TallDave wrote:
If you're claiming toks are better at a given funding level, you need to prove your claim. I am only claiming an absence of comparable data.
That's a big fat NEGATORY, fella. I wasn't the one making claims, I was the one disproving your claims like:
TallDave wrote:Just as Rick says, these machines are far less expensive than toks at similar points on the same exponential neutron production scale.
I've claimed nothing to be proven (re-print it, if I have), I've only made propositions and crunched the numbers that seek to disprove this comment of yours.
I've claimed nothing to be proven (re-print it, if I have),
...
Depends by what/whose calculation; price per actual experimental neutron is won by tokamaks, hands down.
As I've said, you don't know that's true for similar funding levels, and comparing vastly different funding levels doesn't make sense because the relationship isn't linear.
Just as Rick says, these machines are far less expensive than toks at similar points on the same exponential neutron production scale.
For tok-level funding that's according to theory, obviously; if it was proven and the loss scaling worked we'd be building Polywell reactors all over (and the whole point of the research is, of course, to find out) but B^4*R^3 is relatively uncontroversial. If you have some data that says this is wrong at current Polywell funding levels, I'm all ears...
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
price per actual experimental neutron is won by tokamaks, hands down.
As I've said, you don't know that's true for similar funding levels, and comparing vastly different funding levels doesn't make sense because the relationship isn't linear.
eh!!??? I know this precisely and most definitely. JET has produced 16MW of neutrons for 200M, and Polywell has produced approximately zero for 25M!
Reads the words, rather than listen to the voices in your head: "PRICE PER ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL NEUTRON"
Assumes linearity in the statement. Implies actual past production of neutrons under experimental conditions!!!
Yer both nuts! Yer both arguing opposite sides of an incompatibility. Jet = 200M. Maybe, but WB7 = ?? 200k? We don't know, but comparing the JET and it's cost to the entire funding for Polywell technology is a bit disengenuous.
Niether of you will be able to convince the other until a time-line of Polywell vs tokamak, cumulative n production vs cumulative cost is obtained. Till then, please take your "he siad - she said" argument to a different topic, or better, via PMs.
Skipjack wrote:I am with Kurt and Solo. FRC seems really interesting too and if Art Carlson backs it up, it gotta be good
We could discuss Mach-Lorentz thrusters as well.
In any case, the "General" part of this forum is degenerating into political discussions, which is why I think we need something technical to discuss, like John Slough's FRC.
In any case, the "General" part of this forum is degenerating into political discussions, which is why I think we need something technical to discuss, like John Slough's FRC.
I agree with that. I prefer that to political discussions and it is better for my health too
Seriously though, it is strange how much easier it is for me to find consensus with certain people when the topic is tech and how hard it is with politics. I am normally a person that avoids confrontation (I just dont like it), so techtalk is definitely preferable
The navy will be recieving monthly updates beginning end of march, so somebody will know. If it gets released to the public is another matter, either because its a flop, or its so good they tell the whole world because they think the economy could use the boost. The longer it runs quiet, the less chance its a flop.