Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Carl Willis » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:11 pm

I recommend starting with a simple, adaptable, and low-risk design, and save the challenging, speculative, and fanciful elements for later addition. Reality has a well-noted sobering effect.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Chris Bradley » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:25 pm

David Geer wrote:
> Can't wait to hear what you all think!

Depends what your objective is. If your objective is to spend time (and money? would you ever put this hardware together?) throwing ideas around with no objective and without the desire for a conclusion, it sounds perfect!

David Geer
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:51 pm
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by David Geer » Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:06 am

I'm simply looking for honest, blunt critiques.

The SERL stuff is just something I want to experiment with in a gyroscopic system to see what effects it does on fields. I know the damn thing doesn't work like he "advertizes". Just a crazy old coot going senile but the centripital/centrifugal magnetic rotations interest me for a gyromagnetic field assembly. Single set of rollers and a ring layered in offset axis arrangement that you'd normally see in a 3 ring gyroscope. A different approach to the Polywell setup but still attempting to create the same kind of bottle field.

Found in some materials research that there's a good number of thermoelectric generating materials that can be layered on top of photovoltaics. A few universities are trying to combine the two systems into a single layer material (hoping they succeed).

Use of the reclamation systems to provide some feedback power to the magnetics and input power systems. Also, looking at how functional some supercaps would be for a fusor system.

The titanium dioxide alloyed stainless steel (PNC316) is strong against oxygen absorption and outgassing. This is caused by a molecular configuration that is more complete and stable and as such, less prone to give/take effects on the electron shells. So, from outermost layer inwards the "perimeter" would be lead glass/acrylate shielding, the PNC316 steel shell, EMI foam polymer layer, photovoltaic and thermoelectric generators on into the open space of the inner "core" area. I don't expect the reclamation portion to survive in the environment for very long because of pressures and temperature ranges. The shielding potential should be great enough that you can stay within a few feet without fear of exposure but will take a little more engineering for detector placement for accurate readings.

I know this is starting out expensive but obtaining parts will be slow and take time, which will give me plenty of time to fully learn and understand some of the other trades involved that I'm not that strong in. Just not a simply to do it person. I want to try my own ideas before falling back on tried and tested. No loss to any of you but if individual portions work well, then it would benefit the whole. Otherwise, you'll learn from another's experiment that some things just don't work. Still benefits someone either way.

Lastly, to Richard: I want to look at this as a total system approach rather than the piecemeal of "this piece does this, this piece does that". Yes, they have to serve a specific function but they must also complement one another, as in frequency harmonics.
- David Geer

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Chris Bradley » Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:22 am

David Geer wrote:
> I'm simply looking for honest, blunt critiques.

But you still haven't said what your objective is? Sure you could cobble all these things together. So what!? Are we supposed to *guess* that you are after more neutrons, more efficiency, higher operating pressure, lower voltage operation.. whatever, and if so what is the mechanism you are trying to achieve this objective by; is it high accuracy collisions, avoidance of loss of ions, recovery of scattered ions (either as converted energy or back up to speed), entropy removal (maintain non-Maxwellian velocities), reduced electron conductance, reduced secondary electron emissions, finer beam focus, less beam focus, higher beam density, what?? WHAT!?

David Geer
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:51 pm
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by David Geer » Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:45 am

If you looked into the function of each, the answer as a whole for all factors mentioned is: Yes. You can't improve singular areas without creating a draw on another. This, in of itself, is the basic principles of entropy.

Improving the accuracy of collisions means more collisions in both inner and outer boundaries. So in turn, you have to improve the reclamation portion of the system to return more of the energy back to the core. Placing these materials means you create greater loss of ions which, again in turn, requires improvement in grid configuration and materials for attraction and containment.

All variables factor into one another, so you need to improve all fairly evenly if you want any type of permanent increase in gain. It's not a "one or the other" scenario but a balancing act.

And... the confused screaming format at the end and condescending tone isn't really constructive. Level heads and open minds is what this group should be about.

The initial fusor phases will examine the individual effects such as shell composition factoring into ion loss/surface saturation and outgassing. As more materials come together, tests will involve confinement/grid configurations, pressure control systems and by the completed version I am talking about, all aspects will have been tested and analyzed. Just because I detail the final product does not mean the fusor won't start out the same as others (except shell material; not cheap but only need one).
- David Geer

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Chris Bradley » Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:42 am

You still don't appear to have an objective, so I'll not press on that angle. The 'Scientific Method' shall remain a mystery, here.

[And the 'WHAT' is just a spurious FLA, as you seem to like them.]

David Geer
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:51 pm
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by David Geer » Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:37 pm

Well, I'm still scouring forum posts so I still have a lot to go through before seeing everyone's tests results on the various components. I've gone through almost all of the HV threads so far. Mainly because I'm debating on keeping my spare microwave (standalone countertop unit) or cannibalizing it for parts, incase I decide to move and may need it later on.

Other components like metals, I'm not overly concerned with seeing as I can go through Graybar down the road using Lockheed Martin or my uncle's pipe organ company's business information. More exotic or specialized items I'll need to scrounge or contact specialty manufacturers to acquire.

IF... you want a clear cut objective then here it is: Total system analysis and modification to extrapolate variances in loss/gain power output.

