Have ANY projects got a future?
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Have ANY projects got a future?
When I saw the title of the last post in this 'fusion future' forum I though 'hey, great, a new idea!'... I like new ideas!!
I opened the link..... then closed it again within 250ms!..
A disappointment. More than a disappointment, an actual distraction.
I was contemplating the kinds of statements that could be posted as 'forum general principles' - like, "this forum recognises, and only recognises, devices as energy sources or potential energy deriving experiments that a) have identifiable fuels, or an identifiable energy source, b) have an identifiable mechanism for that fuel to combine/react, or an identifiable energy sink, c) have a detectable energy-carrying output from that mechanism and that has a recognisable traceable physical route out of the device, d) do not defy the laws of thermodynamics. Please don't bother writing about anything else!"
In the meantime I was looking again through the 'fusion' programmes that DoE are funding/plugging, as per the link in a recent post of mine.
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/more_htm ... -final.pdf
hmmm.... is it me misunderstanding some of them or are some of these funded experiments getting close to failing at least my 'c' test? Frankly, I find some of the logic of what these experiments are about rather difficult to follow. Maybe it's just me not being able to understand these things, but before I confess to ignorance perhaps I should just ask if anyone else can see the 'emperor's clothes' or not in some of these!?
I fear I will never see a radical, new, novel, interesting and/or spectacular alternative idea for fusion, but monitor this forum, with perhaps a misguide hope, for such posts. Have we [mankind] really used up all the ideas?? That the DoE funds some fairly bonkers ideas suggests this may be so. Good luck to Frank S, Carl W, Steven S and now John F's 'takes' on the fusor, these all look interesting - and maybe evolution rather than revolution is the correct, and only valid, order of the day.
I opened the link..... then closed it again within 250ms!..
A disappointment. More than a disappointment, an actual distraction.
I was contemplating the kinds of statements that could be posted as 'forum general principles' - like, "this forum recognises, and only recognises, devices as energy sources or potential energy deriving experiments that a) have identifiable fuels, or an identifiable energy source, b) have an identifiable mechanism for that fuel to combine/react, or an identifiable energy sink, c) have a detectable energy-carrying output from that mechanism and that has a recognisable traceable physical route out of the device, d) do not defy the laws of thermodynamics. Please don't bother writing about anything else!"
In the meantime I was looking again through the 'fusion' programmes that DoE are funding/plugging, as per the link in a recent post of mine.
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/more_htm ... -final.pdf
hmmm.... is it me misunderstanding some of them or are some of these funded experiments getting close to failing at least my 'c' test? Frankly, I find some of the logic of what these experiments are about rather difficult to follow. Maybe it's just me not being able to understand these things, but before I confess to ignorance perhaps I should just ask if anyone else can see the 'emperor's clothes' or not in some of these!?
I fear I will never see a radical, new, novel, interesting and/or spectacular alternative idea for fusion, but monitor this forum, with perhaps a misguide hope, for such posts. Have we [mankind] really used up all the ideas?? That the DoE funds some fairly bonkers ideas suggests this may be so. Good luck to Frank S, Carl W, Steven S and now John F's 'takes' on the fusor, these all look interesting - and maybe evolution rather than revolution is the correct, and only valid, order of the day.
- Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Hi Chris,
"The Fusion-Powered Future" is a repository for much noise. I agree with that. I don't think Fusor.net should adopt a formal values system to discourage this noise, though. The values that send the zero-pointers and propeller-heads packing are those of individual participants who speak up as they find appropriate. I think many of us share feelings of "ownership" for the fusor forum and work to shape it to our own value system and the result turns out to be a happy medium. I have different values from "Nanos," for example, when it comes to defining nuisance content. He is laissez-faire, even accepting, and I am flat-out reactionary. If a zero-pointer comes through here and feels comfortable with this balance of scorn, ridicule, condescension, eye-rolling, and basic human reason on the one side (the side I am usually on), and the plush-couch, anything-goes tea-party from the other side, then he'll stay and the focus and audience of the forum will change accordingly.
Now on to the second part of your comment. Of course ridiculous or under-deserving ideas sometimes get slipped a bit of government largesse. But consider this (I'm not picking on you, Chris): it is extremely easy for hobbyists--or much worse, the armchair sci-fi "blathering class"--to rain naive technical criticism on pro science pursuits, and when I see this happening I cringe because of the stupidity typically in evidence. Guys, if you're gonna harp on DOE projects or ITER or whatever big project you feel cowers pathetic before your ground-breaking intellect, be sure you are knee-deep in the literature and are going into that debate truly informed. Because, to generalize, the professional scientists working on those projects are driven by the same passion and intensity you are (if not to a greater degree), gravitate toward or grew up with similar technical hobbies and interests, have been through the rigors of formal academia to boot, and are knee-deep to neck-deep in the knowledge-base on their project. If you thought these people sit in front of a PC all day sipping lattes and wearing suits, you have not been in many laboratories. In simple terms, it's "hard-core" out there, and to be a credible critic you must first level with that fact.
(On the other hand, if one's personal drive as a hobby fusioneer stems from the megalomanic illusion that he's gonna "kick ITER's ass," for instance, that's understandable and perfectly respectable. As long as he doesn't confuse a personal belief with an objective comparison, we're just fine.)
-Carl
"The Fusion-Powered Future" is a repository for much noise. I agree with that. I don't think Fusor.net should adopt a formal values system to discourage this noise, though. The values that send the zero-pointers and propeller-heads packing are those of individual participants who speak up as they find appropriate. I think many of us share feelings of "ownership" for the fusor forum and work to shape it to our own value system and the result turns out to be a happy medium. I have different values from "Nanos," for example, when it comes to defining nuisance content. He is laissez-faire, even accepting, and I am flat-out reactionary. If a zero-pointer comes through here and feels comfortable with this balance of scorn, ridicule, condescension, eye-rolling, and basic human reason on the one side (the side I am usually on), and the plush-couch, anything-goes tea-party from the other side, then he'll stay and the focus and audience of the forum will change accordingly.
Now on to the second part of your comment. Of course ridiculous or under-deserving ideas sometimes get slipped a bit of government largesse. But consider this (I'm not picking on you, Chris): it is extremely easy for hobbyists--or much worse, the armchair sci-fi "blathering class"--to rain naive technical criticism on pro science pursuits, and when I see this happening I cringe because of the stupidity typically in evidence. Guys, if you're gonna harp on DOE projects or ITER or whatever big project you feel cowers pathetic before your ground-breaking intellect, be sure you are knee-deep in the literature and are going into that debate truly informed. Because, to generalize, the professional scientists working on those projects are driven by the same passion and intensity you are (if not to a greater degree), gravitate toward or grew up with similar technical hobbies and interests, have been through the rigors of formal academia to boot, and are knee-deep to neck-deep in the knowledge-base on their project. If you thought these people sit in front of a PC all day sipping lattes and wearing suits, you have not been in many laboratories. In simple terms, it's "hard-core" out there, and to be a credible critic you must first level with that fact.
(On the other hand, if one's personal drive as a hobby fusioneer stems from the megalomanic illusion that he's gonna "kick ITER's ass," for instance, that's understandable and perfectly respectable. As long as he doesn't confuse a personal belief with an objective comparison, we're just fine.)
-Carl
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Just to clarify, in no way was I trying to aim a general barrage of critique at a collection of experiments I may or may not know about. Quite the opposite - and I trust my prior posts stand up for my repeatedly-expressed opinion that support for all these edgy ideas is warming to the heart of someone like me who loves 'the radical'.
Of course, if I have a particular technical critique for a particular thing, I'll aim to make it logically and I hope and trust that I have done this - and I look in on the forum to see others doing exactly this aswell.
The concept I was raising here was that if one begins to contemplate what possible 'reasonable limitations' might be put on what is a 'legitimate' thing to discuss and what is snake-oil, but then in parallel also what IS being currently addressed by bona-fide researchers, I was just wondering whether the type and depth of penetration into experimentation that would have been considered as snake-oil, or at least 'very edgy' (say just 20 years ago), is telling us anything about how many fundamental ideas may or may not remain as yet undiscovered. Surely as we progress into more unusual and frankly bizarre sounding experiments it is telling us that there are few fundamentals left to uncover and we're essentially now stuck with what we've got. So if we can't make the most out of this lot, then maybe there's little more that can be done.
