Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:31 am

Only after very long arguing I found out that Dr. Nebel said that without wiffleball Polywell will not work. Let's show wiffleball and then I will change my opinion.

Maybe that should tell you something. Nobody here has ever said it would work without wiffleball. And if it took you "very long arguing" to understand that, that is a clue as to a possible major flaw in your methods.

The core point of the Polywell is the wiffleball. Confinement of electrons is the key to get a sufficient well depth for the ions. Electron loss rate must be controlled.

To date, all evidence suggests it is working, or at a minimum moving forward. If they could not fundamentally show wiffleball confinement, then I posit that they would not have been funded this far.
Why do scaling checks if your foundation is rotten?

The project is at WB8 Joseph, not WB1. They have learned and proven much. The ONR funding requires (per Dr. Bussard's and Nebel's requests/concepts) that the team meet milestone reviews by ONR chosen external expert review panels to continue on. This was enacted to minimize funding risks for the government.

The issue here is really that they know what they are doing and you do not.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:12 pm

ladajo wrote:
Only after very long arguing I found out that Dr. Nebel said that without wiffleball Polywell will not work. Let's show wiffleball and then I will change my opinion.
Maybe that should tell you something. Nobody here has ever said it would work without wiffleball. And if it took you "very long arguing" to understand that, that is a clue as to a possible major flaw in your methods.

Nobody? Ok, thanks. But I met some who explaining Polywell's principle do not explain how wiffleball forms.
And has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:56 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote: Once upon a time I recalled to Kiteman aluminum's example the cost of which was high initially but then became acceptable for market after appearing of qualified users and mass production.

Aluminum became available to the public because of a fundamental change in technology; away from the chemical and to the electrolytic. Seems fusion may follow suit. Successful power will likely occur when we Revoke the Tok for a fundamentally different process, like Polywell for example.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:39 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Aluminum became available to the public because of a fundamental change in technology; away from the chemical and to the electrolytic. Seems fusion may follow suit. Successful power will likely occur when we Revoke the Tok for a fundamentally different process, like Polywell for example.

If we will find better. Till now Polywell has shown nothing. Not even not better but nothing.
Also availability of comparatively cheap electricity is critical for aluminum production and not only electrolytic technology together with Bier (???) process of clean alumina production.
Cheap superconductors in case of mass production, some other critical components would make TOKAMAKs cheaper. But today TOKAMAK also has technical and not scientific problems.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:02 pm

Joseph, you are parsing words,

Till now Polywell has shown nothing. Not even not better but nothing.

What you mean is what has been made public. There is a difference. Still from the public stadium where you and I (and others) are sitting, we will have to wait for results to be published to know.
Best regards

PS as I understand it, the Navy will not be able to fit a Tok in a submarine. Correct me if I am wrong on that point.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:43 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Only after very long arguing I found out that Dr. Nebel said that without wiffleball Polywell will not work. Let's show wiffleball and then I will change my opinion.
Maybe that should tell you something. Nobody here has ever said it would work without wiffleball. And if it took you "very long arguing" to understand that, that is a clue as to a possible major flaw in your methods.
Nobody? Ok, thanks. But I met some who explaining Polywell's principle do not explain how wiffleball forms.
And has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

Wiffleball goes back to reading the references Joseph. Many here implicitly know that is the case, and assume anyone arguing about it (especially when told to read the backgorund material) would know that as well. It is a fundamental point. Failure to check references is the fault of he who did not.

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.
Why do scaling if you do not have wiffleball?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:41 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Aluminum became available to the public because of a fundamental change in technology; away from the chemical and to the electrolytic. Seems fusion may follow suit. Successful power will likely occur when we Revoke the Tok for a fundamentally different process, like Polywell for example.
If we will find better. Till now Polywell has shown nothing. Not even not better but nothing.

Has shown YOU nothing cuz you insist on looking with your eye-lids closed.

Your solipsism is showing again.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:41 am

The objective of this procurement is to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of advanced gaseous electrostatic energy. It builds on previous concept-demonstration benchtop versions of plasma wiffle balls. NAWCWD-China Lake awarded one contract action, valued at $1.3 million, for this project. NAWCWD-China Lake contracting efforts complied with Recovery Act requirements, the OMB guidance, the FAR, and DoD implementing guidance.
25
http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-076.pdf
I do not know but it looks to me like the had the "wiffleball" working at least in demo mode, or am I reading to much into this report? also note in reading their are memos sugesting that publication of the latest results was done improperly not releasing all data avalable. POC was redacted.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:49 am

mvanwink5 wrote:PS as I understand it, the Navy will not be able to fit a Tok in a submarine. Correct me if I am wrong on that point.

