Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
Having just read the paper posted on arXiv by the Polywell team I think that electron leakage from the cusps might be reduced in the octahedral or higher-order configurations; does anyone have any insight into this? I'm kinda throwing this out there for discussion. Is the reason higher-order polygons haven't been tried only monetary?
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
My understanding is that it is both the money to make the 'extra' pieces, and the time to get them made. Why spend +33% (for the octohedral) or +100% (for the dodec) the time on making parts when you can stick with the cube and start testing sooner.
And yes, I really want to see a working dodecahedral polywell.
And yes, I really want to see a working dodecahedral polywell.
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
The 6 and 8 coil configurations are duals of each other, the physical coil on one being a virtual coil on the other. So long as circular coils are used the 6 coil version appears to have better symmetry. Same for the 12 vs. 20 coil configurations.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
As Dr. Bussard said, it would be wise to test out a square plan-form magnet for the cube-octahedron deignthey have been working on. Personally, I suspect that a bowsided square plan-form would do best.
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
The rounded square magnet shape may be the best compromise, provided the corners abut against each other, not the long sides. This long side paralleling the next side provides to much surface area close to the cusps (within several gyroradii) so ExB losses may become dominate. This is in line with the earlier (prior to WB6) flawed modeling where "Funny Cusps" were a given and desired condition.
With square magnets arranged with the corners abutting, the point cusps and corner cusps will be closer in size. The symmetry through the center will also be maintained. Cusp losses through the corners may be somewhat increased, and point cusp losses may be decreased. But this six magnet arrangement would be more spherical- quasispherical. When asked why 'Mini B' had such wide spacing between the magnets, Dr Parks did not elaborate on the effect on increased corner cusp losses, but he did say it was an effort to increase the sphericity of the machine. How this related to confinement issues was not addressed. As there was little potential well, any anticipated ion convergence to a common center would (I think) be insignificant.
With increased spacing between the round magnets in 'Mini B' the truncated corners of the cube would be larger and the 14 real and virtual magnets would form a more spherical shape. Near square magnets may increase this effect. Going to larger numbers of real magnets could do this better, but at the cost of more complexity, and more (admittedly smaller) point cups.
Dan Tibbets
With square magnets arranged with the corners abutting, the point cusps and corner cusps will be closer in size. The symmetry through the center will also be maintained. Cusp losses through the corners may be somewhat increased, and point cusp losses may be decreased. But this six magnet arrangement would be more spherical- quasispherical. When asked why 'Mini B' had such wide spacing between the magnets, Dr Parks did not elaborate on the effect on increased corner cusp losses, but he did say it was an effort to increase the sphericity of the machine. How this related to confinement issues was not addressed. As there was little potential well, any anticipated ion convergence to a common center would (I think) be insignificant.
With increased spacing between the round magnets in 'Mini B' the truncated corners of the cube would be larger and the 14 real and virtual magnets would form a more spherical shape. Near square magnets may increase this effect. Going to larger numbers of real magnets could do this better, but at the cost of more complexity, and more (admittedly smaller) point cups.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
Ahhh, so increasing the number of cusps might increase the loss, and the number of edges that approach the cusps doesn't mitigate this effect.
That makes sense. Thanks Dan!
That makes sense. Thanks Dan!
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
The side to side configuration would be a cube, not a cube-octahedron. And in the cube-octahedron configuration, the abutting corners create the "funny cusp" as well as a physical construct can.D Tibbets wrote:The rounded square magnet shape may be the best compromise, provided the corners abut against each other, not the long sides. This long side paralleling the next side provides to much surface area close to the cusps (within several gyroradii) so ExB losses may become dominate. This is in line with the earlier (prior to WB6) flawed modeling where "Funny Cusps" were a given and desired condition.
Re: Cusp leakage in non-hexahedral configuration
More magnets with fewer windings each.D Tibbets wrote: Going to larger numbers of real magnets could do this better, but at the cost of more complexity, and more (admittedly smaller) point cups.