Models Suitable for Display

[KitemanSA]

Impressive, sir. But, I would argue against the "nub" leaks being so prominent. 14 cusps, not 26.

Nope, I believe that the 26 is correct. Therewill be 14 point cusps and 12 line like cusps where the funny cusps would be in the patented design. Indeed, if the line like cusps had not been so significant, the nubs would not have been worth eliminating.

[DeltaV]

I think a distinction between alphas (fusion products) and electrons (p-B11 bait) is called for.

I'm guessing 6 major and 8 minor alpha "beams" (more likely, "cones" for high power and particle numbers, due to mutual repulsion), and electron recirculation/oscillation in respectively decreasing amounts through the 6 point cusps, 8 "triad" cusps and 12 "line" cusps.

So, 14 for alphas and 26 for electrons.

P.S. - Rjay, you need to put the nub gaps back in, they are critical for success per WB-6 results.

[ladajo]

Impressive, sir. But, I would argue against the "nub" leaks being so prominent. 14 cusps, not 26.

Nope, I believe that the 26 is correct. Therewill be 14 point cusps and 12 line like cusps where the funny cusps would be in the patented design. Indeed, if the line like cusps had not been so significant, the nubs would not have been worth eliminating.

Did we confirm that yet?

[DeltaV]

Elimination of inter-coil nubs in WB-8.x was a guess based on the picture at www.emc2fusion.org .



Or were you referring to cusps, ladajo?

[rjaypeters]

The red one is here! Feels grainy but not sandy. ~5cm diameter.









Flight test data later.

[rjaypeters]

"Space policy, a world to its own. Who votes for space based radar?"

Please, no putting words in my mouth!

[ladajo]

"Space policy, a world to its own. Who votes for space based radar?"

Please, no putting words in my mouth!

I just saw that. The post I made somehow got goofed up. Sorry for any confusion.

[Giorgio]

So, I just got this:

Hello,

Could you please confirm the dimensions of the model.

6Big + 8 small is 152/152/152mm

The model is large for printing in titanium and will be very expensive if the dimensions are ok.


Kind regards

I am really getting curious now to see what the quotation will be for the 152 mm model.

[D Tibbets]

You could create more cusps up to a limit as you wish. But, the physical cusps in a WB6 or 8 machine is 6 face centered point cusps. These are smaller than corner cusps, if the magnetic field strength was the same, but it is not, this makes the corner cusps smaller as they are significantly closer to the magrid cases. This would be modified somewhat by thicker (minor radius) grids. The corner cusps are actually a single large complex cusp, at least if there are no nubs. With or without nubs, if the closes approach of the magnet surfaces are used as a border between the corner cusps, there are 8 individual flattened triangular cusps with legs extending to the nubs.

I pretty sure that showing a wider cusp at the nub locations is misleading. This is where the cusp width is the smallest it can be. If you are representing the loss area of the cusps incorporating recirculation the picture may be far different. As Nebel said there is significant heating of the nubs in WB7. He didn't reveal how it compared to other areas, but my impression was that it might be dominate. With the nubs moved further out, better insulated, or eliminated all together (essentially moved to the back side of the magnets- to the walls- to the next standoff/nub, is probably the least problematic with recirculation especially if there is some magnetic or electrostatic shielding. The ideal would be that these funny cusp/ nub losses would be much smaller than the losses at the semi point cusps at the corners or true face centered point cusps.

Dan Tibbets

[ladajo]

Elimination of inter-coil nubs in WB-8.x was a guess based on the picture at www.emc2fusion.org .



Or were you referring to cusps, ladajo?

Coil nubs. As an early advocate of wall mounting, I was/am pretty sure we have never confirmed that they did it with WB8. The idea they might have, as I recall came from the above noted diagram, with ports at the potential wall mount points, and in addition, Joel Roger's diagrams from his Power Point Reports on his simulation work, where it appears to also infer wall mounts. Couple this with the idea that they wanted to get rid of the nubs (or at least mitigate them), we arrive at the wall mounts. I am unaware of public confirmation that EMC has done so. Just wanted the record clear, no drama. Best guess assumption.

[KitemanSA]

Impressive, sir. But, I would argue against the "nub" leaks being so prominent. 14 cusps, not 26.