Tests will include: (electro)magnetic gimbal assemblies up to 6 axes, polywell confinement, standard iec confinement grids with varying architectures/materials, shielding materials for exposure ranges and image/video capture improvements, laser impregnation, beam on target, energy reclamation, vacuum-to-gas density ratios, correlating volt/amp/current analysis in relation to atmospheric composition and density ratios, anode-to-anode spark gap effects in D-D plasma of variable density, piezoelectric entropic mass crystalline target, experimental materials for seals/flanges, etc. The list goes on but if you didn't catch it, I plan to do full spectrum experimentation.

I grew up with ADHD so my scientific method has taken on similar traits over the years.

Last sidenote on this topic: As I probably won't be detailing more about this for another couple months to a year. I was notified by my cousin just now, I'll be receiving a copy of solidworks from him sometime this week. Kind of bummed it's not Solid Edge functional prototyping software but still pretty good stuff.

- David Geer
- David Geer

Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:29 pm

David, you write:

"So far, the Polywell and gyroscopics are looking to be two different experiments and will end up NOT being in the same device unless as interchangeable parts. As for the multi-Polywell, you have 6 torii making up a cube but containing "leaks" or cusps in the corners and ring centers. The additional 6 torii will be slightly larger and centered over each of these corners so the outer domain of the first field-set will be compressed inwards, further sealing up the core area from a star shape to more of an actual sphere."

It cannot work that way, remember that in a polywell the magnetic fields cancel each other, the magnetic field vectors are all pointing outwards or they are all pointing inwards.
Only the remaining magnetic field close to the coils is responsible for preventing the electrons from hitting the grid (as much as possible).
So your 6 "outer coils" won't have any effect on the magnetic field of the 6 inner coils, they will only be an extra source of losses.
The idea of "sealing up the core" is not what the magnetic fields in a polywell do, the star shape is not "because of leaks". Confinement of the electrons in a sphere is not possible, they have to leave and re-enter the polywell.

For the rest there seems to be the idea of getting "energy back into the core", but it's not thermal fusion.
Thermalization is a problem, not something you want in a polywell, there is no need to "heat a plasma" is a polywell, the electric field should accelerate the D+ ions to a speed which makes fusion possible, energy in the form of heat will only thermalize the ions.
Even without "getting energy back into the core" the thermalization is a problem, and hopefully POPS is the answer to that problem.

Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:29 am
Real name:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Dan Tibbets » Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:29 am

Some considerations:

Bremsstrulung radiation may be suppressible according to Eric Lenear (sp?) . But this effect only occurs (if at all) in very high magnetic fields in the region of a few million Tesla. The Polywell will be lucky to reach 10 Tesla.
As far as recovering x-rays, reflecting them back into the center would be extremely difficult, especially at high efficiencies. If you are talking about recovering the energy carried by the x-rays. That is simple. A simple thermal cycle can do this at up to ~ 30% efficiency. Efficiencies of up to ~ 80-90 % may be possible. Eric Lenear has a patent (or at least a patent application) for a possible method.

As mentioned, the Polywell, is not an ignition machine. It is not self heating. It actually hates self heating. The principles are simple, it is the convolutions and dynamic interactions that may allow for the claimed profitable results.
The goal is not to heat a plasma to the highest temperature obtainable. The goal is to heat (accelerate) the ions to a specific temperature through electrostatic means. This is easy. The difficulty is to do this at low energy costs. This does require recirculation- specifically of electrons as they dominate the energy losses. The recirculation is straight forward through electrostatic means (electrodynamic may be a better term), although It took Bussard , etel over a decade to figure this out. It is easy to manipulate electrons through electrostatic means. X- rays is another problem entirely. They do not respond to electrical fields, they reflect from any real surface only at very shallow angles- even then some of the x- rays are absorbed - heat. It might take a thousand shallow angle deflections/ reflections to turn an x-ray stream 180 degrees. If you lose only 0.1% of the x-rays per reflection, the net result would be only a tiny portion of the x-rays being fully reflected. This might be useful for diagnostic purposes, but would be an infinitesimal improvement over straight thermal conversion. In a large torus like a Tokamak the x-rays emitted in a direction nearly parallel to the torus axis, might glance off of a reflective wall a few times , this might help retain the heat in a Tokamak (which is an ignition machine) and this might help a very modest amount (maybe even 1-2 percent(probably very optimistic)) but any gain is desperately needed. The story is completely different in an electrodynamic non ignition, non thermal near spherical geometry Polywell. The direct conversion of X-rays proposed by Eric Leaner for the DPF machine is a bulky photovotaic system that fits around the small DPF reactor, it might fit around a Polywell - if needed, but for a Tokamak sized machine it is increasingly bulky and costly and inneficient.

Engineering type studies of various materials and geometries may help the survival chariteristics, and heat loading of structures. Handling X-rays, possible gamma rays, neutrons and high speed charged and neutral particles are all important considerations. All are needed to developing a working commercial reactor. For short term experimentation that is directed towards basic feasibility investigation. Such concerns are placed on the back burner.

But, if you are operating on the assumption that the system will work, early investigation of these engineering issues may provide a head start on patentable technology.

Dan Tibbets

Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:29 am
Real name:

Re: Hybridized Polywell Design Theory of mine

Post by Dan Tibbets » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:24 pm

As I confidently minimize capacity to reflect x-rays at more than shallow angles, along comes
claims such as these:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-bra ... limit.html

Dan Tibbets

Post Reply