I hope I've not further confused what I was trying to say, but I'm actually arguing to a position that shows we shouldn't seek to limit or bound ideas - yet reality kicks in and there are some limitations we may, and do, need to keep in mind. It is just an opinion but I would say a corollary of all this is that if we can't find a reasonably elegant means within relatively conventional approaches to sustain a useful fusion reaction then I just get the hunch that we're not going to find a better solution in hunting down the inelegant and unconventional.
Of course, if I have a particular technical critique for a particular thing, I'll aim to make it logically and I hope and trust that I have done this - and I look in on the forum to see others doing exactly this aswell.
The concept I was raising here was that if one begins to contemplate what possible 'reasonable limitations' might be put on what is a 'legitimate' thing to discuss and what is snake-oil, but then in parallel also what IS being currently addressed by bona-fide researchers, I was just wondering whether the type and depth of penetration into experimentation that would have been considered as snake-oil, or at least 'very edgy' (say just 20 years ago), is telling us anything about how many fundamental ideas may or may not remain as yet undiscovered. Surely as we progress into more unusual and frankly bizarre sounding experiments it is telling us that there are few fundamentals left to uncover and we're essentially now stuck with what we've got. So if we can't make the most out of this lot, then maybe there's little more that can be done.
I hope I've not further confused what I was trying to say, but I'm actually arguing to a position that shows we shouldn't seek to limit or bound ideas - yet reality kicks in and there are some limitations we may, and do, need to keep in mind. It is just an opinion but I would say a corollary of all this is that if we can't find a reasonably elegant means within relatively conventional approaches to sustain a useful fusion reaction then I just get the hunch that we're not going to find a better solution in hunting down the inelegant and unconventional.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Chris,
I know that you like the theoretical approach to science. This is good. We need theoretical thinking but I am sure you realize that theory or experiment alone will not find a majority of the answers. It is a combination of critical thinking and theroizing, keen observation, active learning, and insight that leads to the ultimate discoveries. Serindipity is by far the exception than the rule as is blind trial and error.
Look at the initial theory of a tokamak design. A toroidal magent and a plasma in side. Theory would tell you that a symetric winding of coils around the torus would be the best for confinement since B field is perpendicular to the E field of the plasma. In reality, it is not a perpendicular arrangement but a slanted modified and twisted psudo-log periodicish arrangement. It was only after building the simple torus did the theory and modifications come and come and come. Still it is a paltry machine but physics are physics and it is quite possible that a solution in one design may be applicable to another.
Fusion can be done, it happens in H-bombs so it is doable under conditions X. This means that not only if fusion science plausible but it is possible. The question is, can it now be made to work under conditions Y? I don't know but you can be sure that some of the underground testing of nukes is another piece of the pie that you and I do not come close to knowing about. There has to be tons of data there on initiatory and sustain events that no doubt filters down to some of the fusion designs that you see.
With my gridless Pillar of Fire setup, I have observed some mode changes when I use 5 cm non-planar electrodes. I would never have guessed that Sure, after the observation the theory can be established but who would have guessed? Part of the motivation for me to develop the POF design was the observation that ion or electron beams would pass a grounded outer grid on their path to a more distance outer fusor shell. This effect would not be possible if there were not recirculation in a fusor as acceleratory voltage will equal deceleratory voltage via conservation of energy. But since there is recirculation, the charged spiecies with only a second pass can easily aquire enough energy to pass right on by a grounded grid just millimeters from thier path.
It is evolution but it can lead to revolution. The answer will be found and it will be a small step; a small breakthrough that leads to big technological advance.
Frank S.
I know that you like the theoretical approach to science. This is good. We need theoretical thinking but I am sure you realize that theory or experiment alone will not find a majority of the answers. It is a combination of critical thinking and theroizing, keen observation, active learning, and insight that leads to the ultimate discoveries. Serindipity is by far the exception than the rule as is blind trial and error.
Look at the initial theory of a tokamak design. A toroidal magent and a plasma in side. Theory would tell you that a symetric winding of coils around the torus would be the best for confinement since B field is perpendicular to the E field of the plasma. In reality, it is not a perpendicular arrangement but a slanted modified and twisted psudo-log periodicish arrangement. It was only after building the simple torus did the theory and modifications come and come and come. Still it is a paltry machine but physics are physics and it is quite possible that a solution in one design may be applicable to another.
Fusion can be done, it happens in H-bombs so it is doable under conditions X. This means that not only if fusion science plausible but it is possible. The question is, can it now be made to work under conditions Y? I don't know but you can be sure that some of the underground testing of nukes is another piece of the pie that you and I do not come close to knowing about. There has to be tons of data there on initiatory and sustain events that no doubt filters down to some of the fusion designs that you see.
With my gridless Pillar of Fire setup, I have observed some mode changes when I use 5 cm non-planar electrodes. I would never have guessed that Sure, after the observation the theory can be established but who would have guessed? Part of the motivation for me to develop the POF design was the observation that ion or electron beams would pass a grounded outer grid on their path to a more distance outer fusor shell. This effect would not be possible if there were not recirculation in a fusor as acceleratory voltage will equal deceleratory voltage via conservation of energy. But since there is recirculation, the charged spiecies with only a second pass can easily aquire enough energy to pass right on by a grounded grid just millimeters from thier path.
It is evolution but it can lead to revolution. The answer will be found and it will be a small step; a small breakthrough that leads to big technological advance.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Frank S. wrote:
> The answer will be found and it will be a small step;
Yes, this is my take on it and the conclusion I am arguing. If an answer is found, I believe it will be a "Doh! oh yeah! Didn't spot that" kinda step that is a subtle change with consequences that are not immediately obvious by cursory inspection alone (else it would've been spotted by now).
So spinning tubes of molten lithium don't fit in with this perception of mine!
best regards,
Chris MB.
> The answer will be found and it will be a small step;
Yes, this is my take on it and the conclusion I am arguing. If an answer is found, I believe it will be a "Doh! oh yeah! Didn't spot that" kinda step that is a subtle change with consequences that are not immediately obvious by cursory inspection alone (else it would've been spotted by now).
So spinning tubes of molten lithium don't fit in with this perception of mine!
best regards,
Chris MB.
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
I'm not sure if you refer to all fusion approaches, or just IEC devices. Currently, the Polywell approach championed by Dr Bussard is the most intriging. He made an expermental fuser- highy modified Farsworth that uses magnetic fields to confine the electrons and thus the ions efficiently enough to lead to net power production. His WB6 obtained results (in a very few tests) that was sucessful, if based on nonmainstream (non-Tokemak) predictions. After his death last year, Dr Nebel (from Los Almos Natl labs) has taken up the mantle. They have recently compleated tests on a WB7, to confirm the prevous WB6 results and possibly expand on them. Currently the results are under peer review and there have been hints that optimistically could be interpreted as positive, but the data has not been released, it is controlled by the US Navy, as much of Dr Bussard's prevous work was.
IF the results are positive, and IF the scaling laws work (bigger is better), and IF the engeneering can be managed, and IF it is not smothered in a black DOD program it holds real promise to be a useble comercial fusion power method using D-D fuel or possibly 'aneutronic' P-B11 fuel.
I and many others on the Talk-Polywell.org forum have been impatiently awaiting an anouncement .
Also, there are a number of other IEC approaches. Look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on IEC, Polywell, etc.
Dan Tibbets
IF the results are positive, and IF the scaling laws work (bigger is better), and IF the engeneering can be managed, and IF it is not smothered in a black DOD program it holds real promise to be a useble comercial fusion power method using D-D fuel or possibly 'aneutronic' P-B11 fuel.
I and many others on the Talk-Polywell.org forum have been impatiently awaiting an anouncement .
Also, there are a number of other IEC approaches. Look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on IEC, Polywell, etc.
Dan Tibbets
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Certainly in this discussion the Polywell fares quite favourably. It was, in its time, a distinct and new concept which I would not have put down as a small step change to a fusor. In this regard it was a revolution rather than evolution.
