2M over two years means ~$1200k for new machines.
Would be much cheaper if done with private money, but...
No.Maui wrote:So, Simon, will this now qualify to satisfy your sigline?
$2 million is rather far from the $40 million a year (or more) I envision.
I do think it is great that funding continues. I will not be content until I see a machine that can produce 1 to 10 MWth of power. Then the rush will be on if the physics works.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
As far as I can tell, the best way to test scaling would be to build a bigger machine. I saw a picture of a huge vacuum chamber at NASA on talk-polywell last year. Maybe the magrid made out of MRI magnets could be run inside it on the cheap.
Probably WB8/8.1 means 8 sided magrid. Another thing is, WB7.1 might be worn out after continuous testing and need replacing. It would be interesting to see if they still intend to keep using both machines.
Probably WB8/8.1 means 8 sided magrid. Another thing is, WB7.1 might be worn out after continuous testing and need replacing. It would be interesting to see if they still intend to keep using both machines.
CHoff
One hint is that they intend to test improved transport. That implies to me stronger magnets.choff wrote:As far as I can tell, the best way to test scaling would be to build a bigger machine. I saw a picture of a huge vacuum chamber at NASA on talk-polywell last year. Maybe the magrid made out of MRI magnets could be run inside it on the cheap.
Probably WB8/8.1 means 8 sided magrid. Another thing is, WB7.1 might be worn out after continuous testing and need replacing. It would be interesting to see if they still intend to keep using both machines.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Rick said they wanted to get confinement from okay to good, and confirm scaling. With grid intercept no longer a worry, additional magnets should allow improved confinement.
With the scaling law, in the 6 sided machine radius aprroximately equalled machine radius equalled magnet radius. With 8 magnets machine radius is greater than magnet radius. You might get better confinement but a slight reduction in net gain.
Maybe they can save a few bucks by just getting 2 more magnets and adding them into a rearranged WB7. All this is speculative of course.
With the scaling law, in the 6 sided machine radius aprroximately equalled machine radius equalled magnet radius. With 8 magnets machine radius is greater than magnet radius. You might get better confinement but a slight reduction in net gain.
Maybe they can save a few bucks by just getting 2 more magnets and adding them into a rearranged WB7. All this is speculative of course.
CHoff
Are bigger wiffle-balls going to be blown by WB-8?
Stronger magnets for the same physical size machine and operating currents mean smaller, less spherical wiffle-balls. To get correct, meaningful scaling laws for transport, I think the sphericity of the wiffle-ball has to be held constant over all else. The field curvatures are a critical factor influencing transport effects, they should be held constant.
Stronger magnets for the same physical size machine and operating currents mean smaller, less spherical wiffle-balls. To get correct, meaningful scaling laws for transport, I think the sphericity of the wiffle-ball has to be held constant over all else. The field curvatures are a critical factor influencing transport effects, they should be held constant.