MIT Talks Plasma Details

Discuss how polywell fusion works; share theoretical questions and answers.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

scareduck wrote:
TallDave wrote:Rider's claim that the system would collapse to equilibrium before fusion could occur seems to be definitively proven wrong by the WB-6 results, if I understand that correctly.
Did he ever say that, though? His point was that energy loss would always be higher than energy output unless you could find an efficient way to recirculate bremsstrahlung radiation (or avoid it altogether), NOT that you couldn't achieve some level of fusion.
Well, Rider seemed to indicate that the system would maxwellianize and you'd just have a mush of ions at the same energy level, which would rule out fusion at the drive levels Bussard was working with in WB-6 (the fusion detected was comparable to what Farnsworth got at much higher drive levels).

I'm not as clear on the competing brem theories. I seem to recall Bussard found brem would only be about 5% of what Rider said it would be.

Now that I think about it, though, if Rider was assuming the system would maxwellianize maybe the bulk of his brem number comes from the braking those partticles experienced on their way to maxwellianization.
Last edited by TallDave on Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

pstudier wrote:
MSimon wrote:
The positive charge on the ions keeps them in the center region due to the positive charge on the grids. Those ions that do get near the grid will be low energy.
Really? Inside the grid there are almost no E fields because the grid forms a Faraday cage. You can not compress ions into a region of empty space with electric fields.
Wouldn't the Faraday effect just mean no external impinging E fields?

I thought it was the combination of the internal E field from the charge on the trapped electrons and the positive charge on the magrid that kept the positively charged ions confined.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Dave,

Yep.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

pstudier
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:37 pm

Post by pstudier »

TallDave wrote:

Wouldn't the Faraday effect just mean no external impinging E fields?

I thought it was the combination of the internal E field from the charge on the trapped electrons and the positive charge on the magrid that kept the positively charged ions confined.
Yes, there are no external impinging E fields. Indrek's simulations show that the Magrid must be positive to contain the electrons. For that reason the Magrid will repel the ions. If there are enough electrons to make the plasma negative, then the electrons will be driven right out of the machine.
Fusion is easy, but break even is horrendous.

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Check this out guys, Nebel's comment on the MSNBC story says it's the most complete treatment of IEC fusion gains:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... s&gifs=yes

I love this sentence:
Operating regimes with fusion power to ion input power ratios (Q-value) >100 have been identified.
That's hawt.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

Huh. I was gonna walk over to UCLA later today to see if I could crib a copy of W.M. Nevin's 1995 critique. Something else to see if I can scrounge.

Edit: The quote in toto:
A quick comment on Mr. Katz's statement [a comment referring to Rider and Nevin's early 90's work]: I presume that he is referring to the work of Nevins and Rider from the early '90s. That work did not agree with the earlier papers of Bussard, Rosenberg and Krall which concluded that when you looked at the orbit averaged collisionality the system worked fine. Furthermore, the most complete treatise on this was published by Chacon, Barnes, Miley and Knoll in Physics of Plasmas in 2000. This work used the full bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck operator and concluded that IEC systems would indeed work.

So what should one conclude from this? When similar assumptions give you different answers, it means that the physics is sensitive to these effects (i.e. the devil is in the details). The only way to settle that issue is in the laboratory, which is what we intend to do. If we find that the collisionality is a problem, there are ways to innovate around it (see, for instance, Barnes and Nebel in Physics of Plasmas 1998).

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

If I'm not mistaken, Gauss' Law means that nothing inside the Magrid sees it. Without the charged plasma, the entire space inside would be at the potential of the grid, so the internal electric field resulting from the grid charge is zero.

Electrons outside it are accelerated in, and kept there by the wiffleball effect. Ions formed inside the grid see only the wiffleball, and are thus accelerated inwards. The resulting plasma is negative, but not strongly - only enough to generate a potential well of about 80% of electron drive (ie: grid potential) at operating density.

The grid does repel any ions unfortunate enough to upscatter past it. This is a loss mechanism.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

93143 wrote:The grid does repel any ions unfortunate enough to upscatter past it. This is a loss mechanism.
Yes... isn't this the thermalization problem Rider mentioned as a primary loss mechanism?

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

Non-confinement is part of it, for sure.

The other part is that (if I'm not mistaken) Dr. B's bremsstrahlung calculations require a non-Maxwellian plasma in a particular configuration, and therefore the radiation loss for p-11B could be unacceptable if he was wrong about the annealing effect. You can't do productive p-11B fusion in a thermal plasma because the radiation loss exceeds the fusion power.

I'm still worried about whether the supposed annealing mechanism can handle a two-fuel system.

My other worry is whether alphas will sputter material from the grid too fast. Even if it's just boron, the rate has to be less than five ions per alpha impact or the core will flood. Anyone know if I'm worrying over nothing here?