But I was trying to reflect on all fusion ideas *currently* coming out and judge whether they give any indication on how many new future breakthroughs we could expect, as a kind of indirect gauge of something we can't possibly directly know.
Dan DT wrote:
> Currently, the Polywell approach championed by Dr Bussard is the most intriging.
That is your opinion and you are free to hold it.
> He made an expermental fuser- highy modified Farsworth that uses magnetic fields to confine the electrons and thus the ions efficiently enough to lead to net power production.
In 1983. It's a relative thing to say, but I'd say that makes it one of the 'old boys' by now and the subsequent 25 years hasn't shown the orders of magnitude improvement that is required of it (as far as I understand its current status - corrections to my understanding most welcome).
> Currently the results are under peer review and there have been hints that optimistically could be interpreted as positive.
The universally addended conclusion to all fusion work!...
> or possibly 'aneutronic' P-B11 fuel.
I see nothing that gives a Polywell any sort of particular benefit for this reaction that a fusor does not already possess.
Whether the Polywell gets rid of the inner grid, and whether it gets rid of electron conduction losses completely, seems mostly irrelevant to me. These are just 'extra losses'!! When two fuel nucleii come up close-and-personal, they'll deflect off each other most of the time, rather than fuse, and through thermalisation will junk all that energy that has gone into them. The Polywell carries over this essential inefficiency from the Fusor.
Let me put all this another way. If you turn on any fusion-intent neutron generator at fusion energies and you put 1kW or more into it and don't die from the immediate emissions without shielding, then it means you are at least >2 or 3 orders of magnitude too inefficient for net power production. To my thinking, and the substance of this thread, you'll need a different method to bridge that gap. Tweaking just ain't gonna do it! And judging from new emerging methods at the moment, these look few and far between.
best regards,
Chris MB.
But I was trying to reflect on all fusion ideas *currently* coming out and judge whether they give any indication on how many new future breakthroughs we could expect, as a kind of indirect gauge of something we can't possibly directly know.
Dan DT wrote:
> Currently, the Polywell approach championed by Dr Bussard is the most intriging.
That is your opinion and you are free to hold it.
> He made an expermental fuser- highy modified Farsworth that uses magnetic fields to confine the electrons and thus the ions efficiently enough to lead to net power production.
In 1983. It's a relative thing to say, but I'd say that makes it one of the 'old boys' by now and the subsequent 25 years hasn't shown the orders of magnitude improvement that is required of it (as far as I understand its current status - corrections to my understanding most welcome).
> Currently the results are under peer review and there have been hints that optimistically could be interpreted as positive.
The universally addended conclusion to all fusion work!...
> or possibly 'aneutronic' P-B11 fuel.
I see nothing that gives a Polywell any sort of particular benefit for this reaction that a fusor does not already possess.
Whether the Polywell gets rid of the inner grid, and whether it gets rid of electron conduction losses completely, seems mostly irrelevant to me. These are just 'extra losses'!! When two fuel nucleii come up close-and-personal, they'll deflect off each other most of the time, rather than fuse, and through thermalisation will junk all that energy that has gone into them. The Polywell carries over this essential inefficiency from the Fusor.
Let me put all this another way. If you turn on any fusion-intent neutron generator at fusion energies and you put 1kW or more into it and don't die from the immediate emissions without shielding, then it means you are at least >2 or 3 orders of magnitude too inefficient for net power production. To my thinking, and the substance of this thread, you'll need a different method to bridge that gap. Tweaking just ain't gonna do it! And judging from new emerging methods at the moment, these look few and far between.
best regards,
Chris MB.
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
>Certainly in this discussion the Polywell fares quite favourably. It was, in its time, a distinct and new concept which I would not have put down as a small step change to a fusor. In this regard it was a revolution rather than evolution.
>But I was trying to reflect on all fusion ideas *currently* coming out and judge whether they give any indication on how many new future breakthroughs we could expect, as a kind of indirect gauge of something we can't possibly directly know.
Yes, the initial concept by Dr Bussard was in the 1980's after he abandoned the 'Riggatron' (a modified Tokamak design), at least partially because he lost funding for it. Over ~ 20 years and $20,000,000 he progressed through various designs to evaulate various concepts, such as 'Wiffle Ball' effect, electron confinement, 'edge anneling',etc. The reported breakthrough came in 2005 with a new geometry and spacing of the magnets which overcame the limiting electron losses. There was a two year hiatus as new funding was sought, followed by the followup tests this year.
>Whether the Polywell gets rid of the inner grid, and whether it gets rid of electron conduction losses completely, seems mostly irrelevant to me. These are just 'extra losses'!! When two fuel nucleii come up close-and-personal, they'll deflect off each other most of the time, rather than fuse, and through thermalisation will junk all that energy that has gone into them. The Polywell carries over this essential inefficiency from the Fusor.
At least according to Bussard the electron losses were the limiting remaining barrier. And, my understanding is that IEC devices in general are not thermalized machines(unlike Tokamaks), they are essentially linier acceleraters. Most scattering is in radial directions from the center, so the ions decelerate (giving the energy back)as they climb out of the 'well' untill they are 'reset' for the next round.
>Let me put all this another way. If you turn on any fusion-intent neutron generator at fusion energies and you put 1kW or more into it and don't die from the immediate emissions without shielding, then it means you are at least >2 or 3 orders of magnitude too inefficient for net power production...
That is an understatment. Based on -
http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/fus ... ulator.htm
approx. 1 billion neutrons are produced with D-D fusion per milliwatt of fusion power. Based on other threads by R. Hull and others a few millions of neutrons per second (1 microwatt/s of fusion power) results in ~ 1 mREM of radiation per Hr(?) close to the fuser, so 1000 watts/s of fusion power would be ~ 10^15 neutrons/second or ~ 1,000,000 REM/hr.
Bussard's WB6 produced a predicted ~ 1 billion neutrons per second , but these estimates were based on sub millisecond tests, so the total exposure would be in the same ballpark as the best amatuer fusers. X-ray considerations from amatuer fusers are much more important at these levels. Extrapolating from the above a 100 Megawatt D-D fusion reactor would produce ~ 10^ 20 neutrons per second, or ~ 100,000,000,000 REMS per hour. Some distance and shielding might be advisable! Dr Nebel has mentioned that a p-B11 reactor would put out 10^8 less neutrons, or ~ 1,000 REM /hour neuton exposure, still not something you wold want in your basement, but MUCH easier to shield.
(edited)
Dan Tibbets
ps: hopefully my assumptions and math are not too far off.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Dan,
I know many of you think that polywell will be the savior but there are some real issues that you need to consider. Two of the big ones are electron losses and the other is efficiency.
Addressing electron losses: As has been stated here many times, you can not pile up electrons in any significant way. By significant I mean a couloumb of electrons sitting in the corner of a polywell fusor. It just is not going to happen so if a polywell is running 1 amp for 1 second then you have stacked up more electrons someplace in the vessle so it would be torn apart. This means keeping electrons out of the equation just is a violation of conventional, quantum, and relativistic physics.
Still addressing electron losses, let's look at what would happen if ALL electrons were removed from the plasma and only positive ions, deuterons for example, exist. It would mean that for the same power input, there would be more fusion occuring because some portion of the input would not be lost in non-productive electron acceleration. This potentially could mean a factor of 2 increase in efficiency. The number may be higher so lets be generous and say 10 fold. So now our fusion rate has increased from 0.00000000000000000001 to 0.00000000000000000001 . I am not impressed.
Addressing efficiency: Nothing is new about polywell in couloumb barrier tunneling fusion. No nuclear or couloumbic forces are changed so a polywell can not fuse ions any better than any other technology out there. Nothing new here at all with polywell.
Well let me be even more generous and say that something unexpectedly good happens with the scaling of polywell and a factor of 100 increase in output can be had. That now makes the fusion rate 0.000000000000000001 .
I am still not impressed and if I were you and the rest of the pie in the sky followers, I would do some critical thinking about the reality of they hype of polywell. Maybe then you will stop being enamered into thinking there is something new there. Science is science and if you read and understood the simplistic analysis above, it should be clear to you that the reality of polywell or any other over unity technology is just as bleak as every other fusion technology. This holds for other technologies posted on websites and propagated by people like you who genuinely want to find an energy solution but do not understand or do not want to hear the reality.
