New Polywell Reactor Article in Journal of Fusion Energy

[MSimon]

Maybe we could take the politics of this topic out into a separate forum thread.

I apologize.

The moderator thanks you.

[Aslan]

Maybe we could take the politics of this topic out into a separate forum thread.

Betruger, it is my politics forum. Please visit it.
viewtopic.php?t=3385

[ladajo]

After I saw the front page of the National Post today I take back the joke. Things are getting paranoid enough right now. Your Polywell effort is probably safe, unless somebody decides it can be used as a neutron source to enrich weapons grade material. Then it gets on the target list, unless Mossad decides to use assasinations instead of bombing. If thats the case, the top researchers have to keep checking the rear view mirror while driving for two guys on a motorbike.

First, large scale Polywell is proton-Boron fusion reactor that is not suitable to produce neutrons because of first wall lifetime.
Secondly, the fission research reactors with high neutron production rate are available in every country. If they wanted to make or upgrade their weapons, they had done until now. So they never want.
It seems the real terrorists are those who kill or threaten researchers. The measures that Mossad does, can be easily understood that who are the terrorists?

Aslan,
A Proton-B11 Polywell is not a neutron source of significance. That is its whole point.
However, if you burn D-D or D-T then it is another story. If you can burn P-B11 you can burn the others. It is inherant in the design.

[ladajo]

Also, have you read the Phd papers by Thomas Mcguire or Ryan Meyer

Yes, I read about multi-grid IECF that increases NPR.
In IECF devices adding "cooling system+multigrid" is very difficult.

Yes, I agree, it would need to be a ground up design for the grids, not something to add later.

On that note, which Ion gun set up do you think you will pursue, and how long do you think it will take you to get them up and running?

I think your chamber will support several options on this given its size and shape. So what are you thinking?

[ladajo]

Vahid,
Have you seen this paper?

http://en.scientificcommons.org/18512075

might be easier to pull from here:
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/EMC2 ... e-guns.pdf

edit: added second link

[vahid]

Vahid,
Have you seen this paper?

http://en.scientificcommons.org/18512075

might be easier to pull from here:
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/EMC2 ... e-guns.pdf

edit: added second link

ladajo,

Thanks for your guidance. I did not see it before. It's useful.
.

[ladajo]

You are welcome.

When do you think you will move forward on your next step, (I assume Ion guns)? Or will you think to improve the e-guns first?

[vahid]

You are welcome.

When do you think you will move forward on your next step, (I assume Ion guns)? Or will you think to improve the e-guns first?

Really, I don't know. We will have some publications before improving.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n528k7j84l78n5x7

[ladajo]

Please keep us posted.
In the mean time I will look at your new article. Thanks.

[bennmann]

Any new news? Or perhaps a new thread I missed? It has been some time.

[Netmaker]

There were some questions raised about how the design suggestions Kiteman made might be produced.

Not knowing anything about the materials involved or the current construction process I will of course attempt to throw out a suggestion:

http://www.liquidmetal.com/

They have some supposedly fantastic advanced amorphous metal alloys and manufacturing techniques similar to the manufacturing techniques that are available for plastics.

Apple bought an exclusive license for the use of their technology in consumer electronics devices.

[KitemanSA]

There were some questions raised about how the design suggestions Kiteman made might be produced.

Really? I must have misseed such questions. Link please?

But please be aware that all my designs have a path to a simple construction process or I would not have suggested them.

No I will not necessarily tell you about them because if this thing proves out, they may be patentable.

[Netmaker]

Here are your design suggestions from your Oct 21st, 2011 posting in this thread:

The first thing that Dr. B. wanted to do after the more robust WB6 (that got called WB7) was to try a square plan-form version of WB6/7. I personally think that it would be beneficial to make it a bowed square plan-form version. And it should be quite easy to build.

PM me if you are intersted in discussion this.

Hi, Kiteman,
In larger reactors, I think that we have two methods in square-shaped Magrids:

1 - Two adjacent square, the sides are not parallel. (The corners of squares are adjacent.)
2 - Two adjacent square, the sides are parallel. ( The sides of squares, are adjacent.)

In the first case, the cusp can be larger. This is not good.

This is a poor graphic of what Dr. B was planning to do.

the magnets would be connected together, prehaps at the corners or perhaps better away from the corners. Since there is no line like cusp, it seems this makes the smallest set of cusps of any of his designes except maybe the dodecahedral unit. I think a bowed version of this would be the place to start.

In the second case, non-parallel current carrying wires repel each other. In a real-size Polywell reactor, maybe we can't keep togther, two wires carrying high direct currents. Maybe it is impossible. (40000turns*100Ampers== 4 Mega Amper)
..

If you mean another shape, please send it.
.

This iw what tombo drew up under my coaching.

This is Dr. B's MPG machine.

This is my bowed version of same.

The corners would need to be connected as stated above.

These next four are different views of a varient of the bowed unit. This is the most difficult to make, but not too hard I think.

Here is Vahid's post asking for construction suggestions:

Thank You, kiteman.

The first shape isn't good because of cusps increasing.

Other 6 shapes are very suitable with very small cusps.
Your ideas are very good.

It seems, construction of it will be more difficult.

Do you have some suggestions about constructing them?

Both are on the 3rd page of this thread if you wish to refresh yourself about the full context.

You may have had some private discussions with Vahid with construction suggestions.

That still leaves the question as to whether the Liquid Metal product/process is even suitable for or offers any advantages in constructing a Polywell device.

[KitemanSA]

Thank You, kiteman.

The first shape isn't good because of cusps increasing.

The first one is Dr. Bussard's design and he seemed to think that the cusps would DEcrease and the sphericity would improve such that the overall output would gain by a factor of ~5. It is also by far the easiest of the three to build.

Other 6 shapes are very suitable with very small cusps.
Your ideas are very good.

It seems, construction of it will be more difficult.

Do you have some Suggestions about constructing them?

Yes, but not for free. Co-mention in the patent would be plausible payment.

My pardon, I thought you meant some actual statement of difficulty, not just a "looks MORE difficult" type of off-hand observation. Yes, they will be MORE difficult to build than a WB6 type machine. That does not imply it is TOO difficult.

[Netmaker]

My understanding is that the current Polywell's have been produced using hand machining and that this takes some time. That is not to say that it would take that same amount of time should a commercial design be developed and more sophisticated manufacturing techniques used.

So, thinking ahead, it would be desirable to explore manufacturing techniques that might lead to higher manufacturing rates needed for a commercial product before testing is concluded and a commercial design+manufacturing process are selected by default.

But what do I know Not enough...