"The issue is that Polywell declares magnetic confinement of one species and electrostatic confinement of another, in the same space"
This statement is incorrect, Chris.
The polywell uses electromagneic confinement to confine an electron cloud, in place of a cohode grid. This electron cloud acts as a 'virtual cathode grid' in a conventional fusor.
It no more confines +ve ions than a conventional fusor does.
The +ve ions still oscillate back and forth thruogh the 'virtual cathode' in the same way that they do in a conventional grid.
The polywell eliminates the losses associated with +ve ions colliding with the cathode grid.grid
FYI: Bussard's last patent
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
"The issue is that Polywell declares magnetic confinement of one species and electrostatic confinement of another, in the same space"
Ash Small wrote:
> This statement is incorrect, Chris.
> It no more confines +ve ions than a conventional fusor does.
eh!? So you don't think a conventional fusor electrostatically confines +ve ions?
Ash Small wrote:
> This statement is incorrect, Chris.
> It no more confines +ve ions than a conventional fusor does.
eh!? So you don't think a conventional fusor electrostatically confines +ve ions?
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
A cinventional fusor wih a central cathode and outer anode doesn't confine +ve ions inside the cathode. They oscillate back and forth through the cathode grid. They are confined within the outer anode grid, though.
The point I'm making is thayt the polywell confines electrons at the centre to form a 'virtual cathode', without the losses associated with a cathode grid.
Positive ions are not confined inside the 'virtual cathode', They oscillate back and forth until they collide with each other, with no losses due to collisions with the grid.
The polywell uses magnetic confinement to confine the electrons in the virtual cathode, The 'virtual cathode' then provides the electrostatic force to induce collisions between the +ve ions.
The polywell is therefore both a magnetic confinement device (for electrons) and a collisional device (for +ve ions).
Are you suggesting, Chris, that the magnetic forces would repel +ve ions out of the system?
I can see that this may be one argument against the polywell, but, apparently, this is overcome by introducing the +ve ions inside the magnetic field, where the attraction of the electrostatic forces from the 'virtual cathode' is greater than the magnetic forces from the MaGrid.
At least, that is my understanding of it.
The point I'm making is thayt the polywell confines electrons at the centre to form a 'virtual cathode', without the losses associated with a cathode grid.
Positive ions are not confined inside the 'virtual cathode', They oscillate back and forth until they collide with each other, with no losses due to collisions with the grid.
The polywell uses magnetic confinement to confine the electrons in the virtual cathode, The 'virtual cathode' then provides the electrostatic force to induce collisions between the +ve ions.
The polywell is therefore both a magnetic confinement device (for electrons) and a collisional device (for +ve ions).
Are you suggesting, Chris, that the magnetic forces would repel +ve ions out of the system?
I can see that this may be one argument against the polywell, but, apparently, this is overcome by introducing the +ve ions inside the magnetic field, where the attraction of the electrostatic forces from the 'virtual cathode' is greater than the magnetic forces from the MaGrid.
At least, that is my understanding of it.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
chrismb wrote;
> "The issue is that Polywell declares magnetic confinement of one species and electrostatic confinement of another, in the same space"
Ash Small wrote:
> This statement is incorrect, Chris.
> It no more confines +ve ions than a conventional fusor does.
Ash Small wrote:
> A cinventional fusor wih a central cathode and outer anode doesn't confine +ve ions inside the cathode. They oscillate back and forth through the cathode grid. They are confined within the outer anode grid, though.
I am unclear on your definitions, and it sounds like you are too. A fusor confines +ve ions by electrostatic means. The confinement force is a scalar force towards the grid.
> "The issue is that Polywell declares magnetic confinement of one species and electrostatic confinement of another, in the same space"
Ash Small wrote:
> This statement is incorrect, Chris.
> It no more confines +ve ions than a conventional fusor does.
Ash Small wrote:
> A cinventional fusor wih a central cathode and outer anode doesn't confine +ve ions inside the cathode. They oscillate back and forth through the cathode grid. They are confined within the outer anode grid, though.
I am unclear on your definitions, and it sounds like you are too. A fusor confines +ve ions by electrostatic means. The confinement force is a scalar force towards the grid.
