eyewitness report from the new lab

[JohnP]

I check in a few times a day too... and it's not like I got nothing better to do.. . just don't want to miss that BIG announcement.

but... if waiting a little longer means they're doing a solid job, then spring, summer, whatever.

It's not like we have to wait 40 years like the t*k*m*k people.

[TallDave]

I can't take this anymore.

Anyone know the lab hours? I am going to sneak in and install hidden cameras.

(/kidding)

... call Dr. Nebel... His number is listed.

Good point! We should tap their phones as well.

[Munchausen]

no electron capture, no neutrons whatsoever we should propably have heard of it now.

Positive results will probably result in a long period of silence.

[scareduck]

Results -- good, bad, or inconclusive -- will likely not be announced until they're 100%. Considering how "out there" this stuff is considered to be, Nebel & Co. will have to be absolutely certain about their data. Even then there's a lot of arguments that need vigorous refutation. It occurs to me that MSimon's initial estimate of 70-120 days from late December may be optimistic.

[MSimon]

no electron capture, no neutrons whatsoever we should propably have heard of it now.

Positive results will probably result in a long period of silence.

If you read between the lines of the MSNBC report I think the conclusion is that results are as expected. Dr. Nebel said something to that effect about preliminary results. He said he would be surprised if the results differed significantly from experiments.

[MSimon]

Let me add that I think the Navy contract was a 9 month contract (I could be very wrong about this).

So if you start counting in September, 9 months ends at the end of June - the beginning of Summer.

FWIW.

The WB-6 experiments took about a month or two to complete once the experimental set up was done. If you allow an extra month so that you get definitive results that puts us at the end of this month for experiment completion. Add an extra month for "problems" and a month for data reduction and I'd say an April or May announcement is not out of the question.

[TallDave]

Results -- good, bad, or inconclusive -- will likely not be announced until they're 100%. Considering how "out there" this stuff is considered to be, Nebel & Co. will have to be absolutely certain about their data. Even then there's a lot of arguments that need vigorous refutation. .

Very true. I'd expect a lot of opposition even with positive results.

Fortunately, the cake may soon be big enough that we only have to argue over the size of the share, rather than whether we get any crumbs at all.

[choff]

The lab needs a great big keep out sign. Much as I'm dying to know, we don't want to let them feel any kind of pressure or distraction. At this point, nobody should do anything that might jinx it!

[MSimon]

The lab needs a great big keep out sign. Much as I'm dying to know, we don't want to let them feel any kind of pressure or distraction. At this point, nobody should do anything that might jinx it!

I have Dr. Nebel's e-mail so I could pester him with questions if I wanted.

I only contact him on technical matters related to advancing HIS project.

When he has something to say I'm sure he will say it. (MSNBC article on first plasma).

[rj40]

What ARE the questions being asked on this? I thought they were looking for supporting evidence as to whether a BFR will actually produce net power. But come to think about it, I don't really know. If I am right I guess we should expect an announcement similar to one of the below:

1. We have essentially confirmed our theory that a BFR will produce net power. We recommend moving on to a full-scale power producing model.
2. We have essentially refuted our theory. We were wrong. We recommend moving on to something else with respect to this use.
3. We have inconclusive results. We still don't know. We recommend ...?

Does this sum it up?

[scareduck]

1. We have essentially confirmed our theory that a BFR will produce net power. We recommend moving on to a full-scale power producing model.
2. We have essentially refuted our theory. We were wrong. We recommend moving on to something else with respect to this use.
3. We have inconclusive results. We still don't know. We recommend ...?

I doubt (1) is on the menu, since the scaling law tests aren't really what they're working on, just more rigorous confirmation of what Bussard reported in the first place. (2) is possible but (IMO) unlikely. (3) is a real possibility, but it again depends on what Dr. Nebel and friends are working on.

[rj40]

I doubt (1) is on the menu, since the scaling law tests aren't really what they're working on, just more rigorous confirmation of what Bussard reported in the first place. (2) is possible but (IMO) unlikely. (3) is a real possibility, but it again depends on what Dr. Nebel and friends are working on.

Hmmm. So, what ARE they testing? Are their goals to justify another, more fancy, WB that does NOT produce net energy? I thought Bussard said he wanted to verify some "things" with WB-6 or what is now 7 and then go straight for net energy. I work for the Navy myself, and I can tell you the money guys are rather hard nosed. If something isn't going to be operational on a definite schedule, it is generally out.

[TallDave]

I doubt (1) is on the menu, since the scaling law tests aren't really what they're working on, just more rigorous confirmation of what Bussard reported in the first place. (2) is possible but (IMO) unlikely. (3) is a real possibility, but it again depends on what Dr. Nebel and friends are working on.

Hmmm. So, what ARE they testing?

My understanding is they are verifying the WB-6 results, which were rather scant. The big deal with those results is that after many failed designs, WB-6 finally confined electrons long enough (1e5 transits) that a scaled-up version might produce net power.

Now, I read somewhere that Bussard reportedly said the Navy wanted to fund the $100M reactor if the tests were successful. I'm a bit skeptical they would try to jump that far in one leap, what with all the questions about thermalization, bremmstrahlung, sputtering, etc. My guess would be they go for a Q=1 size machine first, probably utilizing POPS as well. That would be a headline-maker if it worked, at much less risk than the 100MW attempt.

Of course, ideally they would attempt several different sizes at once, because if any size around Q=1 or larger works that's a serious breakthrough. That much funding might seem farfetched at first glance, but $1B could be enough to have 20 IEC projects going at once, they were supposed to give ITER $10B for just one project, and there's that strong correlation between fusion research funding and oil prices...

[MSimon]

Now, I read somewhere that Bussard reportedly said the Navy wanted to fund the $100M reactor if the tests were successful. I'm a bit skeptical they would try to jump that far in one leap, what with all the questions about thermalization, bremmstrahlung, sputtering, etc. My guess would be they go for a Q=1 size machine first, probably utilizing POPS as well. That would be a headline-maker if it worked, at much less risk than the 100MW attempt.

My current understanding (based on prices) is that the $200 million follow on effort would include several test reactors to test scaling laws, losses, and any thing else needed for engineering WB-100.

Things like:

Alpha energy particle distribution for pBj
Accurate p-B11 cross sections - scattering and fusion
POPS effect on ion/electron energy distributions in BFRs
Boron feed system
Control laws and time constants
Problems of continuous operation
First wall problem

etc.

[TallDave]

My current understanding (based on prices) is that the $200 million follow on effort would include several test reactors to test scaling laws, losses, and any thing else needed for engineering WB-100.

Interesting, I had assumed from earlier reading that that was just for the 100MW reactor itself.

If that estimate is even close to accurate, the economics are awfully compelling.