Cyclic Fusion Reactor. Colliding Beams.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:03 am

You can only calculate these things if you know the confinement time. What is the confinement time?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:10 am

chrismb wrote:You can only calculate these things if you know the confinement time. What is the confinement time?

Calculation of center-of-mass collision energy, finding fusion cross section on graph, etc., etc. do not required confinement time.

On about two posts ago I wrote:

Feasible confinement time depends on development of instabilities. And not on nothing else. As the offered system cinematically (single particle’s behavior) is absolutely stable.
Strictly speaking the instabilities task can not be solved analytically. But on base of common experience and taking into account that the offered confinement concept is very similar to TOKAMAK and also the temperature in device is much lower than in TOKAMAK, we can wait that the feasible confinement time will not be less than in at least in TOKAMAKs (seconds order) and we need only milliseconds.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:13 am

You can only calculate these things if you know the confinement time. What is the confinement time?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:16 am

chrismb wrote:You can only calculate these things if you know the confinement time. What is the confinement time?

Feasible time not less a second.
Required time a milliseconds order.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:09 am

Dear Dr. Ioseb Chikvashvili

ISFNT-10 is now just 3.5 weeks away.

We have posted an updated schedule which includes technical sessions as well as other events such as the Sunday Evening Welcome opening session, Wednesday Morning Breakfast cruise on the Portland Spirit, Thursday Evening - Dinner at the Portland Art Museum.

Very important deadlines are rapidly approaching for ISFNT-10.

The first is for hotel reservations at the guaranteed conference rate. This deadline is August 20th, just 3 days away. Please reserve your rooms now, through the ISFNT-10 website (http://www.isfnt-10.org/) under 'VENUE and ACCOMMODATION' tab. After August 20th the Conference Hotel will no longer guarantee rooms for ISFNT-10 participants.

The second deadline is for the regular registration rate for the symposium. The deadline for regular registration has been extended to September 2nd. Beyond this date, registration fees will increase by 20%.

ISFNT-10 Program Book will include an Abstracts CD. Abstracts included are for both oral and poster presentations. If you are a presenting author (oral and posters) you have one more opportunity to check the 'paper profile(s)' you have submitted for both accuracy and authors list. It is the text that you have entered in the paper profiles that will be included in the Abstracts CD. The editing needs to be completed no later than August 20th.

Finally, if you have any questions regarding the technical program we have not answered do not hesitate to contact me. Hanna Shapira (hshapira@techno-info.com) will assist you with conference registration issues.

I look forward to seeing you at ISFNT-10.

Best Regards,

ISFNT-10 Local Organizing Committee Chair
Fusion Safety Program, Idaho National Laboratory
BEA, P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, Idaho 84315-3860

Important Links

• Preliminary Program File - PDF format - http://isfnt-10.org/pdf/pre-tech-prog-4.pdf

• Preliminary Program Page Link - http://isfnt-10.org/Program-schedule.html

• Events - http://isfnt-10.org/events-guest.html

• Conference Hotel Registration - http://isfnt-10.org/accommodation.html

• Authors' Instructions and Login - http://isfnt-10.org/login.html

• Conference web site - http://www.isfnt-10.org/

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:31 am

I like Portland. It is nice. Lots of homeless teens though...

I doubt there will be much(if anything) on Polywell at the conference, given the sponsers.

Are you going to make it Joeseph?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:14 pm

ladajo wrote:Are you going to make it Joeseph?

Unfortunately no.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:06 am

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP11/Event/153438

- - - - > SCHEDULING NOTICE FOR:

53nd Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics
Co-located with the 64th Annual Gaseous Electronics Conference
November 14-18, 2011
Salt Lake City, Utah

The abstract you submitted:
(Abstract Log Number DPP11-2011-000008)
'New Fusion Concept Using Coaxial Passing Through Each Other Self-focusing Colliding Beams (Invention),'

has been accepted and scheduled for session UP9, (Poster Session VIII: C-Mod Tokamak; DIII-D II; Solar, Interplanetary, and Magnetospheric Plasma Physics; Plasma Technology; )
which will begin at 02:00 PM on Thursday, 11/17/11 in room: Hall A.