It is a wise person that looks for new insight and technology but it is a wiser person that evaluates it for what it is and finds the truth.
Frank Sanns
I know many of you think that polywell will be the savior but there are some real issues that you need to consider. Two of the big ones are electron losses and the other is efficiency.
Addressing electron losses: As has been stated here many times, you can not pile up electrons in any significant way. By significant I mean a couloumb of electrons sitting in the corner of a polywell fusor. It just is not going to happen so if a polywell is running 1 amp for 1 second then you have stacked up more electrons someplace in the vessle so it would be torn apart. This means keeping electrons out of the equation just is a violation of conventional, quantum, and relativistic physics.
Still addressing electron losses, let's look at what would happen if ALL electrons were removed from the plasma and only positive ions, deuterons for example, exist. It would mean that for the same power input, there would be more fusion occuring because some portion of the input would not be lost in non-productive electron acceleration. This potentially could mean a factor of 2 increase in efficiency. The number may be higher so lets be generous and say 10 fold. So now our fusion rate has increased from 0.00000000000000000001 to 0.00000000000000000001 . I am not impressed.
Addressing efficiency: Nothing is new about polywell in couloumb barrier tunneling fusion. No nuclear or couloumbic forces are changed so a polywell can not fuse ions any better than any other technology out there. Nothing new here at all with polywell.
Well let me be even more generous and say that something unexpectedly good happens with the scaling of polywell and a factor of 100 increase in output can be had. That now makes the fusion rate 0.000000000000000001 .
I am still not impressed and if I were you and the rest of the pie in the sky followers, I would do some critical thinking about the reality of they hype of polywell. Maybe then you will stop being enamered into thinking there is something new there. Science is science and if you read and understood the simplistic analysis above, it should be clear to you that the reality of polywell or any other over unity technology is just as bleak as every other fusion technology. This holds for other technologies posted on websites and propagated by people like you who genuinely want to find an energy solution but do not understand or do not want to hear the reality.
It is a wise person that looks for new insight and technology but it is a wiser person that evaluates it for what it is and finds the truth.
Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Dan DT wrote:
> At least according to Bussard the electron losses were the limiting remaining barrier.
'Fraid not. cross-section of Coulomb scattering >> cross-section of fusion . That's the fundamental last-barrier when two nucleii meet up. All mechanisms before that are just disappointments. Like if you climb a mountain and see a ridge that looks like the top. Strain your heart that last few metres because you think that is all you've got left, but then realise you're only half-way there once you get over that ridge and really see the top! It's a real downer! But you have to clear the ridge before you know it.
This is the essential very-inequality that has meant the research mainstream has headed for thermal plasmas.
> And, my understanding is that IEC devices in general are not thermalized machines(unlike Tokamaks), they are essentially linier acceleraters.
Yes. If it were a thermalised plasma, the inequality above wouldn't apply. Hence, very appealing to go for this. You've just shrunk the mountain!! And this is really the case, make no mistake. Beam-type machines need to run very high ion energies before they begin to see any returns at all, whereas thermal plasmas, relatively speaking, don't need to run such high energies but it's currently proved impractical to sustain them.
> At least according to Bussard the electron losses were the limiting remaining barrier.
'Fraid not. cross-section of Coulomb scattering >> cross-section of fusion . That's the fundamental last-barrier when two nucleii meet up. All mechanisms before that are just disappointments. Like if you climb a mountain and see a ridge that looks like the top. Strain your heart that last few metres because you think that is all you've got left, but then realise you're only half-way there once you get over that ridge and really see the top! It's a real downer! But you have to clear the ridge before you know it.
This is the essential very-inequality that has meant the research mainstream has headed for thermal plasmas.
> And, my understanding is that IEC devices in general are not thermalized machines(unlike Tokamaks), they are essentially linier acceleraters.
Yes. If it were a thermalised plasma, the inequality above wouldn't apply. Hence, very appealing to go for this. You've just shrunk the mountain!! And this is really the case, make no mistake. Beam-type machines need to run very high ion energies before they begin to see any returns at all, whereas thermal plasmas, relatively speaking, don't need to run such high energies but it's currently proved impractical to sustain them.
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
>'Fraid not. cross-section of Coulomb scattering >> cross-section of fusion . That's the fundamental last-barrier when two nucleii meet up. All mechanisms before that are just disappointments. Like if you climb a mountain and see a ridge that looks like the top. Strain your heart that last few metres because you think that is all you've got left, but then realise you're only half-way there once you get over that ridge and really see the top! It's a real downer! But you have to clear the ridge before you know it.
Obvously I'm not a nuclear or plasma physisist so my views have been derived from the comments of others. But I have seen arguments- mostly on Talk-Polywell.org between Dr Nebel , Dr Carlson and others. There seems to be confusion about thermal plasmas and 'beamed', centrally focused plasmas. The Fusers, weather Bussard's Polywell or Farnsworth types 'shoot' ions twards the center and because the aviable volume shrinks as the ions approach the center the density of the ions increase greatly as their speed/energy increases (untill they pass the wire grid or reach the area of the potential anode in a Polywell. So the vast majority of high energy collisions can only deflect ions in a near radial direction as opposed to a more transverse direction ( in the extream case- where two ions collide in the exact center, no matter what angle they bounce off of each other, their direction will be perfictly radial from the center). In these nonfusing collisions the ions are still on near radial paths so weather deflected/ scatered twords the center or twards the perifery they are still radially directed so they are either gaining energy from the electrical potential or giving it back in equal proportions. The collisions that are occuring near the perifery can result in deflections that are more transverse (not conserving the energy) but the lower density of the ions and their lower speeds near the perifery results in much less significance than the central collisions. So in an ideal fuser the ions might circulate many times without net energy loss untill they finally fuse. A number like 10,000 cycles or occilations sticks in my head from somewhere. X-ray losses from electron-ion collisions is another matter with other arguments. In a fuser there are three loss mechanisma I am aware of. bremmstralung(x-ray losses- which are only partially lost if you can convert the resultant heat/ photons to useful power) ion collisions withe the grid or wall, and electron collisions with the wall. I have heard that the wire grid in amatuer fusers intercept an ion ~ 2-5 percent of the time. And the electrons quickly stream to the relative anode (wall). In the Polywell there is no wire grid, and the magnetically confined electrons acceleratethe ions twords the center and confine them inside the walls. The positively charged 'magrids' presumably also play a role though I have not heard any discussion of the significance. The electrons in the Polywell are confined fairly well by the magnetic field. My impression of Bussard's "breakthrough" in 2005 was that he finely figured out how to recover the electrons that were escaping from or hitting the magnets so that the power required to maintain the potential well was greatly reduced to the point that with suffucuent size the rare collisions that resulted in fusion power would be greater than the input energy, even to the point of usefull power densities. Bussard claimed that he had done all the tests with complimentry processes ( electron recirculation, wiffle ball effect, edge anealing, control of bremmstralung radiation, etc; and that the extrapolations from the small WB6 to a net power producing machine were based on well understood physics.
The arguments against his results depend heavily on Maxwellian plasma ideology that counter arguments claim are misapplied to this system. Riders ~1995 mathmatical calculations have been a bible for critics, but again there are counter arguments ( at least there are claimed counter agruments- I don't pretend to have any insight into the math).
So the arguments against the Polywell are based on admittedy shaky theoretical (and possibly inappropriatly applied) models. And, the disbeleif in Bussard's reported results. Either he lied or the results were to sparce and misintrepreted. Dr Bussard's credibility was not helped by the lack of detailed published results, but keep in mind that the Navy embargoed his research. It would have been nice if Bussard had published more after the contract ended, but remember that he was distracted at the time since he was dieing from cancer.
That is what is intriging about the WB 7 tests headed up by Dr Nebel. They should answer most of the majer questions one way or the other.
