Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:33 pm
by Aero
So if WB-8.1 generates 100 mW of fusion poser, that will be good enough for the navy to proceed with funding for the construction of WB-9. Hopefully it will be more power, but as long as it is enough to justify project continuation, then I will be happy. Well, as long as the justification is based on firmly valid results. Of course we'd all be happier if we could see some of those results. I doubt any of us wants to see continued funding for a failed effort. As my daddy would have said, it does no good to beat a dead horse.
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:38 pm
by MSimon
Aero wrote:So if WB-8.1 generates 100 mW of fusion poser, that will be good enough for the navy to proceed with funding for the construction of WB-9. Hopefully it will be more power, but as long as it is enough to justify project continuation, then I will be happy. Well, as long as the justification is based on firmly valid results. Of course we'd all be happier if we could see some of those results. I doubt any of us wants to see continued funding for a failed effort. As my daddy would have said, it does no good to beat a dead horse.
The deal about 100mW is not the power. It is the fact that with that many fusions diagnostics start to get reliable (not confounded so much by statistical fluctuations).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:26 am
by TallDave
MSimon wrote:My take is that 100 mW does not represent net power. Just the amount of fusion.
Sorry, I just don't see how that's possible.
3.2.2 The contractor shall deliver a report detailing the results of the experimental testing of WB8.1. The report shall provide sufficient information to guide programmatic and design decisions about further, refined design efforts for similar devices. The report shall address the plasma dynamics of WB devices, and shall address the scaling laws
that apply to polywell fusion, and the feasibility of the PB11 reaction. The report shall address the conceptual requirements for a polywell fusion reactor capable of generating approximately 100mW.
That graf just doesnt make sense read as milliwatts. WB-8 itself should produce at least 80 times that, and nothing that makes only 100 milliwatts should be called a "reactor," nor would we need to consider the conceptual requirements.
Has to be a typo, imo.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:28 am
by TallDave
So if WB-8.1 generates 100 mW of fusion poser, that will be good enough for the navy to proceed with funding for the construction of WB-9.
No, that's definitely not what the SOW says. The only place "mw" appears is in the reference to a conceptual design of a future reactor.
https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... R-0044.pdf