Why people are so optimistical to Polywell?

[Joseph Chikva]

AFAIK, the primary force against thermalization is thermalization. See "Annealing" at this site:
http://www.ohiovr.com/polywell-faq/inde ... e#Glossary

Ok, thanks. I am heating my soup pan and in result that is cooling. Am I correct?

Counter-intuitive, isn't it. But remember that you are not "cooling" per-se, you are keeping the ions mono-energetic. Things trade kinetic and potential energy all the time. They do here too.

The thing to remember is that the collision cross section is much bigger at the cold end of this spectrum than the hot. So thermalization works better when cold. IIUIC.

A lot of people think of the fuel ions in a Polywell as ball bearings rolling up and down a bowl, but that isn't a good mental picture. Try thinking of them as ball bearings that get MUCH smaller at the bottom than the top. Thus, fewer collisions at the bottom and many more at the top. Ions catching up with ions (overtaking) have very small relative velocity so are bound to nudge and average the energy more often than ions in opposition spreading the energy.

All in all it makes sense, but still needs to be proved. And if it turns out not to be true, then it may be that the Polywell will not run steady state. Doesn't mean it won't work, just not steady state.

As I understand you are talking about electronic cooling.
You mean that ion-electron relative velocity at the edge is lower than in the core. And at the expense of it ions at the edge pass its radial (thermal) energy to electrons?
I never thought about it and so, I do not know how big that difference. But electrons have at least 4,000 fold lower mass and consequently for effective cooling you need a few orders of magnitude more electrons. Or electrons should be a mechanism allowing electrons to radiate that energy.
What do you think?

[Joseph Chikva]

Chikva, you are taking things out of context.

Yes, I am taking some things from long text and then trying to answer them.

Electron lifetimes (at ~ 10KeV average energies)

In a ~ 1 Meter machine diameter= ~ 5-6 passes in an opposing magnet mirror machine.= ~ 0.2 microseconds

In a Polywell with cusp confinement (No Wiffleball effect) ~ 60 passes= ~ 6 microseconds.

In a Polywell with Wiffleball effect (assume ~100 fold decrease in effective cusp hole size) = ~ 6,000 passes= ~ 600 microseconds

As I understand those are projected data not considering stability criteria - only single particle behavior.

As far as 0.4 Beta being an upper limit for Tokamaks before confinement suffers. I speculate this is due to the concave towards the center B fields. The Polywell does not have any concave towards the center B field lines. That is why it is claimed to be immune to MHD instabilities.

I always thought before that toroidal devices are more stable than mirror machines. It's new for me. Thanks.

[Joseph Chikva]

Here's Rick on two-stream, way back on the MSNBC article:

It is really interesting. Can you please give a link?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhPl....7.4547C

In case you have an AIP account:
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v7 ... horized=no

There is not anything in that abstract about stability in case of injecting process. As I understand only stability of existing plasma is considered there. Instability should occur when you inject a new portion of electrons.
It like that: it would be excellent if the hand bell will be adhered at the cat’s tail. But what will happen with mouse trying to make that?

[Giorgio]

You can't just consider a generic plasma and electron beam interaction. It has very little to do with what happens (should happen) inside the Polywell.

As I know regardless of device only different arrange velocities of electrons enough for creation of this type of instability at any conditionthat realy used in various devices. Including vacuum tubes, Astron of Nickolas Cristafilos, etc. And I am asking was this effect considered for Polywell or no? On base of what are declaring that "no"? Link? Article?

And on what base you are considering this instability to be the same inside the Polywell? Link? Article?

Your idea and our ideas are just theories.
Until we will have some real data to prove or disprove them that will stay like that and no one can affirm that he has the right one.

[chrismb]

Chickva, to me it seems that you are denigrating polywell not as a means to learn more about it, but as a prelude to trying to push your own funny idea.

You have to understand this; much as it is possible to throw negatives at polywell, and many other fusion schemes, in the end you still have to recognise that this is an actual experiment, it is in progress, there is tangible hardware.

This is why your 'idea' will never match polywell, because no-one will never, never, never, not ever build it.

Unless you have an agreed plan to build your monstrosity, you have no place to talk down another extant experiment for the purpose of the adulation of your own.