Dan Tibbets
Obvously I'm not a nuclear or plasma physisist so my views have been derived from the comments of others. But I have seen arguments- mostly on Talk-Polywell.org between Dr Nebel , Dr Carlson and others. There seems to be confusion about thermal plasmas and 'beamed', centrally focused plasmas. The Fusers, weather Bussard's Polywell or Farnsworth types 'shoot' ions twards the center and because the aviable volume shrinks as the ions approach the center the density of the ions increase greatly as their speed/energy increases (untill they pass the wire grid or reach the area of the potential anode in a Polywell. So the vast majority of high energy collisions can only deflect ions in a near radial direction as opposed to a more transverse direction ( in the extream case- where two ions collide in the exact center, no matter what angle they bounce off of each other, their direction will be perfictly radial from the center). In these nonfusing collisions the ions are still on near radial paths so weather deflected/ scatered twords the center or twards the perifery they are still radially directed so they are either gaining energy from the electrical potential or giving it back in equal proportions. The collisions that are occuring near the perifery can result in deflections that are more transverse (not conserving the energy) but the lower density of the ions and their lower speeds near the perifery results in much less significance than the central collisions. So in an ideal fuser the ions might circulate many times without net energy loss untill they finally fuse. A number like 10,000 cycles or occilations sticks in my head from somewhere. X-ray losses from electron-ion collisions is another matter with other arguments. In a fuser there are three loss mechanisma I am aware of. bremmstralung(x-ray losses- which are only partially lost if you can convert the resultant heat/ photons to useful power) ion collisions withe the grid or wall, and electron collisions with the wall. I have heard that the wire grid in amatuer fusers intercept an ion ~ 2-5 percent of the time. And the electrons quickly stream to the relative anode (wall). In the Polywell there is no wire grid, and the magnetically confined electrons acceleratethe ions twords the center and confine them inside the walls. The positively charged 'magrids' presumably also play a role though I have not heard any discussion of the significance. The electrons in the Polywell are confined fairly well by the magnetic field. My impression of Bussard's "breakthrough" in 2005 was that he finely figured out how to recover the electrons that were escaping from or hitting the magnets so that the power required to maintain the potential well was greatly reduced to the point that with suffucuent size the rare collisions that resulted in fusion power would be greater than the input energy, even to the point of usefull power densities. Bussard claimed that he had done all the tests with complimentry processes ( electron recirculation, wiffle ball effect, edge anealing, control of bremmstralung radiation, etc; and that the extrapolations from the small WB6 to a net power producing machine were based on well understood physics.
The arguments against his results depend heavily on Maxwellian plasma ideology that counter arguments claim are misapplied to this system. Riders ~1995 mathmatical calculations have been a bible for critics, but again there are counter arguments ( at least there are claimed counter agruments- I don't pretend to have any insight into the math).
So the arguments against the Polywell are based on admittedy shaky theoretical (and possibly inappropriatly applied) models. And, the disbeleif in Bussard's reported results. Either he lied or the results were to sparce and misintrepreted. Dr Bussard's credibility was not helped by the lack of detailed published results, but keep in mind that the Navy embargoed his research. It would have been nice if Bussard had published more after the contract ended, but remember that he was distracted at the time since he was dieing from cancer.
That is what is intriging about the WB 7 tests headed up by Dr Nebel. They should answer most of the majer questions one way or the other.
Dan Tibbets
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
>Addressing electron losses: As has been stated here many times, you can not pile up electrons in any significant way. By significant I mean a couloumb of electrons sitting in the corner of a polywell fusor. It just is not going to happen so if a polywell is running 1 amp for 1 second then you have stacked up more electrons someplace in the vessle so it would be torn apart. This means keeping electrons out of the equation just is a violation of conventional, quantum, and relativistic physics.
I have heard this argument before. Someone is confused ( it can't be me )
According to Bussard's GOOGLE talk a few million electrons are injected into the reacter initially, enough to create the desired electrical potential. This amounts to a Very small charge (~ 6 x 10^18 electrons per coulumb). Any additional electrons come from molecules that are ionized ( balanced by the pos charge of the ions) and injected electrons to replace the electrons that are lost to the magrid or chamber walls. So there is a steady state, not a continueing increase of electrons/charge.
The exception would be the electrons left behind from escaping ions- either from the parent ions escaping or fusion ions escaping (eg- alpha particles). I have no idea weather this would exceed the rate of baseline electron losses ( so to compensate you would only have to turn down the electron guns) or if you would need to bleed off electrons some way.
>Still addressing electron losses, let's look at what would happen if ALL electrons were removed from the plasma and only positive ions, deuterons for example, exist. It would mean that for the same power input, there would be more fusion occuring because some portion of the input would not be lost in non-productive electron acceleration. This potentially could mean a factor of 2 increase in efficiency. The number may be higher so lets be generous and say 10 fold. So now our fusion rate has increased from 0.00000000000000000001 to 0.00000000000000000001 . I am not impressed.
This argument seems inapropiate to me. The power input consists of the initial power needed to initiate the conditions desired, and then the continueing power needs are only what is required to replace the losses, so reducing the losses reduces the input power in a steady state machine like the Polywell is intended to be (much like a superconding magnet which needs no or minimal power once started). A pulsed machine would of course need the initiating input power for each shot.
The rare fusion collisions are multiplied by the ions undergoing thousands, if not millions of orbits per second (hopefully very elliptical orbits so there is considerably increased density witht increaded collisions in the center (focus)). So ideally even very few fusions could result in net power. Of course acheiving fusion rates to produce usefull net power would be more challenging.
Assumeing ( Yes, I know they are big assumptions) that Bussard's WB6 results are real, and that his other assumptions and claimed scaling laws are reasonable. Then the WB6 produced ~1 milliwatt with ~ 10,000 watts of input power(it was run at ~ 10-12,000 volts, I don't know how many amps) (ignor the magnet power as they will presumably be superconducters). Once the size is increased from 30 cm to 300 cm the proposed scaling laws would result in 10^7 increase in output power so near breakeven would be achieved*.
*Scaling laws claim that power scales as the size difference to the 7th power. I'm uncertain if this refers to the net or gross increase. Actually, the predicted performance of a 3 meter Polywell is 100 Megawatts output with ~ 10 Megawatt input/waste heat. Also, I don't know if this proformance estimate is based on the upsized cuboid WB6 design or a completely untested dodecahedron design that has been predicted to be 3-5 times more efficient.
Dan Tibbets
I have heard this argument before. Someone is confused ( it can't be me )
According to Bussard's GOOGLE talk a few million electrons are injected into the reacter initially, enough to create the desired electrical potential. This amounts to a Very small charge (~ 6 x 10^18 electrons per coulumb). Any additional electrons come from molecules that are ionized ( balanced by the pos charge of the ions) and injected electrons to replace the electrons that are lost to the magrid or chamber walls. So there is a steady state, not a continueing increase of electrons/charge.
The exception would be the electrons left behind from escaping ions- either from the parent ions escaping or fusion ions escaping (eg- alpha particles). I have no idea weather this would exceed the rate of baseline electron losses ( so to compensate you would only have to turn down the electron guns) or if you would need to bleed off electrons some way.
>Still addressing electron losses, let's look at what would happen if ALL electrons were removed from the plasma and only positive ions, deuterons for example, exist. It would mean that for the same power input, there would be more fusion occuring because some portion of the input would not be lost in non-productive electron acceleration. This potentially could mean a factor of 2 increase in efficiency. The number may be higher so lets be generous and say 10 fold. So now our fusion rate has increased from 0.00000000000000000001 to 0.00000000000000000001 . I am not impressed.
This argument seems inapropiate to me. The power input consists of the initial power needed to initiate the conditions desired, and then the continueing power needs are only what is required to replace the losses, so reducing the losses reduces the input power in a steady state machine like the Polywell is intended to be (much like a superconding magnet which needs no or minimal power once started). A pulsed machine would of course need the initiating input power for each shot.
The rare fusion collisions are multiplied by the ions undergoing thousands, if not millions of orbits per second (hopefully very elliptical orbits so there is considerably increased density witht increaded collisions in the center (focus)). So ideally even very few fusions could result in net power. Of course acheiving fusion rates to produce usefull net power would be more challenging.
Assumeing ( Yes, I know they are big assumptions) that Bussard's WB6 results are real, and that his other assumptions and claimed scaling laws are reasonable. Then the WB6 produced ~1 milliwatt with ~ 10,000 watts of input power(it was run at ~ 10-12,000 volts, I don't know how many amps) (ignor the magnet power as they will presumably be superconducters). Once the size is increased from 30 cm to 300 cm the proposed scaling laws would result in 10^7 increase in output power so near breakeven would be achieved*.
