First, I'm not exactly sure which category to post this in, but I think this is the most appropriate - sorry if it's not.
So, I just spend the last couple hours watching the Google Bussard video about polywell, and gleaning a few additional scraps of info from the Wikipedia article on polywell fusion.
One of the problems that Bussard mentioned with the WB-6 (and which, apparently, continued to be a problem with WB-7, per Wikipedia), had to do with the connectors or 'joints' which physically connected the electromagnetic rings together.
It got me to wondering, could you design a wiffle ball where each of the rings was completely physically seperated from it's neighbors? That is, each of the rings would be independently held in position (and powered) by a structure similar to the support structure underneath the bottom ring on the WB-6 picture?
Or, would all the additional physical supports just introduce more electron loss problems?
Why have 'joints' connecting the rings?
Heh, a lot of us asked that question, and Rick's team did some work on the interconnects in their WB-7 experiments. Apparently they decided they were too much trouble, as the WB-8 design appears to do away with them, employing external supports instead.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Or does it? Now that I look closer, I wonder if those are e-guns. They appear to go to the corners rather than attaching to coils. But I don't see a stand, either. Maybe the schematic is just incomplete in that regard.
(The picture is now labelled WB-7.1, but that's a new vacuum chamber and the jpeg itself is called "WB8" so it's probably WB-8)
It was once supposed here that external supports would be a bigger area for e-losses, but it's no longer believed that electrons recirculate all the around field lines so external supports are probably better.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Or does it? Now that I look closer, I wonder if those are e-guns. They appear to go to the corners rather than attaching to coils. But I don't see a stand, either. Maybe the schematic is just incomplete in that regard.
(The picture is now labelled WB-7.1, but that's a new vacuum chamber and the jpeg itself is called "WB8" so it's probably WB-8)
It was once supposed here that external supports would be a bigger area for e-losses, but it's no longer believed that electrons recirculate all the around field lines so external supports are probably better.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Aha! Fresh meat!
I think everyone agrees that a metalic cross beam in the middle of that line-like cusp is probably a sub-optimal design. What there is NOT an agreement on is how best to replace it. Some like the forest of posts method (obviously since I use denegrating language, I am not one of those). Other like the beautiful design of a bow-legged, MPG w/ X-Cusps as shown here
The legs on this rendition are way too big, but it gets the idea across!
Since the connections are all expected to be well protected by mag fields, there should be no loss path like the cross connects. (nubs, nurbs, etc.)
Thank you Tombo for the graphic!
I think everyone agrees that a metalic cross beam in the middle of that line-like cusp is probably a sub-optimal design. What there is NOT an agreement on is how best to replace it. Some like the forest of posts method (obviously since I use denegrating language, I am not one of those). Other like the beautiful design of a bow-legged, MPG w/ X-Cusps as shown here
The legs on this rendition are way too big, but it gets the idea across!
Since the connections are all expected to be well protected by mag fields, there should be no loss path like the cross connects. (nubs, nurbs, etc.)
Thank you Tombo for the graphic!
An example of a Polywell with independently supported magrids:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec2009/talks/ ... elroge.pdf
Dan Tibbets
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec2009/talks/ ... elroge.pdf
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
The WB-8 Graphic seems to convey a modular coil design with individual wall supports along the lines of Joel's (Rick Nebel aware of) paper. If you look at each face of the containment it seems to clearly portray a standardized system of penetrations and mountings. The larger face plate having central veiwing port surrounded by four probable service access flanges to support power and possible cooling for each coil independant of the others (from an acess point of view).
I firmly think they have moved to wall mounts, and previous photos from older designs seem to correllate the idea by the methods used. Take a look at how WB6 and WB7 were connected to the bottom of the tank for service(s).
I firmly think they have moved to wall mounts, and previous photos from older designs seem to correllate the idea by the methods used. Take a look at how WB6 and WB7 were connected to the bottom of the tank for service(s).
In the WB-7.1/8 picture, the four flanges per coil are more-or-less radially oriented, so the associated coil supports (not shown) would be in the magrid shadow (assuming straight supports), connecting to the magrid near the former nub locations, but slightly to the inside of each coil. Makes sense.
I think we got an inadvertant (on purpose?) bone tossed to us with the graphic.
All in all, they should have delivery of the core by now, and even have it set up.
I wonder if they have powered it up yet? We shall see about July 15, with the next recovery.gov posting. Unless it remains with the ambiguous "on track, on budget" theme of the last one. I remember when I first posted the tracking site, and some of the sceptical what good it discussion by some. Whod've thought it would become our primary source of info. Shame on Rick. Unless he and the navy get a little more forthcoming, Focus Fusino will crush them in the PR war, and PR equals money. They could get inadvertantly budget killed by over optimistic Focus Fusion Fans and a poor marketing plan. The only thing on their side right now is House and Senate support if DOD innovation in Energy and Energy management. I spent the better part of today at work reviewing the SASC reports on the FY11 budget. Some interesting themes.
I am thinking of poking the recovery.gov folks in the eye for more fidelity on the reporting. I have been reviewing the fund recievers reporting requirements and think there may be some room for improvement. The FOIA animal is not dead yet, I am in process of appeal.
All in all, they should have delivery of the core by now, and even have it set up.
I wonder if they have powered it up yet? We shall see about July 15, with the next recovery.gov posting. Unless it remains with the ambiguous "on track, on budget" theme of the last one. I remember when I first posted the tracking site, and some of the sceptical what good it discussion by some. Whod've thought it would become our primary source of info. Shame on Rick. Unless he and the navy get a little more forthcoming, Focus Fusino will crush them in the PR war, and PR equals money. They could get inadvertantly budget killed by over optimistic Focus Fusion Fans and a poor marketing plan. The only thing on their side right now is House and Senate support if DOD innovation in Energy and Energy management. I spent the better part of today at work reviewing the SASC reports on the FY11 budget. Some interesting themes.
I am thinking of poking the recovery.gov folks in the eye for more fidelity on the reporting. I have been reviewing the fund recievers reporting requirements and think there may be some room for improvement. The FOIA animal is not dead yet, I am in process of appeal.
Indeed it is.TallDave wrote:Huh, that's an interesting possibility. But I'm still leaning toward the caption just being unfortunate web site design.
Just after the update, the caption said something like "Demonstrated Scaling Effects, WB 8." under that same graphic. I pointed out to Dr. Nebel that said statement should NOT be in the "EMC2 has Proven:" list and he said effectively "Oops", and replaced the statement but not the graphic. So now we have a WB8 picture over a WB 7.1 statement. Oh whell!
In all truth, I guess I'd rather him be doing the real research than keeping the web site spiffy. But I would offer him my limited services as a web master to help disseminate such info as he wanted. I supect there would be a number of much more qualified volunteers if he asked.
If he takes you up on your offer, make sure you update the EMC2 website link "Results and Final Conclusions" to clarify that it refers to WB-6, not later versions.KitemanSA wrote:In all truth, I guess I'd rather him be doing the real research than keeping the web site spiffy. But I would offer him my limited services as a web master to help disseminate such info as he wanted.
The marketing for EMC2 should emphasize the orders-of-magnitude power difference between DPF and Polywell.ladajo wrote:Shame on Rick. Unless he and the navy get a little more forthcoming, Focus Fusino will crush them in the PR war, and PR equals money. They could get inadvertantly budget killed by over optimistic Focus Fusion Fans and a poor marketing plan.