I like maximalism too. And:
I am 48 years old, weigh 90 kg and I can't run 100 m quicker than 12 seconds. But I want to compete with people running the same distance for 10 seconds and even quicker. People say me that at first I should train hard, grow thin much for about 20 kg and reach result at least 10.2. Also they me say that my build allows me to fight well, but doesn't allow to run quickly. And I have a little chance because of age. But I don't trust them.
Submarine? What would you say about stationary power plant? Then aircraft carrier and only then submarine?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:57 am

ladajo wrote: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 Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:23 am

paperburn1 wrote:The objective of this procurement is to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of advanced gaseous electrostatic energy. It builds on previous concept-demonstration benchtop versions of plasma wiffle balls. NAWCWD-China Lake awarded one contract action, valued at $1.3 million, for this project. NAWCWD-China Lake contracting efforts complied with Recovery Act requirements, the OMB guidance, the FAR, and DoD implementing guidance.
25
http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-076.pdf
I do not know but it looks to me like the had the "wiffleball" working at least in demo mode, or am I reading to much into this report? also note in reading their are memos sugesting that publication of the latest results was done improperly not releasing all data avalable. POC was redacted.

DON is developing test and certification protocols to obtain the necessary data required to approve the addition of alternative fuels into JP-5 and F-76 fuels.....................................
NAWCAD-Lakehurst awarded one contract action, and NAVFAC-Port Hueneme awarded one contract action, valued at $4.7 million, for this project.

It builds on previous concept-demonstration benchtop versions of plasma wiffle balls. NAWCWD-China Lake awarded one contract action, valued at $1.3 million, for this project.

What is JP-5 fuel? Jet fuel? Its testing costs 4 times more than any stage of one of top world challenges?

303 · Post by **303** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:22 am

JP-5 is jet fuel, thats probably just the navy's analogue to a similar programme run by the air force, i read a press article that a 50/50 synthetic/jp-5 mix had been successfully tested.

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:53 am

Why do I keep reading this thread? Because I always cling on the hope that this train wreck is gonna get better, much like how in a soap opera, things will get better, but no, I think I have too much hope for people.

Joe, this is for you, in lets say 20 to 30 years, maybe less than that, I will write a book about the basic technology of polywell fusion, however, I will not list myself as the author of this book. This book will have 3 authors: Art Carlson, Chris M. B., and Joseph Chikva. I hope you, as well as the other two gentlemen, will appreciate the level of admiration I have for you 3 to do this.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:01 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: Despite to instabilities lifetime of plasma in TOKAMAKs reaches minutes. Please note me the lifetime of olasma in "more stable" Polywell.
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

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:36 am

I have not seen anyone ( even J.C.) challenge my comments about Beta =1 = Wiffleball formation, so I will expound further. Bussard, etel have tested this in many machines. It is a simple test to perform.The only detail I'm uncertain of is the source of the ions. I guess that they just used the background deuterium gas as the source. No need for ion guns or gas puffers. At a pressure of perhaps 10-to 50Microns ( ~ 1/100,000 to 5/100,000 atmospheres a few hundred volts to a few thousands volts on the electron guns (or magrid) is enough to produce a plasma through Pashin breakdown. Higher voltages would be difficult unless the pressure was maintained at ~ 5 to 10 Microns. Any lower and the plasma would not light at all. Once the plasma was lit the pressure and the voltage can be controlled to create stable conditions. The B field can then be ramped and the density of the plasma measured within the magrid or at least the line of sight through a vacuum chamber window that passes through the magrid).

With the peak luminosity or microwave interferometry measurements the relative Beta condition can be determined, thus the point where the Wiffleball was formed. If this did not happen there would be no peak in the data. Bussard, etel, and then Nebel were satisfied with the cumulative data.

The problem that was holding up the research was not the question of Wiffleball formation (long term Wiffleball stability might be a different matter) but the inability to form a stable deep potential well without pumping in ridiculous amounts of high voltage electrons. The lessens learned with WB5 illustrated this. The breakthrough with WB6 was not about the Wiffleball, but the electron energy input needed to create a reasonably stable high voltage potential well without stagering electron energy losses. WB6 was all about electron losses and corresponding potential well depths that could be achieved.

Wiffleball questions at that point were old news. The Wiffleball formation was consistent with their loss measurements, it was just that these measurements indicated magnetic electron confinement (and derivative electrostatic ion confinement) performance that fell short by about an order of magnitude. It was the improvements made with electron recirculation that was significant with WB6.

Dan Tibbets