*Scaling laws claim that power scales as the size difference to the 7th power. I'm uncertain if this refers to the net or gross increase. Actually, the predicted performance of a 3 meter Polywell is 100 Megawatts output with ~ 10 Megawatt input/waste heat. Also, I don't know if this proformance estimate is based on the upsized cuboid WB6 design or a completely untested dodecahedron design that has been predicted to be 3-5 times more efficient.
Dan Tibbets
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Dan DT wrote:
> So the vast majority of high energy collisions can only deflect ions in a near radial direction as opposed to a more transverse direction
I would have to say that I think your view of the Polywell, and of other 'beaming' IEC devices, is incorrect.
The vast majority of particles in these devices are not fast ions. Hence, the vast majority of collisions by fast ions is not with other fast ions. If fast ions constituted one in a million particles, and I think that it is probably near that order, then a fast-fast collision is one in a thousand billion collisions.
The image I think you have in your mind is that these ions will be batting around in a perfect vacuum, perhaps along with some other stuff that doesn't really matter much. This view needs to be changed for a load of cold gas with a very rare fast ion zipping through that is feeling very lonely indeed.
If it were different then you're actually talking about a thermalised plasma, and this just isn't the reality of these devices.
In any case, whatever you may or may not accept it to be, and I fear I will not encourage you to accept otherwise, the reality is that if this thing could produce energy then I cannot see why its size should matter. The mechanism as you describe does not appear to be one that is functionally dependent on the size of the device. There should be oodles of neutrons pouring out of the thing, even in small experimental trim, and making it a bit bigger or tuning the magnets a little just doesn't strike me as likely actions that will bump up efficiency of any experiment, Polywell or otherwise, by 10 orders of magnitude.
I would suggest that for any similar device and for anyone really hoping to develop a net energy IEC device, the next consequence is recognised [subject to the usual caveats of approximations and theoretical inexactitudes]: A 20keV deuteron slamming into a stationary one is of the order of 10^8 times more likely to fuse than a 2keV one is, and at this 20keV drive energy neutrons are moderately easily detectable from a decent fusor. This factor is somewhat under the efficiency improvement required for IEC types to achieve net energy.
Hence, if you can't detect any neutrons while operating your IEC device at 2keV and a couple of hundred watts with deuterium, then you've got no hope for net energy. So if you're really trying to make a net energy machine then save your money on a fandango HV power supply and spend it on the physical device. Similarly of Polywell - can't get detectable neutrons off 2kV? Then it won't work as advertised. I would not seek to stop anyone from trying and learning off the experiments rather than the theory, but the maths is against it. And if you really think your IEC device has a genuine potential to get to net energy, then conversely you shouldn't be thinking of running it over 2keV for fear of the formidable radiation output at higher drive voltages.
best regards,
Chris MB.
> So the vast majority of high energy collisions can only deflect ions in a near radial direction as opposed to a more transverse direction
I would have to say that I think your view of the Polywell, and of other 'beaming' IEC devices, is incorrect.
The vast majority of particles in these devices are not fast ions. Hence, the vast majority of collisions by fast ions is not with other fast ions. If fast ions constituted one in a million particles, and I think that it is probably near that order, then a fast-fast collision is one in a thousand billion collisions.
The image I think you have in your mind is that these ions will be batting around in a perfect vacuum, perhaps along with some other stuff that doesn't really matter much. This view needs to be changed for a load of cold gas with a very rare fast ion zipping through that is feeling very lonely indeed.
If it were different then you're actually talking about a thermalised plasma, and this just isn't the reality of these devices.
In any case, whatever you may or may not accept it to be, and I fear I will not encourage you to accept otherwise, the reality is that if this thing could produce energy then I cannot see why its size should matter. The mechanism as you describe does not appear to be one that is functionally dependent on the size of the device. There should be oodles of neutrons pouring out of the thing, even in small experimental trim, and making it a bit bigger or tuning the magnets a little just doesn't strike me as likely actions that will bump up efficiency of any experiment, Polywell or otherwise, by 10 orders of magnitude.
I would suggest that for any similar device and for anyone really hoping to develop a net energy IEC device, the next consequence is recognised [subject to the usual caveats of approximations and theoretical inexactitudes]: A 20keV deuteron slamming into a stationary one is of the order of 10^8 times more likely to fuse than a 2keV one is, and at this 20keV drive energy neutrons are moderately easily detectable from a decent fusor. This factor is somewhat under the efficiency improvement required for IEC types to achieve net energy.
Hence, if you can't detect any neutrons while operating your IEC device at 2keV and a couple of hundred watts with deuterium, then you've got no hope for net energy. So if you're really trying to make a net energy machine then save your money on a fandango HV power supply and spend it on the physical device. Similarly of Polywell - can't get detectable neutrons off 2kV? Then it won't work as advertised. I would not seek to stop anyone from trying and learning off the experiments rather than the theory, but the maths is against it. And if you really think your IEC device has a genuine potential to get to net energy, then conversely you shouldn't be thinking of running it over 2keV for fear of the formidable radiation output at higher drive voltages.
best regards,
Chris MB.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Dan,
Scaling going up by the power of 7 is a little scary to even hear that quoted. According to your numbers, that means that a polywell device the size of a building would exceed the output of our sun!
I hope it all works out for you polywell guys but my guess is that after the current design gets tested, then it will be the next one that will be the saving grace, and then the next one after that.
Good luck.
Frank Sanns
Scaling going up by the power of 7 is a little scary to even hear that quoted. According to your numbers, that means that a polywell device the size of a building would exceed the output of our sun!
I hope it all works out for you polywell guys but my guess is that after the current design gets tested, then it will be the next one that will be the saving grace, and then the next one after that.
Good luck.
Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:24 pm
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
I personally am looking forward to the WB7 results. They should answer many questions hitherto unanswered about the polywell system.
Bussard himself complained of the problem of not being able to properly simulate the system so most of the work was done by physical experimentation and mathematical approximation of the results. Let's just say it was an educated guess so I'm taking his results with more than a grain of salt for the moment.
The major breakthrough of WB6 was really just noticing to move chunks of metal out of the path of electron circulation. This literally means that all of the previous experiments were fatally flawed and that the actual proof of theory could finally begin. All WB6 told us was that the Polywell concept could produce fusion, nothing more.
I for one am simply going to wait and see what WB7 brings in this case.
It could literally be anything.
Bussard himself complained of the problem of not being able to properly simulate the system so most of the work was done by physical experimentation and mathematical approximation of the results. Let's just say it was an educated guess so I'm taking his results with more than a grain of salt for the moment.
The major breakthrough of WB6 was really just noticing to move chunks of metal out of the path of electron circulation. This literally means that all of the previous experiments were fatally flawed and that the actual proof of theory could finally begin. All WB6 told us was that the Polywell concept could produce fusion, nothing more.
I for one am simply going to wait and see what WB7 brings in this case.
It could literally be anything.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Chris T and Dan T,
Please explain to me that if all the deuterium or any other fuel that you choose is FULLY ionized and traveling at 100 kv and there are no electrons for any loss, how can even this be anywhere near break even no matter what the size?
I also just did a quick calculation on the maximum theoretical energy output from a 3 meter diameter polywell device. There are 14,000 liters which is 3.8 E 26 atoms at 10 mtorr. Assuming ~3 MeV per fusion or 1.5 MeV per atom, that gives 390 MW. The theoretical calculation you reported was 100 MW. This is frightfully close to the theoretical physical law breaking reality of the universe. That is tough to accept. This also assumes a 100% full and complete turn over of all of the spent fuel and 100% new fuel every second without fail. On top of that, how can this scale to the power of 7??? It is already nearly at the theoretical maxium for the energy contained in an atom.
Hell, in an atomic or hydrogen bomb the efficiency of mass conversion is only fractions of a percent of the starting materials and you think polywell will surpass this too by orders of magnitude as you have reported?
Call me pig headed but I am not seeing it. Way too much pie in the sky and outrageous and unsubstantiable numbers are being thrown around. There is no way in this universe that any of this can even be close to the truth. Look at the facts guys, I say the polywell myth is BUSTED!