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
"I am unclear on your definitions, and it sounds like you are too. A fusor confines +ve ions by electrostatic means. The confinement force is a scalar force towards the grid. "
It confines electrons electromagnetically. +ve ions are 'free' to oscillate the same as they are in a (conventional) fusor.
It confines electrons electromagnetically. +ve ions are 'free' to oscillate the same as they are in a (conventional) fusor.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
It wasn't a question. Electrostatic confinement *is* the oscillation of a charged particle across a convergence of electric fields. I'm explaining this to you.
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
Ok, Chris, I do see your point, but I'm sure you're not going to argue that it isn't a collisional device.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
Ash Small wrote:
> Ok, Chris, I do see your point, but I'm sure you're not going to argue that it isn't a collisional device.
Why should I? That is the meaning/purpose of an electrostatic confinement scheme - fast-particle, collisional fusion.
I would argue that fusors don't have [a significant number of] fusing collisions at the spherical focus, which seems to differ from most views, but collisional it certainly is, and by intent.
> Ok, Chris, I do see your point, but I'm sure you're not going to argue that it isn't a collisional device.
Why should I? That is the meaning/purpose of an electrostatic confinement scheme - fast-particle, collisional fusion.
I would argue that fusors don't have [a significant number of] fusing collisions at the spherical focus, which seems to differ from most views, but collisional it certainly is, and by intent.
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
"I would argue that fusors don't have [a significant number of] fusing collisions at the spherical focus, which seems to differ from most views"
I'm inclined to agree with you on that one, Chris.
I'm inclined to agree with you on that one, Chris.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
It has been proven by experiment and in published papers that the spherical focus is NOT where the major fusion occurs. This has been posted on and talked about many times.
As regards collisional fusion...All classic fusion is collisional, Thermal, Electrostatic, ICF, etc. This stuff just doesn't casually wander into an exothermic union.......At least by any currently accepted theory, it doesn't. (the 1 in 400 quadrillion casual quantum exception aside, of course.) We assume we are talking about usable, measurable, real time fusion here.
Richard Hull
As regards collisional fusion...All classic fusion is collisional, Thermal, Electrostatic, ICF, etc. This stuff just doesn't casually wander into an exothermic union.......At least by any currently accepted theory, it doesn't. (the 1 in 400 quadrillion casual quantum exception aside, of course.) We assume we are talking about usable, measurable, real time fusion here.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
"NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT: Application 11/905,183, Applicant BUSSARD ET AL.
"Office of Applicant's Representative confirmed upon telephonic request by examiner on 10/30/2009 that according to file information the application has been abandoned."
"Office of Applicant's Representative confirmed upon telephonic request by examiner on 10/30/2009 that according to file information the application has been abandoned."
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
Does that mean it's now free for anyone to research?.....Not just E=mC2, or whatever they are called?.....
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
Interesting, indeed. One wonders. The parnoid will really have a run with this turn of events, I am sure. I don't know If I would read too much into this just yet.
Richard Hull
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
It has always been available for anyone to research.
All the patent would do, if granted, is protect the inventor's rights to be able to manufacture it and sell it... for the duration of the patent, in whatever countries it has been filed and granted.
That it has been abandoned, could be the result of financial shortages, or simply recognizing that there is little to patent. Calling a process by a cute name i.e.: wiffleball ( which is a trademarked name itself) doesn't make it unique.
It has never been clear to me, that Doc Bussard's ideas were really unique, just pragmatic and interesting.
The dark side, in which I don't really place any credence is that something is going forward, and it is now going black i.e: classified. Rather doubt this.
Dave Cooper
All the patent would do, if granted, is protect the inventor's rights to be able to manufacture it and sell it... for the duration of the patent, in whatever countries it has been filed and granted.
That it has been abandoned, could be the result of financial shortages, or simply recognizing that there is little to patent. Calling a process by a cute name i.e.: wiffleball ( which is a trademarked name itself) doesn't make it unique.
It has never been clear to me, that Doc Bussard's ideas were really unique, just pragmatic and interesting.
The dark side, in which I don't really place any credence is that something is going forward, and it is now going black i.e: classified. Rather doubt this.
Dave Cooper
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
If we are talking about Bussard patent application and not the original patent, but the newer application, which is what it sounds like, then here are some facts.
It's common for applications to be abandoned because they run into difficulty with the patent examiner. However this does not mean that you loose your patent rights, since it's also very customary to file a new application sighting the prior application and it's claims as the application date.
In short, look for a new application to surface soon.
Hector
It's common for applications to be abandoned because they run into difficulty with the patent examiner. However this does not mean that you loose your patent rights, since it's also very customary to file a new application sighting the prior application and it's claims as the application date.
In short, look for a new application to surface soon.
Hector
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
All things seem possible in patent-land. Even the examiners and patent attorneys seem to make up the game as they choose to play it and, instead, wait for a big Court infringement bust-up in years to come before bothering to pay close attention. I guess they make more money that way!!
In this case, I never really saw what was new to Bussard's now expired earlier patent that he was actually claiming, though it did not actually fail on 'novelty'. Maybe it's because of the US's 'alternative' view to patents that the rest of the world doesn't share - that if you can show you were the original inventor then you can claim the patent, irrespective of interveining events and patent grants. (I think - I'm not stating that, it's more of a question as to whether I understand that right.)
In any case, Bussard's original patent expired some years ago so it's fair game for research and exploitation.
Again, another difference *I think* exists - in the US you would be prohibited from even researching and testing an existing patent (without approval from the assignee) whereas in RoW you are free to research it but can't go on to make commercial gain from it. Again, feel free to correct me if I misunderstand.
In this case, I never really saw what was new to Bussard's now expired earlier patent that he was actually claiming, though it did not actually fail on 'novelty'. Maybe it's because of the US's 'alternative' view to patents that the rest of the world doesn't share - that if you can show you were the original inventor then you can claim the patent, irrespective of interveining events and patent grants. (I think - I'm not stating that, it's more of a question as to whether I understand that right.)
In any case, Bussard's original patent expired some years ago so it's fair game for research and exploitation.
Again, another difference *I think* exists - in the US you would be prohibited from even researching and testing an existing patent (without approval from the assignee) whereas in RoW you are free to research it but can't go on to make commercial gain from it. Again, feel free to correct me if I misunderstand.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
Hector wrote:
> It's common for applications to be abandoned because they run into difficulty with the patent examiner. However this does not mean that you loose your patent rights
Again, I can't say I know any better, but that would seem unfair. You get 20 years monopoly *from filing* (not even from publication). If you can work the system so that you 'half-patent' something, then develop it, and then re-patent it years later after you've finally got it working so as to get your 20 years from 'start of production', then that is unreasonable.
However, as you say, what aspects of rights you may loose I don't know. I'd expect that you can, indeed, abandon and refile substantially the same things but you'd get your 20 years licence from the date of the filing of the original application, not the new one.
Again, anyone feel free to confirm/correct my ignorance.
> It's common for applications to be abandoned because they run into difficulty with the patent examiner. However this does not mean that you loose your patent rights
Again, I can't say I know any better, but that would seem unfair. You get 20 years monopoly *from filing* (not even from publication). If you can work the system so that you 'half-patent' something, then develop it, and then re-patent it years later after you've finally got it working so as to get your 20 years from 'start of production', then that is unreasonable.
However, as you say, what aspects of rights you may loose I don't know. I'd expect that you can, indeed, abandon and refile substantially the same things but you'd get your 20 years licence from the date of the filing of the original application, not the new one.
Again, anyone feel free to confirm/correct my ignorance.
-
Dan Tibbets
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
chrismb wrote;
> "The issue is that Polywell declares magnetic confinement of one species and electrostatic confinement of another, in the same space"
"I would argue that fusors don't have [a significant number of] fusing collisions at the spherical focus, which seems to differ from most views"
[EDITED]
Actually, the Polywell confines both species with magnetic fields. It just doesn't do a good job of confining ions. Also, there are arguments that it doesn't do a good enough job with the electrons either. Only withheld data can answer the question. Additional questions about other issues are also significant. The electrostatic confinement of the ions by the more efficiently magnetically contained excess electrons is the dominate containment mechanism, but that does not mean the magnetic effects on the ions can be ignored. Again, this is at it's simplest, an Elmore Tuck Watson fusor that has the outer anode magnetically shielded.