APS Meetings Department
E-mail
(301) 209-????

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:45 am

My discussion about Poster that I am going to represent at 53rd Annual Meeting of Plasma Physics Division of APS.
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/990/
I have not posted here because I do not know how to upload here files.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:11 pm

congratulations JC about having your poster accepted. wish you all success. hope you will find someone to build it for you/prove/disprove the idea. let us know how it goes

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Thank you very much.
But I am afraid that I am too far from building of reactor yet.
As some people have contacted me but getting to know the cost stop conversation. As this is rather costly project.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:03 am

As I have found out I have a wide area (4' x 8') in that Poster Session I also added the chapter on instabilities there.

Instabilities

In spite of the fact that mag field configuration of proposed Concept is very similar to TOKAMAK (combination of toroidal
and poloidal fields), stability limits written for TOKAMAK (Kruskal-Shafranov, Troyon, etc) are not quite applicable

As:
Plasma is quazineutral in TOKAMAK unlike the Concept
There are not high relativistic electrons in TOKAMAK unlike the Concept
Bremsstrahlung is not considered as one of stabilizing factors in TOKAMAK unlike the Concept
Temperature in a beam by the Concept is at least on order of magnitude lower than in TOKAMAK
Etc.

Kink Instability
Electron component is high relativistic and it is well known that in case when v<<γ beam does not suffer kink instability even
without usage of external stabilizing factors (such as axial mag field, conductive wall, etc.). And electron beam provides some
“rigidity” to the combined beam.
Here:
v = Ne^2/m0c^2 is so called Budker’s parameter in which N is the number of electrons per unit of length
( v = 1 corresponds to case when N = 3.6E14 m^-1 and electron current equal to 17’000 A)
On the contrary, ionic component has a high v with γ close to 1 (v > 1), produces strong poloidal mag field at the surface and
should be stabilized from externally. But the fact ions move along the axis and in potential well of “rigid” electron beam together
with the stabilizing factor of comparatively weak toroidal field allows to hope on immunity against on at least short wave kink
instability.
Long wave kink instability can be eliminated by electrostatic quadrupoles (usage of such quadrupoles is proposed also for HIF)

Transverse Instabilities
Transverse Instabilities such as:
Betatron waves
Beam breakup instability
Transverse resistive wall instability
Hose instability
Etc.
may be damped effectively as something like “friction” is observed in combined beam.
Radiative “friction” by which via collective momentum interchanging all charged particles having transverse velocities moving in a
very strong poloidal mag field dissipate energy via Bremsstrahlung

Longitudinal Instabilities
Longitudinal Instabilities such as:
Two-stream instability
Negative mass instability
Longitudinal resistive wall instability
Etc.
can not be dumped effectively only by radiative “friction”.
But also it is well known high relativistic factor slows two-stream instability’s development rate and there are number of papers in
which is stated that comparatively weak longitudinal mag field dramatically expands stability area.
So, proposed concept will have immunity on at least electron-ion two-stream instability, electro-electron two-stream instability will
not be observed at all and ion-ion due to ions’ lower charge-to-mass ratio are less subject to this type of instability.
Also for ion-ion two stabilizing factors:
Longitudinal mag field
Certain initial spread of velocities
would be useful.

Negative mass instability should not be a problem for proposed Concept due to the fact that despite of non-neutral nature of combined
Beam, nevertheless ions are in negative potential well of electrons and electrons – in positive potential well. And there are not conditions
for grow of this type of instability in this case.

Regarding Longitudinal resistive wall instability: its growth or damping depends sensitively on the axial velocity distribution of particles
near the phase velocity (Landau damping). And by Neil and Sessler the rule for stability here is that the spread in circulation frequency
must be near the certain value.