Frank Sanns
Please explain to me that if all the deuterium or any other fuel that you choose is FULLY ionized and traveling at 100 kv and there are no electrons for any loss, how can even this be anywhere near break even no matter what the size?
I also just did a quick calculation on the maximum theoretical energy output from a 3 meter diameter polywell device. There are 14,000 liters which is 3.8 E 26 atoms at 10 mtorr. Assuming ~3 MeV per fusion or 1.5 MeV per atom, that gives 390 MW. The theoretical calculation you reported was 100 MW. This is frightfully close to the theoretical physical law breaking reality of the universe. That is tough to accept. This also assumes a 100% full and complete turn over of all of the spent fuel and 100% new fuel every second without fail. On top of that, how can this scale to the power of 7??? It is already nearly at the theoretical maxium for the energy contained in an atom.
Hell, in an atomic or hydrogen bomb the efficiency of mass conversion is only fractions of a percent of the starting materials and you think polywell will surpass this too by orders of magnitude as you have reported?
Call me pig headed but I am not seeing it. Way too much pie in the sky and outrageous and unsubstantiable numbers are being thrown around. There is no way in this universe that any of this can even be close to the truth. Look at the facts guys, I say the polywell myth is BUSTED!
Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
> The image I think you have in your mind is that these ions will be batting around in a perfect vacuum, perhaps along with some other stuff that doesn't really matter much. This view needs to be changed for a load of cold gas with a very rare fast ion zipping through that is feeling very lonely indeed.
I thinking that what you describe above is a Maxwellian distrbution of a thermal plasma (like in a Tokamak) where only the small tail at the top energies are fast enough to fuse. My understanding is that it is inapropiate to apply that model to IEC devices.
> In any case, whatever you may or may not accept it to be, and I fear I will not encourage you to accept otherwise, the reality is that if this thing could produce energy then I cannot see why its size should matter. The mechanism as you describe does not appear to be one that is functionally dependent on the size of the device. There should be oodles of neutrons pouring out of the thing, even in small experimental trim, and making it a bit bigger or tuning the magnets a little just doesn't strike me as likely actions that will bump up efficiency of any experiment, Polywell or otherwise, by 10 orders of magnitude.
Size doesn't matter only if you assume fusion only occures at the exact center of the device. Generally it appears based on what I have seen here in other posts that alot of the fusion actually occures in a central sphere or zone that is a significant fraction of the cathode diameter, etc. So simple increase in the area of the apparatus ( at the same proportional fields) results in 3rd power increase in the size of the fusion zone. The other 4th power increase must come from magical things going on with the magnetic fields, etc.
> I would suggest that for any similar device and for anyone really hoping to develop a net energy IEC device, the next consequence is recognised [subject to the usual caveats of approximations and theoretical inexactitudes]: A 20keV deuteron slamming into a stationary one is of the order of 10^8 times more likely to fuse than a 2keV one is, and at this 20keV drive energy neutrons are moderately easily detectable from a decent fusor. This factor is somewhat under the efficiency improvement required for IEC types to achieve net energy.
> Hence, if you can't detect any neutrons while operating your IEC device at 2keV and a couple of hundred watts with deuterium, then you've got no hope for net energy. So if you're really trying to make a net energy machine then save your money on a fandango HV power supply and spend it on the physical device. Similarly of Polywell - can't get detectable neutrons off 2kV? Then it won't work as advertised. I would not seek to stop anyone from trying and learning off the experiments rather than the theory, but the maths is against it. And if you really think your IEC device has a genuine potential to get to net energy, then conversely you shouldn't be thinking of running it over 2keV for fear of the formidable radiation output at higher drive voltages.
I'm not sure what you are arguing above. Certainly the fusion rate increases with the electron volts/temperature within limits. I'm guessing that you are argueing that if the yeild is much higher then the electron volts needed to generate minimally detectable neutrons should be proportionatly less. Indeed that makes sense, but as you have pointed out in the past the fusion rate decreases at a high expotential rate at voltages much below ~5,000-10,000 volts. The WB6 was tested at ~ 12,000 volts two or three times , and one breif test at mildly higher voltages (till one of the electromagnets shorted). These produced a claimed ~ 3 neutrons per test. This would certainly be near the minimal detectable level and has a wide uncertainity range. These were < 0.001 second runs and gave an calculated neutron output of ~ 1 billion/sec. This is comparable to a typical fuser producing ~ 1 million neutrons/sec. at 6-10(?) times the voltage. So neutron production efficiency was increased ~ 6,000 to 10,000 fold ( if you beleive the results). This is still way below breakeven, but the claimed scaling laws quickly overcomes this.
> Scaling going up by the power of 7 is a little scary to even hear that quoted. According to your numbers, that means that a polywell device the size of a building would exceed the output of our sun!
I' not sure it increasesthat fast, Mmm... or maby it nearly does.
3 meter diameter = 10^8 watts
30 meter diameter = 10^15 watts
300 meter diameter = 10^21 watts
etc..
Of course reality would quiclky step in and the reacter would quickly melt/ vaporize as the energy density would be unmanageble. On the Talk-Polywell. net site M. Simon and many others have considered engineering challenges with the Polywell. It would have a fairly high power density, so managing the waste heat, etc makes a several hundred megawatt reacter doable with current materials, heat dissipating technology,etc. But anything beyound that would be increasingly hard. So lots of small reacters instead of a few hugh reacters.
Of course all of this remains speculation untill /if positive results are reported from WB7.
Dan Tibbets
I thinking that what you describe above is a Maxwellian distrbution of a thermal plasma (like in a Tokamak) where only the small tail at the top energies are fast enough to fuse. My understanding is that it is inapropiate to apply that model to IEC devices.
> In any case, whatever you may or may not accept it to be, and I fear I will not encourage you to accept otherwise, the reality is that if this thing could produce energy then I cannot see why its size should matter. The mechanism as you describe does not appear to be one that is functionally dependent on the size of the device. There should be oodles of neutrons pouring out of the thing, even in small experimental trim, and making it a bit bigger or tuning the magnets a little just doesn't strike me as likely actions that will bump up efficiency of any experiment, Polywell or otherwise, by 10 orders of magnitude.
Size doesn't matter only if you assume fusion only occures at the exact center of the device. Generally it appears based on what I have seen here in other posts that alot of the fusion actually occures in a central sphere or zone that is a significant fraction of the cathode diameter, etc. So simple increase in the area of the apparatus ( at the same proportional fields) results in 3rd power increase in the size of the fusion zone. The other 4th power increase must come from magical things going on with the magnetic fields, etc.
> I would suggest that for any similar device and for anyone really hoping to develop a net energy IEC device, the next consequence is recognised [subject to the usual caveats of approximations and theoretical inexactitudes]: A 20keV deuteron slamming into a stationary one is of the order of 10^8 times more likely to fuse than a 2keV one is, and at this 20keV drive energy neutrons are moderately easily detectable from a decent fusor. This factor is somewhat under the efficiency improvement required for IEC types to achieve net energy.
> Hence, if you can't detect any neutrons while operating your IEC device at 2keV and a couple of hundred watts with deuterium, then you've got no hope for net energy. So if you're really trying to make a net energy machine then save your money on a fandango HV power supply and spend it on the physical device. Similarly of Polywell - can't get detectable neutrons off 2kV? Then it won't work as advertised. I would not seek to stop anyone from trying and learning off the experiments rather than the theory, but the maths is against it. And if you really think your IEC device has a genuine potential to get to net energy, then conversely you shouldn't be thinking of running it over 2keV for fear of the formidable radiation output at higher drive voltages.
I'm not sure what you are arguing above. Certainly the fusion rate increases with the electron volts/temperature within limits. I'm guessing that you are argueing that if the yeild is much higher then the electron volts needed to generate minimally detectable neutrons should be proportionatly less. Indeed that makes sense, but as you have pointed out in the past the fusion rate decreases at a high expotential rate at voltages much below ~5,000-10,000 volts. The WB6 was tested at ~ 12,000 volts two or three times , and one breif test at mildly higher voltages (till one of the electromagnets shorted). These produced a claimed ~ 3 neutrons per test. This would certainly be near the minimal detectable level and has a wide uncertainity range. These were < 0.001 second runs and gave an calculated neutron output of ~ 1 billion/sec. This is comparable to a typical fuser producing ~ 1 million neutrons/sec. at 6-10(?) times the voltage. So neutron production efficiency was increased ~ 6,000 to 10,000 fold ( if you beleive the results). This is still way below breakeven, but the claimed scaling laws quickly overcomes this.
