Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

[kcdodd]

On a side note, did Art Carlson ever change his opinion on whether there would actually be closed equi-potential surfaces inside the core, that did not connect to the outside through the cusps? I am still of the opinion that the answer is no. That is, any potential well could not be "isolated" from the outside of the magrid, and so would not really confine ions. I'm just curious if he had altered that stance either.

[Joseph Chikva]

100% of the drive voltage time. Since the drive voltage time has been pulsed at ~ a millisecond...

And if you would have not pulsed drive voltage but constant high voltage source lasting several seconds or longer? Can you confine plasma in "more stable" Polywell such a long time in that case?
I know that there is not such nessesity but nevertheless please answer if Polywell is really more stable as here mentioned.

Joseph you aqre mixing terms and ignpring the triple product, the most basic consideration for profitable fusion. The confinement time is completely meaningless without density and temperature considerations. A nuclear bomb has very short confinement times, but...
In the Polywell, you first have to reconize that electron confinement and ion confinement are much different. You also have to take into account the claimed lack of thermalization in the Polywell. This implies that at the same average temperature the bulk of the ions in a Polywell have much more favorable fusion crossection chariteristics. This may increase the fusion rate by upto at least an order of magnitude. It also effects thermalization times, etc.

In any case, my understanding of the electron confinement times in a smapp Polywell with modest B fields is ~ 0.2 milliseconds. With recirculation this may be effectively ~ 2 milliseconds. The ions may have confinement times several orders above this. One number I have seen is ~ 20 milliseconds. These numbers are derived from steady state conditions. The actual tests were on the order of a few milliseconds, and numbers were derived from these data.

The densities for Tokamaks I have seen is ~ 10^19 to 10^20 charged particles per cubic meter and target confinement times of ~ 800 seconds. The Polywell densities have been quoted as up to ~ 10^22 charged particles per cubic meter. In short the density in the Polywell may be ~ 100 to 1000X times higher than a Tokamak. Note that the fusion rates will proceed at ~ the square of the density. This equates to ~ 10,000 to 1,000,000 X the fusion rate in the Polywell vs a ITER type Tokamak. 0.2 , or actually ~ 2 millisecond effective confinement time of the electrons in the Polywell multiplied by the density dependant fusion rate difference results in a relative comparative confinement time of ~ 20 to 2000 seconds for the Polywell . If the data is acurate these seemingly short confinement times are perfectly adiuate.
And this is before considering thermalization issues and convergence issues. If 800 seconds is enough for ITER then ~ 1 to 10 milliseconds (for the electrons) is enough for the Polywell. This is a simple comparison of the nessisary Lawson (Triple product) consideration for these two machines.

Of course the issue of the the temperature is also telling. Tokamaks seem to be limited to average temperatures of no more than 5-20 KeV, with most of the fusion occuring in the small high energy thermal tail. This implies that D-T fusion is the only possible fuel for the Tokamak unless they can make a breakthrough in density- tolorable Beta or in the thermal performance. The base target of D-D fusion for Polywell reflects the potential advantages in the density- Beta and thermal advantages.

Dan Tibbets

Self-defense
I do not what I mixing: double product with triple product? Or what? Everyone knows that for coherent approaches it is possible to set collision energy in center-of-mass frame optimal fusion. And what? Answer is “nothing”. As except high cross-section you should provide favorable number density and confinement time.

Now counterattack
You are saying:

“The Polywell densities have been quoted as up to ~ 10^22 charged particles per cubic meter”

Very good density allowing to build energy effective reactor with milliseconds order confinement time.
At what B field? 10T?
What density has been reached in WB6 at 100 times weaker field (0.1T)? Do you know? I do not know too. Let’s go on talking when polywell will really achieve even 10^18 per cubic meter. ladajo has quoted fusion rate in WB6 corresponding to as I remember 1.5 mW. If you know following two WB6 numbers: potential well depth and plasma core volume we can easily estimate the number density.

Advise
I would advise you to not compare TOKAMAK and Polywell in every post - Olympic sport popular in Polywell community. this is rather nonwinning comparison. As every neutral person understand that you compare desired and nonreal with real and rather mature.