Nope, I believe that the 26 is correct. Therewill be 14 point cusps and 12 line like cusps where the funny cusps would be in the patented design. Indeed, if the line like cusps had not been so significant, the nubs would not have been worth eliminating.

Did we confirm that yet?

That is how I read the Valencia paper and the draft WB6 Final Report that was available on-line for a short while.

[KitemanSA]

I believe Dr. Nebel stated (somewhere; I can't remember where, but it was about a year ago) that the alphas almost all exited through the center of the coils, so they exit (primarily) through six cusps not eight.

My recolllection is that Dr.N. wrote that the alphas left "the point cusps" which I took to mean ALL the point cusps from ALL the coils, both real and virtual. Thus, 14.
ICBW.

[KitemanSA]

Elimination of inter-coil nubs in WB-8.x was a guess based on the picture at www.emc2fusion.org .

Or were you referring to cusps, ladajo?

I think almost everyone believes they have done something to move or REmove the nubs as they existed in WB6 & 7. But the GAP must stay there or the device will stop working as well as it has. The GAP was the big breakthru that caused ADM Cohen to find the ~$900k in tight times to build and (destructively) test WB6! (Part of that breakthru was also the "keep metal out of the path" which lead to round minor x-section and the eventual hunt to get rid of the nubs).

[rjaypeters]

FWIW, my inclusion of the ring close-approach cusp leaks was inspired by the shape of the KCDodd-calculated surface KitemanSA was kind enough to show. I examined the surface and noticed the surface came closest to the rings, and farthest from the center of the volume, in the region of the ring close-approaches.

I assumed the nubs will be moved out of the way for working machines. The close-approach cusp leaks are lenticular in cross-section because this matches the cross section shape of the KCDodd surface near the ring close-approaches*. All those cusp leaks don't make a beautiful representation, IMO.

The above points are nearly moot, for me, however as I do not intend to post .stl files which include any cusp leaks unless the teeming masses positively clamor for them.

In accordance with the above, I have posted the bottom half of a very detailed KCDodd surface:



and here:

http://www.shapeways.com/model/324043/k ... tml?gid=mg

NB I intend for this bottom half to be impaled (note the hole at the top of the picture) upon a simple base which will raise the top and bottom halves to a symmetric position within the ring assembly (to be designed so the surfaces halves can be easily removed by removing the top ring). Also note the model seems to float above the "floor" this is because it is resting on four, well... nubs which will help correctly position the top half which has corresponding hollows.

I hope to purchase the KCDodd surface as transparent plastic and since I want it to be pretty, I experimented with increasing the resolution of the .stl conversion. At pretty close to the maximum resolution my software can reach, the above model converted to a 35Mb file. Compare that size to the false 200mm cubed (but really 152mm cubed) six-ring part with which Giorgio is tormenting imaterialize.com at 9.4 Mb.

Even so, the price of the half surface is reasonable and doesn't seem to be influenced by the generating file size, which is a relief.

All of which leads me to write, Giorgio, if and when you recover from the sticker shock of the titanium quote and you want a more detailed 152mm six-ring, I'll produce it forthwith. I might do it anyway, just so you can get it in early.

That could be question for imaterialize.com: does the size of the file change the quote? You might like the structure of the current resolution in titanium (see my pics of the red ball - it has the same resolution settings), up to you, my man.

*EDIT: And are so wide and dominant in appearance because I was keeping the minimum dimension of cantilever pieces (the ring close-approach cusp leaks) to 4mm for purposes of durability.

[rjaypeters]

Space policy, a world to its own. Who votes for space based radar?

Now that we have that straightened out, what do you mean?

The Colonel was not engaged in space policy. He was responding to a perceived/real shortcoming in coverage.

It is useful to add the Colonel had pulled the same maneuver in his immediately preceding position (pulled a satellite out of storage and had it launched) but I am sure using a different set of contractors. How those contractors did NOT charge the government can perhaps be explained by the USAF having previously paid for the removal, test and launch services.

And I don't believe the USAF would have pre-paid for launch services (here! hand the contractor some money we might/probably will use some day!). And no contractor has a standing corps of employees waiting for a launch opportunity for a stored satellite. The Colonel's performance looks poorer the more I examine it.