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

93143 wrote:My other worry is whether alphas will sputter material from the grid too fast. Even if it's just boron, the rate has to be less than five ions per alpha impact or the core will flood. Anyone know if I'm worrying over nothing here?
I'm pretty sure the correct answer is "no, nobody really knows". I doubt even Bussard himself would be able to give you a good answer (though he might have some untested theories). That's one reason he was so adamant that the device had to be built: the math was so devilishly complicated that they couldn't do a reasonable computer simulation.

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

Well, I haven't managed to find out anything yet about sputter yields for energies this high, but I did find out that there will be a few 280 keV neutrons per million alpha impacts, due to formation of 14N (nitrogen) from 11B...

Also, penetration depth should be less than 1/10 of a mm, if my calculations are correct...

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

93143 wrote:Well, I haven't managed to find out anything yet about sputter yields for energies this high, but I did find out that there will be a few 280 keV neutrons per million alpha impacts, due to formation of 14N (nitrogen) from 11B...

Also, penetration depth should be less than 1/10 of a mm, if my calculations are correct...
With the outer sheath of the magnets at 600K or so it will be a trick to balance condensation with alpha sputtering.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

OK, here is Bussard's take on brem, via Ligon (from Simon's post):
Objection 3, bremsstrahlung radiation, is a very complex subject. The essence is that high-velocity electrons, at high density, especially in the presence of ions that have a lot of electrical charge on their nuclei, will cause the electrons to lose energy in the form of x-rays. This objection is not a serious problem for deuterium and deuterium-tritium fuel systems, even according to the critics. The objection does apply to p-B11, which requires much more severe conditions to cause fusion.

Here, we might even extend the analogy to the diesel engine. Diesel fuel is terribly prone to being ignited by the heat of compression, and will cause premature detonation if burned in a spark ignition engine. Alcohol is very resistant to this phenomenon, and gasoline is relatively resistant to it. In fact, diesel engines don't even have spark plugs, they control ignition by injecting the fuel once the compression stroke is completed. Overall, the Otto and Diesel cycles are very similar, but the more "exotic" fuel requires special measures to achieve proper operation. But diesels are desirable because they can operate at higher pressure, and so more efficiently, than the spark ignition fuels, and the fuel, at least in the early days, was cheaper.

The first way in which the bremsstrahlung problem is mitigated is a natural process of the machine itself. The electrons that form the potential well are at very high energy at the outer boundaries of the machine, but their density is lower there. In the center, where their density is high, they have given up most of their kinetic energy in the process of creating the potential well that drives the fusion reaction. Still, the ions are at their most energetic in the center of the machine, so the objection has been raised that they will "heat" the electrons and make them produce bremsstrahlung. The machine has its own mechanism for correcting this, a process similar to the edge-annealing process, based again on the Electrodynamic nature of the machine. The electrons never spend very long in the center of the machine, so they limit the amount of energy they can pick up there, and they tend to lose that energy back to the ions at the outer edge where that annealing is going on. In addition, the "virtual anode height" in the center of the machine is a function of ion density there, and it can be manipulated to reduce the problem (this might be seen as analogous to changing compression ratio of a spark ignition engine to control detonation). Finally, control of the relative abundance of hydrogen and boron can be used to mitigate the problem. Using all three together, Dr. Bussard predicts that bremsstrahlung can be reduced to easily manageable levels.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... d_u_1.html

Nebel mentions the thermalization problem in the MSNBC Cosmic Log thread, and alludes to his own POPS research in asserting the belief that ways can be found to "innovate around it."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 66532.aspx

Later in the thread he also makes an interesting point about parabolic wells giving surprisingly different results than square wells.

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

280 keV is pretty low energy - that is about 54 femtometer DeBroglie wave length. That will be easy to stop with low mass materials. So boron coated steel is starting to sound pretty good - it allows refueling and helps absorb energy. Using the cooling coil as both protection to the superconductor and heat removal for energy generation sounds pretty good.

Controlling the temperature may help to control the amount fo fueling too, so the worry about sputtering can be dealt with in a reasonable way.

Getting the thing to work at all is sort of a first worry though. We can deal with details once it looks like it can be made to work with a net gain. And I agree with the comment that even Q=1 will help a lot!

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Tall Dave,

We got a personal response from Nebel on the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WooooooooooooooHooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

Dr. Mike you might want to read it as it impinges on the calculation problem.

Nebel says calculating dynamic plasmas are a bitch.

Dr. Nebel says:
Also, I would like to thank M Simon, TallDave and their fellow bloggers for their continued interest in this technology. We appreciate that a great deal, but as you might imagine we have been a little too busy to communicate very much with the on-line people.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply