Talk-Polywell.org

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:18 am**

Sent by one of my correspondents:

*

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /436.short

*

Electron clouds rotating in axially symmetric magnetic fields have been known for a long time, but the agreement between theory and experiment is still very unsatisfactory. The discrepancy appears to be due to the interaction of electrons. Before approaching this difficult problem it is desirable to possess a more complete theory of stationary swarms without interaction. In the present paper the distribution density is calculated on the basis of classical statistical mechanics. It is shown that electrons injected at any point with very small initial velocities will distribute themselves with a density inversely proportional to the distance from the axis, in a certain annular space. Only the limits of this space, not the distribution inside it, will be dependent on the electric or magnetic fields. The uniform or nearly uniform distributions calculated by previous authors are singular solutions, inconsistent with any degree of statistical disorder. Other laws of density distribution can be realized by simultaneous injection of electrons at several points. These offer a possibility to realize dispersing electron lenses and corrected electron optical systems. It is shown that the ring current produced by the rotating electron cloud can reduce the magnetic field at the axis very considerably in devices of practicable dimensions. It appears also possible to produce clouds of free electrons with densities sufficient for observable optical effects.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:27 pm**

Reading that paragraph and interpreting "observable optical effects" to mean "loads" you're suggesting that this article provides support for viability of the electron cloud in the center of a polywell?

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:49 pm**

What relevance is it? Was I not previosuly hammered for suggesting non-radial velocities would occur? If not directly, I surely still feel that that was the essence of rebuttals to some previous contributions I've made. I'm guessing this is more to do with Penning-type traps, and I've not looked at the link yet.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:52 pm**

Oh, I see. I can't see the link. Another case of having to 'pay' homage to the high alter of science. AND it's not even still in copyright!!

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:10 pm**

Oh that's bull and you know it, if scientists had their way the knowledge would be distributed freely. No high alter at all.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:22 pm**

Professor Science wrote:Oh that's bull and you know it, if scientists had their way the knowledge would be distributed freely. No high alter at all.

Not sure about that. Depends on the scientist. I tend to email them directly if their published works are not freely available and I assure you there is a whole mixed bag of outcomes from that approach! Unfortunately, in Gabor Denes' case, he ain't with us any more to ask. Besides, it is probably now more relevant to look at the Penning fusion experiments done a few yearsa go now, in this context (now terminated due to lack of funds/lack of results).

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:32 am**

In addition to Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic, the new kid on the block of nonlinear optimization techniques is called Particle Swarm Optimization. Don't know enough about it to say if there's any obvious application to Polywell, but apparently it's loosely based on emulating the behavior of swarms of social animals, such as bees, ants, flocks of birds, schools of fish, etc. to optimize a set of system design parameters. Maybe some sort of mapping is possible where electrons and ions are treated as swarming critters?

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:56 am**

Professor Science wrote:Oh that's bull and you know it, if scientists had their way the knowledge would be distributed freely. No high alter at all.

Why yes. A study of the scientific work in Climate Science makes that abundantly clear.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11022

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:16 pm**

The abstract seems to discribe dispersion of electrons from an injection axis that sounds somewhat similar to the dispersion of the initial electron injection beam in the Polywell that limits the potential well to ~ 80-90% of the potential of the electron beam. The mention that laterally (?) rotating electrons could lower the magnetic field at the axial beam injection site might be harmful to the Wiffleball hole size. Or, is it suggesting there would be less initial dispersion of the injected electrons, which could lead to the potential well being closer to the injection potential? Is there a tradeoff that is benificial or harmfull?
Also, would an overall rotation of the electron cloud disrupt the elliptical potential well (radial electron distribution) that I persist in believing in?

Dan Tibbets

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:36 pm**

Professor Science wrote:Reading that paragraph and interpreting "observable optical effects" to mean "loads" you're suggesting that this article provides support for viability of the electron cloud in the center of a polywell?

Edge I think or possibly both. Optical effects - radiation, scattering?, lensing?, rotation?, filtering?,

I may have to read the whole paper.

Talk-Polywell.org

Swarming Electrons

Swarming Electrons