POLL: What will WB-8 produce?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

What do YOU think WB-8 will produce? (assume Bx8,rx2)

.002 watts No power scaling at all. We've wasted our lives here. darn you Bussard!
0
No votes
.2 watts Marginal scaling. Uh oh. Are we on the same Road to Nowhere as tokamaks?
5
24%
64 watts Straight B^4*r^3, baby. Let's burn some boron, then bring on WB-9!
14
67%
500 watts An embarassment of riches. Maybe we can run WB-8.1 and WB-9 at the same time?
0
No votes
1E35 watts Due to unexpectedly favorable scaling, the U.S. now has only 49 states.
2
10%
 
Total votes: 21

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

POLL: What will WB-8 produce?

Post by TallDave »

So... how much power does T-P think WB-8 will produce? We'lll assume .002 watts from WB-6/7, and Bx8, Rx2 for WB-8.

:!: :P >>>***CHOOSE CLOSEST OPTION***<<< :P :!:
Last edited by TallDave on Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Are you meaning "[up to] 0.002W" and [up to] &c." else presumably you have already concluded that it will definitely put out "something"?

And are you presuming *all* fusion reactions, inclusive of beam-wall interactions, or just fast-fast reactions?

Your question appears to presume that it can achieve steady state (watts) - or will "power" be inferred by some calculation of pulsed behaviour if it has some pulsed behaviour?

Betruger
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Somewhere between answers 2 and 3. More to the point, I reckon they'll still be too busy figuring out unexpected problems to worry about or be saved by power scaling.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Betruger wrote: More to the point, I reckon they'll still be too busy figuring out unexpected problems to worry about or be saved by power scaling.
I fully agree. If there was a "something unexpected" category, I'd tick that. Might be positive, might be negative... but it won't be what they expected. My reason for saying that'; no plasma experiment has EVER resulted in what was expected!

Betruger
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Well darn Chris. We finally agree on something. Call the scribe..

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I am confident there is very little I have stated as a disagreement with anyone.

I do my best not to disagree with anything, I merely discuss vehemently.

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I voted 0.2. Why? Because with everything that has been going wrong in my life in the last 9 months, I expect the worst. BUT, since I have to at least pretend to be keeping my optimism I went with the only half bad option.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

I'd also vote somewhere between 2 and 3. I optimistically expect positive results, but not so spectacular that critics can't deride them as marginal.

I hope that WB-8 and WB-8.1 can lead on to WB-9. If no show-stoppers emerge, I think that answer 3 would be feasible for WB-9. I know a lot of people would like to jump from WB-8.1 to a 100MW plant, but I don't think it will happen that fast.

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

Post by TallDave »

chrismb,

The option closest to what you believe the output will be. I updated the post for clarity on this point.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

TallDave wrote:chrismb,

The option closest to what you believe the output will be. I updated the post for clarity on this point.
Image
....CLOSEST ON A LINEAR OR EXPONENTIAL SCALE???!!!

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:chrismb,

The option closest to what you believe the output will be. I updated the post for clarity on this point.
Image
....CLOSEST ON A LINEAR OR EXPONENTIAL SCALE???!!!
Yes

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

I'll go with 64 Watts, except they might be more interested in testing confinement that scaling, in which case gain might be minimum.
CHoff

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

Post by MSimon »

I wanted to vote for carrots.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Hmmm. Two folks thing New Mexico is about to disappear. We seem to have a bit of the old "doomsday crowd" here, what? :P

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

I voted for the second option (from the top). I don't want to get my hopes up.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

Post Reply