[Joseph Chikva]

Dear Chris,
frankly I do not see here people influential enough to promote even Polywell with its very small funding demands.
If to concern personal motives, may be namely your manner to say nonsenses has provocated me to learn more about Polywell.
Nonsenses like for example Oppenheimer-Fisher reaction.
Have you an interest and knowledge to discuss fusion problems and not personal motives of people why they discuss here and not visit e.g. other web-sites? Such as music, movie, porn, etc.

Regarding my invention, do not worry as well. As a few very respectful organizations talk with me. Don’t worry, be happy.

[Betruger]

Dear Chris,
frankly I do not see here people influential enough to promote even Polywell with its very small funding demands.

MSimon was and iirc Dr Nebel or Bussard said about as much for at least a few of the net's reporters.

[Joseph Chikva]

MSimon was and iirc Dr Nebel or Bussard said about as much for at least a few of the net's reporters.

Scientific reporters?

[Betruger]

What's the difference?

[Joseph Chikva]

What's the difference?

I am afraid I do not understand what do you mean.

[Betruger]

I'm asking because I don't understand what you're getting at. What does it matter if they're scientific reporters or not?

[KitemanSA]

As I understand you are talking about electronic cooling.
You mean that ion-electron relative velocity at the edge is lower than in the core.

No. At the edge, the electron / ion relative velocity is MAXIMUM, not lower than the core, It is the ion / ion relative velocities that are small. It is the ion/ion thermalization at the cold edge that keeps the ions mono-energetic (approximately).

And at the expense of it ions at the edge pass its radial (thermal) energy to electrons?

No. Ions have almost NO radial velocity at the edge. They have just climbed the potential well and converted radial kinetic energy to potential energy. It is their circumferential velocity that thermalizes (anneals - gets more tightly grouped, tends toward zero, however yoiu wish to state it) at the edge.

I did mention that as ions are in the process of climbing the well, the differences in radial energy should tend to average out too, but that is MY thought, not a significant part of the base hypothesis as I understand it.

I never thought about it and so, I do not know how big that difference. But electrons have at least 4,000 fold lower mass and consequently for effective cooling you need a few orders of magnitude more electrons. Or electrons should be a mechanism allowing electrons to radiate that energy.
What do you think?

The electrons are not (AFAIK) a significant part of the annealing process.

In a Polywell there are supposed to be a SMALL excess of electrons, not orders of magnitude more. If you need ~10E7 electrons to make the well (and I recall dimly a number like that), this number is still a VERY small part of the total ~10E19 each of ions AND electrons in the Polywell. The plasma is QUASI-neutral.

[Joseph Chikva]

I'm asking because I don't understand what you're getting at. What does it matter if they're scientific reporters or not?

And I did not understand who are the net's reporters.

[Giorgio]

I'm asking because I don't understand what you're getting at. What does it matter if they're scientific reporters or not?

And I did not understand who are the net's reporters.

InterNET reporters.

[Joseph Chikva]

As I understand you are talking about electronic cooling.
You mean that ion-electron relative velocity at the edge is lower than in the core.

No. At the edge, the electron / ion relative velocity is MAXIMUM, not lower than the core, It is the ion / ion relative velocities that are small. It is the ion/ion thermalization at the cold edge that keeps the ions mono-energetic (approximately).

And at the expense of it ions at the edge pass its radial (thermal) energy to electrons?

No. Ions have almost NO radial velocity at the edge. They have just climbed the potential well and converted radial kinetic energy to potential energy. It is their circumferential velocity that thermalizes (anneals - gets more tightly grouped, tends toward zero, however yoiu wish to state it) at the edge.

I never thought about it and so, I do not know how big that difference. But electrons have at least 4,000 fold lower mass and consequently for effective cooling you need a few orders of magnitude more electrons. Or electrons should be a mechanism allowing electrons to radiate that energy.
What do you think?

The electrons are not (AFAIK) a significant part of the annealing process.

In a Polywell there are supposed to be a SMALL excess of electrons, not orders of magnitude more. If you need ~10E7 electrons to make the well (and I recall dimly a number like that), this number is still a VERY small part of the total ~10E19 each of ions AND electrons in the Polywell. The plasma is QUASI-neutral.

Ions have not radial arrange velocity. But thermalized beam has a radial (thermal) energy. Cooling means the dissipation or of that or passing that to another substance.

QUASI-neutral plasma unlike to NON-neutral plasma means the total neutralizing of particles space charge. So, in QUASI-neutral plasma if you have not relativistic particles in it, should have an equal densities of positive and negative particles.

I am afraid you do not understand correctly what Polywell's developers mean.