[Joseph Chikva]

100% of the drive voltage time. Since the drive voltage time has been pulsed at ~ a millisecond...

And if you would have not pulsed drive voltage but constant high voltage source lasting several seconds or longer? Can you confine plasma in "more stable" Polywell such a long time in that case?
I know that there is not such nessesity but nevertheless please answer if Polywell is really more stable as here mentioned.

Joseph you aqre mixing terms and ignpring the triple product, the most basic consideration for profitable fusion. The confinement time is completely meaningless without density and temperature considerations. A nuclear bomb has very short confinement times, but...
In the Polywell, you first have to reconize that electron confinement and ion confinement are much different. You also have to take into account the claimed lack of thermalization in the Polywell. This implies that at the same average temperature the bulk of the ions in a Polywell have much more favorable fusion crossection chariteristics. This may increase the fusion rate by upto at least an order of magnitude. It also effects thermalization times, etc.

In any case, my understanding of the electron confinement times in a smapp Polywell with modest B fields is ~ 0.2 milliseconds. With recirculation this may be effectively ~ 2 milliseconds. The ions may have confinement times several orders above this. One number I have seen is ~ 20 milliseconds. These numbers are derived from steady state conditions. The actual tests were on the order of a few milliseconds, and numbers were derived from these data.

The densities for Tokamaks I have seen is ~ 10^19 to 10^20 charged particles per cubic meter and target confinement times of ~ 800 seconds. The Polywell densities have been quoted as up to ~ 10^22 charged particles per cubic meter. In short the density in the Polywell may be ~ 100 to 1000X times higher than a Tokamak. Note that the fusion rates will proceed at ~ the square of the density. This equates to ~ 10,000 to 1,000,000 X the fusion rate in the Polywell vs a ITER type Tokamak. 0.2 , or actually ~ 2 millisecond effective confinement time of the electrons in the Polywell multiplied by the density dependant fusion rate difference results in a relative comparative confinement time of ~ 20 to 2000 seconds for the Polywell . If the data is acurate these seemingly short confinement times are perfectly adiuate.
And this is before considering thermalization issues and convergence issues. If 800 seconds is enough for ITER then ~ 1 to 10 milliseconds (for the electrons) is enough for the Polywell. This is a simple comparison of the nessisary Lawson (Triple product) consideration for these two machines.

Of course the issue of the the temperature is also telling. Tokamaks seem to be limited to average temperatures of no more than 5-20 KeV, with most of the fusion occuring in the small high energy thermal tail. This implies that D-T fusion is the only possible fuel for the Tokamak unless they can make a breakthrough in density- tolorable Beta or in the thermal performance. The base target of D-D fusion for Polywell reflects the potential advantages in the density- Beta and thermal advantages.

Dan Tibbets

Self-defense
I do not what I mixing: double product with triple product? Or what? Everyone knows that for coherent approaches it is possible to set collision energy in center-of-mass frame optimal fusion. And what? Answer is “nothing”. As except high cross-section you should provide favorable number density and confinement time.

Now counterattack
You are saying:

“The Polywell densities have been quoted as up to ~ 10^22 charged particles per cubic meter”

Very good density allowing to build energy effective reactor with milliseconds order confinement time.
At what B field? 10T?
What density has been reached in WB6 at 100 times weaker field (0.1T)? Do you know? I do not know too. Let’s go on talking when polywell will really achieve even 10^18 per cubic meter. ladajo has quoted fusion rate in WB6 corresponding to as I remember 1.5 mW. If you know following two WB6 numbers: potential well depth and plasma core volume we can easily estimate the number density.

Advise
I would advise you to not compare TOKAMAK and Polywell in every post - Olympic sport popular in Polywell community. this is rather nonwinning comparison. As every neutral person understand that you compare desired and nonreal with real and rather mature.

[mvanwink5]

What would you say about stationary power plant? Then aircraft carrier and only then submarine?

Probably why Navy is going with testing Polywell, no patience. I knew you had to be very young as you are so argumentative.
Best regards

[ladajo]

As to Wiffleball having been created. I would say there is enough circumstantial, and even direct in some cases from the project participants and activities to argue yes.
I believe it has been done.