Ions are not contained within the gridded anode in a typical fusor- think Gauss's law. Only electrons that pass (without hitting) the anode grid are reversed and accelerated towards the center creating the virtual cathode. In the Polywell the magnetic field serves to reverse the electrons. They are not accelerated back towards the center, but the kinetic energy of the injected electrons serve this purpose. With WB6 the leaks in the magnetic field allows the electrons that escape to be reversed and accelerated back towards the center much as in an Elmore Tuck Watson fusor design. Ions are contained (effectively confined in an ideal system) by the central cathode- real or virtual. Containing the the electrons/ maintaining the virtual cathode at low cost is the advertized advantage of the Polywell, along with avoiding the problems of a real cathode grid. It becomes much more complicated when you concider all the interactions and limitations
I'm convinced that fusors can act as beam - beam machines. But, as CB has repeatedly pointed out, neutrals get in the way (along with the walls and grids). Still as much as 10% of fusions can occur in the core of a glow discharge machine (?Univ. Wisconsin). Concidering that this might represent as little as 1% of the total volume, the fusion rate in this (neutral polluted system) is 10X higher in the core. In those fusors with a good vacuum and ion injection (or very efficient neutral ionization), the percentage of neutrals should be minimized, and the more fusion efficient beam- beam collisions can become more dominate. I assume this is why Hirsch was able to get billions of fusions per second in his final efforts.
Speaking of ion guns, I know one or more fusioneers have been building ion guns. Has anyone yet obtained fusion data from these efforts?
Dan Tibbets
> "The issue is that Polywell declares magnetic confinement of one species and electrostatic confinement of another, in the same space"
"I would argue that fusors don't have [a significant number of] fusing collisions at the spherical focus, which seems to differ from most views"
[EDITED]
Actually, the Polywell confines both species with magnetic fields. It just doesn't do a good job of confining ions. Also, there are arguments that it doesn't do a good enough job with the electrons either. Only withheld data can answer the question. Additional questions about other issues are also significant. The electrostatic confinement of the ions by the more efficiently magnetically contained excess electrons is the dominate containment mechanism, but that does not mean the magnetic effects on the ions can be ignored. Again, this is at it's simplest, an Elmore Tuck Watson fusor that has the outer anode magnetically shielded.
Ions are not contained within the gridded anode in a typical fusor- think Gauss's law. Only electrons that pass (without hitting) the anode grid are reversed and accelerated towards the center creating the virtual cathode. In the Polywell the magnetic field serves to reverse the electrons. They are not accelerated back towards the center, but the kinetic energy of the injected electrons serve this purpose. With WB6 the leaks in the magnetic field allows the electrons that escape to be reversed and accelerated back towards the center much as in an Elmore Tuck Watson fusor design. Ions are contained (effectively confined in an ideal system) by the central cathode- real or virtual. Containing the the electrons/ maintaining the virtual cathode at low cost is the advertized advantage of the Polywell, along with avoiding the problems of a real cathode grid. It becomes much more complicated when you concider all the interactions and limitations
I'm convinced that fusors can act as beam - beam machines. But, as CB has repeatedly pointed out, neutrals get in the way (along with the walls and grids). Still as much as 10% of fusions can occur in the core of a glow discharge machine (?Univ. Wisconsin). Concidering that this might represent as little as 1% of the total volume, the fusion rate in this (neutral polluted system) is 10X higher in the core. In those fusors with a good vacuum and ion injection (or very efficient neutral ionization), the percentage of neutrals should be minimized, and the more fusion efficient beam- beam collisions can become more dominate. I assume this is why Hirsch was able to get billions of fusions per second in his final efforts.
Speaking of ion guns, I know one or more fusioneers have been building ion guns. Has anyone yet obtained fusion data from these efforts?
Dan Tibbets
Re: FYI: Bussard's last patent
Chris, just to clarify while you do not loose your patent rights, the filing date does not change. So the abandoned application and the new application will still have the same filing date. Patent law and rules both in the US and WIPO can be manipulated in some ways but the days of "Submarine Patents" and detracted publishing dates are over and have been for some time.