Recovery.Gov Project Tracker
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
Thanks for the contract post. Pardon the asides:
I've had trouble with insomnia for many years; except for the relevant portions, the U.S. Navy may have provided a cure.
Similarly, gentles, read...no don't, just scan the rest of the contract. It is a wonder anyone does business with the U.S. federal government - and this is a small contract!
I've had trouble with insomnia for many years; except for the relevant portions, the U.S. Navy may have provided a cure.
Similarly, gentles, read...no don't, just scan the rest of the contract. It is a wonder anyone does business with the U.S. federal government - and this is a small contract!
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
Sorry,
See this:
https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis/deta ... ?id=238726
and the J&A:
https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file ... %20J&A.pdf
And I am still looking for the contract announcement where I believe they allocated the additional $4mil for line items 3 and 4.
We had it all laid out in a previous thread.
The break down was $8mil for WB8 and $4mil for WB8.1.
Edit: Corrected J&A link
See this:
https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis/deta ... ?id=238726
and the J&A:
https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file ... %20J&A.pdf
And I am still looking for the contract announcement where I believe they allocated the additional $4mil for line items 3 and 4.
We had it all laid out in a previous thread.
The break down was $8mil for WB8 and $4mil for WB8.1.
Edit: Corrected J&A link
Last edited by ladajo on Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Duh,
It was right in front of me. Been a while since I looked at that stuff.
see: https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis/deta ... ?id=238726
for:
It was right in front of me. Been a while since I looked at that stuff.
see: https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis/deta ... ?id=238726
for:
in the final para.The address for EMC2 is 1202 Parkway Dr, STE A, Santa Fe, NM 87507-7253. Award includes an option for a Wiffleball 8.1 for an additional $4,455,077.
I have speculated before about how much faster the data collection may be for this presumably magnet cooled machine. With WB6,7, the magnets would have to be cooled down while maintaining deep vacuums. The time between tests may have been a minimum of a few hours for the uncooled machines, and only a few minutes for WB8. . It also depends on the vacuum pumping. I suspect that even the vacuum vessel for WB8 is smaller than the large tank they had for WB6, so pumping time limits were probably also shorter- to clear the gas after each run.mvanwink5 wrote:First plasma November 1, 2010, so nearly six months of operation with plasma. I wonder if R. Nebel has had WB-8 up to full power yet, or if he is being methodical and won't know what it looks like at maximum for a while?
I speculate that the first tests were plasma studies, magnet testing, gradual build up. Wiffleball tests, then lower B, lower Volt tests, and a few tests to near maximum B and Voltage tests. Then they probably backed of and did numerous tests as they gradually scaled up B and V levels. Finally, maximum B and V tests to try to squeeze out the most scaling information. With better controls, they might also significantly push the duration of tests- instead of a fraction of a millisecond, they might manage several hundred milliseconds. That would be very valuable in arguments about thermalization issues, more more truely steady state operation.
In, short they may have bee able to acquire critical information within a couple of months of first plasma. Provided the machine survives, they could then probably spend many months testing subtle effects as they twist the knobs.
Then again, they may be struggling with various problems, and be stalled.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
There was one sim report a month or two ago that said scaling was only 3rd power of radius and breakeven would require a 150 meter machine. I would assume if scaling was 4th power we might then expect a machine of about 15 to 20 meters radius. That wouldn't fit in a submarine but might still be viable as a power source?TallDave wrote:I've been secretly hoping for "scaling favorability severely underestimated, facility vaporized during test in Feb, new team hired in Mar."
CHoff
The thing I don't get is the R^5 gain. This is what I see.hanelyp wrote:Power scaling of R^3*B^4 is well established physics. Assuming the magnetic field is limited by current density in the magnets, B proportionate to R is a plausible engineering estimate. This leads to R^7 power. Assuming R^2 losses, R^5 power gain.
Code: Select all
R R^7 R^2 R^7 - R^2 R^5
2 128 4 124 32
3 2187 9 2178 243
4 16384 16 16368 1024
Aero