Ok ladajo. But do not send to nonexisting refernces. That is only belief’s matter. You believe, I do not. To you enough ambiguous hints and conjectures, I prefer reliable data. And there is no such data.

Joseph, there is quite a bit of information in the publically available references. It remains clear you have not read them. When combined with commentary by Bussard and Nebel in interviews and whatnot, you can learn a great deal about what real things have been done in the Polywell project.

I am also sure that those who have access to the remaining unpublished information know a great deal more. And, you can not argue that the "great deal more" has not been sufficient to gain futher research support.

Nebel himself has commented here and elsewhere about confinement achievements. Polywell confinement is founded on wiffleball formation. Beta has been 1 and wiffleball has been formed.

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph, there is quite a bit of information in the publically available references. It remains clear you have not read them. When combined with commentary by Bussard and Nebel in interviews and whatnot, you can learn a great deal about what real things have been done in the Polywell project.

I am also sure that those who have access to the remaining unpublished information know a great deal more. And, you can not argue that the "great deal more" has not been sufficient to gain futher research support.

Nebel himself has commented here and elsewhere about confinement achievements. Polywell confinement is founded on wiffleball formation. Beta has been 1 and wiffleball has been formed.

Particle losses or as you speak to "plasma blow" is not evidence of beta=1. As all other devices including TOKAMAK loss particles at lower than 1 beta (for TOKAMAK beta has 0.1 order)
Your constant mentions of references without specifying them in Russian is called: "go there I do not know where, bring that I do not know that"
Good luck.

[Joseph Chikva]

I knew you had to be very young as you are so argumentative.

Heart does not grow old
Best regards

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

Particle losses or as you speak to "plasma blow" is not evidence of beta=1. As all other devices including TOKAMAK loss particles at lower than 1 beta (for TOKAMAK beta has 0.1 order)

Yup, and that is a fundamental difference between machines with concave and convex fields.

Your constant mentions of references without specifying them in Russian is called: "go there I do not know where, bring that I do not know that".

Except that he HAS specified them, several times, and yet you sit like a lump on a log. If you want to know what they are, ASK. He may tell you AGAIN. But of course you DON'T want to know, you just want to gripe and make nonsense proclamations.

[Joseph Chikva]

Yup, and that is a fundamental difference between machines with concave and convex fields.

You do not want to learn. All mirror machines had convex field. Nevertheless they are forgotten now.
Convex field provides so called "minimum B principle" by which plasma having diamagnetic properties by idea should attract into less B spaces being squeezed from outside by force lines.
Also plasma in such configuration should be more stable.
This idea this idea didn't receive confirmation experimentally. Plasma wasn't stabler and was lost through the cusps even faster that was predicted.

Stellarators is the second example that unlike TOKAMAKs provided the same principle. But plasma in TOKAMAKs always was more stable.

Said is well known already 30-40 years.

[ladajo]

Joseph,
I will not post reference links for you. I told you this before. I have done so many times, and you persisted in obvioulsy not making use of them. I even took excerpts and provided links for you. It remains clear that you have no wish to grow and learn.
You remain resolute in your pre-conceived notions. The Soviets would be proud. While you continue to charge the hill, the rest of us have moved on.
My only consolation in this is that the Russians I am again working with this week are not like you. They are open to new ideas and concepts. They are curious and insightful. They are, in short, better. They certainly have their own thoughts and ideas. But unlike you, they accept that others do as well. Apparently the Soviet Mentality is more preserved in the former puppet satellite states.

[D Tibbets]

Joseph, there is quite a bit of information in the publically available references. It remains clear you have not read them. When combined with commentary by Bussard and Nebel in interviews and whatnot, you can learn a great deal about what real things have been done in the Polywell project.

I am also sure that those who have access to the remaining unpublished information know a great deal more. And, you can not argue that the "great deal more" has not been sufficient to gain futher research support.

Nebel himself has commented here and elsewhere about confinement achievements. Polywell confinement is founded on wiffleball formation. Beta has been 1 and wiffleball has been formed.

Particle losses or as you speak to "plasma blow" is not evidence of beta=1. As all other devices including TOKAMAK loss particles at lower than 1 beta (for TOKAMAK beta has 0.1 order)
Your constant mentions of references without specifying them in Russian is called: "go there I do not know where, bring that I do not know that"
Good luck.

