Recovery.Gov Project Tracker
Please note the following contract dates:choff wrote:I noticed it says, Final Project Report Submitted Yes. That would imply they have at least completed the terms of either the Navy contract or Recovery Act funding, and now they're doing the research for themselves?
CLIN 0001 - 30 Apr 2010 (= plasma wiffleball 8 ) - Completion of device build.
CLIN 0002 - 30 Apr 2011 (= Data) - Completion of WB8 testing
Seems they are about one quarter behind on their work. This SUGGESTS that they are ready, or VERY nearly ready for the WB8.1 "build" recommendation.
Folks who know how should be keeping an eye out for funding reports.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Taggin Final Report Submitted means they no longer intend to file Recovery.gov reports. But I am unsure how much they have spent to date, as the approved and invoiced amounts are at about 50%.
If they take more money from Recovery by invoicing, then it means they have to report again. I am confused on this point. Unless they have invoiced all teh Recvoery funds, and the system has not caught up yet. Hmmm....
In any event, I want to point out again that the machine is showing excellent confinement (for its design), and that means that it is scaling to me. The other half of the argument is power scaling. How may neutrons are counted with fuel introduction at full power?
I remain encouraged, but concerned about the Final Report being ticked off as a possible limit on project progress visibility. I also remain reserved about whether they have gotten to full power yet. They are careful about the words they pick, and that is not one yet used.
If they take more money from Recovery by invoicing, then it means they have to report again. I am confused on this point. Unless they have invoiced all teh Recvoery funds, and the system has not caught up yet. Hmmm....
In any event, I want to point out again that the machine is showing excellent confinement (for its design), and that means that it is scaling to me. The other half of the argument is power scaling. How may neutrons are counted with fuel introduction at full power?
I remain encouraged, but concerned about the Final Report being ticked off as a possible limit on project progress visibility. I also remain reserved about whether they have gotten to full power yet. They are careful about the words they pick, and that is not one yet used.
A good report indeed, even if sparse w.r.t. details.
I'd guess EMC2 personnel have a small shield, but I doubt that the whole reactor is shielded.
Remember that the lab is in a multi-unit building. Going to full power in that setting might exceed safe neutron counts for the neighbors.ladajo wrote:I also remain reserved about whether they have gotten to full power yet. They are careful about the words they pick, and that is not one yet used.
I'd guess EMC2 personnel have a small shield, but I doubt that the whole reactor is shielded.
Delta, I imagine it's no worse than lightning: http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri ... 014498.xml
But I have no numbers to back up that claim. Bursts of neutrons on a pico s time scale or even ms time scale are probably nothing - any pros out there know better?
EDIT: which reminds me I've always wanted to see a study that takes something like this: http://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml and correlates it with cancer rates 10-30 years out in the areas that lightning is highest concentrated.
But I have no numbers to back up that claim. Bursts of neutrons on a pico s time scale or even ms time scale are probably nothing - any pros out there know better?
EDIT: which reminds me I've always wanted to see a study that takes something like this: http://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml and correlates it with cancer rates 10-30 years out in the areas that lightning is highest concentrated.
Last edited by bennmann on Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Final report submitted - yes" was a surprise to me, and could mean many things. One possibility is that sufficient results have been obtained to warrant funding for the next size machine and that a report is needed to make the case. It does not necessarily mean that WB-8 detailed testing is concluded or money exhausted.
Or it could be a mistake. It seems to me that this is likely as data collation, model verification, and finalizing a report takes time.
Or it could be a mistake. It seems to me that this is likely as data collation, model verification, and finalizing a report takes time.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
I doubt that microwaves would be used for heating, aka Tokamak.Solo wrote:Microwave engineer says they want to use some kind of wave heating, probably electron cyclotron resonance (ECRH). Especially since they are talking about higher power. Possible reflectometry, interferometry, or EC temperature measurements, but less likely.
I'm really curious what they mean by 'excellent confinement.' Cusp machines aren't supposed to have good confinement. (I hope that's not a typo & should read 'excellent stability,' b/c we already know stability is fine & confinement is the big rub.) Any rate, I'm glad to hear it & can't wait to find out more!
Microwaves might be used for some diagnostics(?).
Microwaves could be used for POPS , or they could to more quickly and consistently ionize puffed gas on the border of the Wiffleball. This could improve ion mono energetic characteristics, and also possibly decrease the amount of non ionized gas that exits the Wiffleball. This was what terminated WB6 test runs. Wheather this was a problem for the WB7 gas puffed system.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
So we've gone from "okay" confinement to "excellent."
This is wonderful news. It means the nub-less design worked exactly as we'd been hoping.
Kite-- Yes... and just maybe a WB-9/D/100 full scale reactor. The budget environment is challenging, though.
Interestingly, they are working pulsed and not continuous as Rick had alluded to pre-contract.
This is wonderful news. It means the nub-less design worked exactly as we'd been hoping.
Kite-- Yes... and just maybe a WB-9/D/100 full scale reactor. The budget environment is challenging, though.
Interestingly, they are working pulsed and not continuous as Rick had alluded to pre-contract.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
If this works as well as we seem to be thinking they are saying it works, I doubt there will be ANY problem funding it. I suspect that a goodly number of Congress Critters would just LOVE to delete the $Billion for ITER in favor of $200Million for Polywell.TallDave wrote:So we've gone from "okay" confinement to "excellent."
This is wonderful news. It means the nub-less design worked exactly as we'd been hoping.
Kite-- Yes... and just maybe a WB-9/D/100 full scale reactor. The budget environment is challenging, though.
Interestingly, they are working pulsed and not continuous as Rick had alluded to pre-contract.
Or not.
Where is said allusion?
As of the first week of May, 2011, from Alan Boyle's interview with Dr. Park:
Maybe slow payment is the reason for a quick final report.
Regarding pulse operation, that is at high power, perhaps at lower power levels, WB-8 can operate for longer periods.
This figure does not match the 2011 Q1 .gov received funds, so there is a delay there, and EMC2 2011 Q2 reported funds received increase over Q1 is just $120,000 more for an additional quarter of testing. Maybe the Navy is supplying electricity and other large cost consumables, and the $120k is just for salaries?Park said that the WB-8 experiment was about 60 percent complete, which roughly matches how much of the $7.9 million has been spent so far. He acknowledged that EMC2 was originally aiming to finish the experiment by this time, but said the realities of government funding — including continuing resolutions, shutdown threats and other budgetary snags — have dictated a slower pace.
Maybe slow payment is the reason for a quick final report.
Regarding pulse operation, that is at high power, perhaps at lower power levels, WB-8 can operate for longer periods.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Yes. (Or even one word.KitemanSA wrote:It is amazing how het-up we get over such few words!
)The final report for WB-8.0 was due April 30, 2011. Obviously EMC2 is behind schedule. Last I heard they expected to keep testing until the money runs out around the end of this year. The optional WB-8.1 device was supposed to be completed by October 31, 2011 according to their original contract, but how or whether they intend to fit that in to their current schedule is not apparent to me.Aero wrote:What was the original due date for the final report? Wasn't it due? Isn't there a final report presentation/review coming up, and a decision on WB-8.1?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.