The Beta in tokamaks depends on which tokamak you are talking about.There are theoretical high Beta designs that are predicted to reach Betas approaching 0.4.

As for high densities predicting a Beta of one, you are right in a simple since. But the density, temperature and B conditions are measurable and the Beta can be calculated. The results are apparently consistent. And you have yet to challenge the Beta tests conclusions. The most significant point is that the peak in the data cannot be explained without passing through Beta=1.
It is legitimate to question if the results are consistent at higher voltages and B fields. Apparently they were in WB6 and WB7. Also, certainly these tests would have been pursued in WB8.

As for achieved densities, I have no idea concerning WB7 and 8, but with WB6, densities approaching ~ 10^13 particles per cc. has been mentioned. This would be up to ~10^19 particles per cubic meter. This was at KE of ~ 10 KeV and B fields of ~ 0.1 T. If the density scales as the square of the B field,then at 10 Tesla, the density would be ~ 10^23 particles / M^3. Thus predictions of 10^22 particle densities is well within accepted physics estimates for B fields of ~ 10 Tesla. The baseline achieved density can be questioned, but the theoretical scaling cannot. Of course theoretical predictions have to be born out experimentally. Apparently , they have this data for WB8 through microwave interferometry measurements. The results are not publicly available, but optimistic comments have been made by insiders- the recent Phd thesis is an example.

Dan Tibbets

[Joseph Chikva]

Apparently the Soviet Mentality is more preserved in the former puppet satellite states.

I am glad for you that you found Russian adherents. They do not like me and are better and have Western Mentality? Excellent.
But what is Soviet Mentality? When I say that king is naked when he is really naked?
or when I am saying something I support them with corresponding references. And you don't.
Satellite states? Soviet Union was built by Georgian Joseph Stalin (Jugashvili) and defended by Georgian Lavrenti Beria. Without them USSR would never win WW2 as millions Russian soldiers ran away from Germans and were given in captivity in 1941. I think that your new Russian friends will not like me stronger for this true. Like you do not like me for true about Polywell.

[KitemanSA]

Yup, and that is a fundamental difference between machines with concave and convex fields.

You do not want to learn. All mirror machines had convex field. Nevertheless they are forgotten now.
Convex field provides so called "minimum B principle" by which plasma having diamagnetic properties by idea should attract into less B spaces being squeezed from outside by force lines.
Also plasma in such configuration should be more stable.
This idea this idea didn't receive confirmation experimentally. Plasma wasn't stabler and was lost through the cusps even faster that was predicted.

"You do not want to learn." It may be that "all mirror machines had convex field", but Polywell is not a mirror machine, except maybe for electrons. And electrons "lost" thru the cusps are recirculated by the MaGrid charge. Polywell is an INERTIAL ELECTRO-DYNAMIC CONFINENT machine. Say it slowly i-n-e-r-t-i-a-l e-l-e-c-t-r-o - d-y-n-a-m-i-c confinement. Your "lessons" re toks don't often apply.

[KitemanSA]

But what is Soviet Mentality? When I say that king is naked when he is really naked?

Nope, the Soviet Mentality (which you mimic to a T) is that the king MUST be naked since the glorious leaders of the past SAID he should be naked! And since they SAID so, you don't even have to look to see if he is naked. The glorious leaders of the past said he should be. Dah comrade, the glorious leaders said 40 years ago he should be naked, he is naked! Is PRAVDA!

[Joseph Chikva]

"You do not want to learn." It may be that "all mirror machines had convex field", but Polywell is not a mirror machine, except maybe for electrons. And electrons "lost" thru the cusps are recirculated by the MaGrid charge. Polywell is an INERTIAL ELECTRO-DYNAMIC CONFINENT machine. Say it slowly i-n-e-r-t-i-a-l e-l-e-c-t-r-o - d-y-n-a-m-i-c confinement. Your "lessons" re toks don't often apply.

Slowly-quicly - all the same. Magnetic field in Polywell is intended for confining of electrons. And for electrons Polywell is typical magnetic trap (mirror machine). Yes, field is convex. Now what the matter how you will call that. TOKAMAK has nothing to do here.