> Scaling going up by the power of 7 is a little scary to even hear that quoted. According to your numbers, that means that a polywell device the size of a building would exceed the output of our sun!
I' not sure it increasesthat fast, Mmm... or maby it nearly does.
3 meter diameter = 10^8 watts
30 meter diameter = 10^15 watts
300 meter diameter = 10^21 watts
etc..
Of course reality would quiclky step in and the reacter would quickly melt/ vaporize as the energy density would be unmanageble. On the Talk-Polywell. net site M. Simon and many others have considered engineering challenges with the Polywell. It would have a fairly high power density, so managing the waste heat, etc makes a several hundred megawatt reacter doable with current materials, heat dissipating technology,etc. But anything beyound that would be increasingly hard. So lots of small reacters instead of a few hugh reacters.
Of course all of this remains speculation untill /if positive results are reported from WB7.
Dan Tibbets
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Dan DT wrote:
>>>> The image I think you have in your mind is that these ions will be batting around in a perfect vacuum, perhaps along with some other stuff that doesn't really matter much. This view needs to be changed for a load of cold gas with a very rare fast ion zipping through that is feeling very lonely indeed.
>
> I thinking that what you describe above is a Maxwellian distrbution of a thermal plasma
>
Nope. Both of my two scenarios ARE a description of a non-maxwellian ensemble, which is the target for IEC/Polywells. You have a cold maxwellian gas with these hot bullets flying through occasionally.
>>>> Hence, if you can't detect any neutrons while operating your IEC device at 2keV and a couple of hundred watts with deuterium, then you've got no hope for net energy.
>
> I'm not sure what you are arguing above.... The WB6 was tested at ~ 12,000 volts two or three times.... These produced a claimed ~ 3 neutrons per test.
You may not follow the maths, and you may even dispute it, but this can't get much clearer!!!
>>>> The image I think you have in your mind is that these ions will be batting around in a perfect vacuum, perhaps along with some other stuff that doesn't really matter much. This view needs to be changed for a load of cold gas with a very rare fast ion zipping through that is feeling very lonely indeed.
>
> I thinking that what you describe above is a Maxwellian distrbution of a thermal plasma
>
Nope. Both of my two scenarios ARE a description of a non-maxwellian ensemble, which is the target for IEC/Polywells. You have a cold maxwellian gas with these hot bullets flying through occasionally.
>>>> Hence, if you can't detect any neutrons while operating your IEC device at 2keV and a couple of hundred watts with deuterium, then you've got no hope for net energy.
>
> I'm not sure what you are arguing above.... The WB6 was tested at ~ 12,000 volts two or three times.... These produced a claimed ~ 3 neutrons per test.
You may not follow the maths, and you may even dispute it, but this can't get much clearer!!!
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:24 pm
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Well, to answer your first question; since an IEC Fusor is by definition an electrostatic plasma confinement device, being chocked full of 100Kev ions would make fusion pretty much a sure thing in an ideal IEC device.
We can't get anywhere close to that though. Even if the grids in a Fusor were 99% transparent we'd still be many orders of magnitude shy of break even just from ions impacting the inner grid. As I recall we're talking about tens of thousands of collisions necessary to achieve a fusion event. We are probably averaging less than 100 tries per ion at getting even a collision right now due to the design of the inner grid.
That's a deal breaker.
Bussard claimed that the Polywell design has resolved the inner grid problem, at least in concept. If that is truly the case then it seems reasonable to me that their efficiencies will be at least somewhat better than a gridded fusor.
How much better I am not qualified to guess. (I'm hopeful, but let's just say I'm still not expecting to see a fusion power plant in my lifetime.)
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
This was an interesting post as the whole IEC concept was called into question and thermal designs were boosted and are still felt winners due to theIr base standard of operation (All ions sorta' hot).
Back to the intial posts questions related to what ought to be the rule for posting in this forum....... For me this is a forum where fusion power discussions rule. In short, real distributable power from fusion in the future. This means a lot of guessing and theoretical machinations are what it is all about as we try to mentally "cast th' bones" to devine out what fusion's power ready future is all about or how it will shakeout, if at all. It can be a negative or a positive forum, where present efforts are either decried of boosted and the same goes for future ideas.
As for revolution or evolution.....Well, that is a crap shoot.
Revolution means a completely new thing, an overthrow of old ideas and procedures, or the discovery of a whole new paradigm.
Evolution means standard, well understood principles being advanced in a series of steps until the desired goal is reached.
For those who think the 50 plus year effort with thermal fusion still looks pretty and for those who think ICEF has a chance, evolution is the way.
For my part, I only see revolution as the answer.
Richard Hull
Back to the intial posts questions related to what ought to be the rule for posting in this forum....... For me this is a forum where fusion power discussions rule. In short, real distributable power from fusion in the future. This means a lot of guessing and theoretical machinations are what it is all about as we try to mentally "cast th' bones" to devine out what fusion's power ready future is all about or how it will shakeout, if at all. It can be a negative or a positive forum, where present efforts are either decried of boosted and the same goes for future ideas.
As for revolution or evolution.....Well, that is a crap shoot.
Revolution means a completely new thing, an overthrow of old ideas and procedures, or the discovery of a whole new paradigm.
Evolution means standard, well understood principles being advanced in a series of steps until the desired goal is reached.
For those who think the 50 plus year effort with thermal fusion still looks pretty and for those who think ICEF has a chance, evolution is the way.
For my part, I only see revolution as the answer.
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
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
I don't understand the relavence of your 2 Kvolt detection nesessity. The fusion rate is dependant on the cross section at a given voltage and the number of ions at that energy. Best comparison is between ~ 1000 isotropic neutrons at 10-15KV in typical gridded fusers
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2799&hilit=Jon+Rosenstiel#p12309
verses the claimed ~ 1 billion isotropic neutrons in WB6 at ~ 12 Kvolts, an ~ 1 million fold increase in neutron output vs. input voltage. I dont know the amperage comparisons or how the proformance ratios may vary at different votage ranges. The remaing gains needed to break even are susposed to be acheived by the claimed scaling laws.
Note that I use qualifiers due to the sparcity of data and communication of the WB6 results and analysis. This is where the WB7 results are so intriging . they will confirm or debunk the earlier tests, and add credibility due to peer review of not only the results but also provide hands exposure to the system for the reviewers.
And, of course I am only a laymen looking in. Fo more information look at:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ctors.html
This bolg site has multiple links to related topics.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/ and look at the link to a PDF file on "The Advent of Clean Nuclear Fusion: Super-Performance Space Power and Propulsion" for a discription of the concepts and history of the Polywell design.
And especially look at
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 36887.aspx
and read the comments between Dr A. Carlson ( a sceptic with a Tokamak research background) and Dr R. Nebel ( who heads up EMC's current efforts)
Dan Tibbets
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2799&hilit=Jon+Rosenstiel#p12309
verses the claimed ~ 1 billion isotropic neutrons in WB6 at ~ 12 Kvolts, an ~ 1 million fold increase in neutron output vs. input voltage. I dont know the amperage comparisons or how the proformance ratios may vary at different votage ranges. The remaing gains needed to break even are susposed to be acheived by the claimed scaling laws.
Note that I use qualifiers due to the sparcity of data and communication of the WB6 results and analysis. This is where the WB7 results are so intriging . they will confirm or debunk the earlier tests, and add credibility due to peer review of not only the results but also provide hands exposure to the system for the reviewers.
And, of course I am only a laymen looking in. Fo more information look at:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ctors.html
This bolg site has multiple links to related topics.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/ and look at the link to a PDF file on "The Advent of Clean Nuclear Fusion: Super-Performance Space Power and Propulsion" for a discription of the concepts and history of the Polywell design.
And especially look at
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 36887.aspx
and read the comments between Dr A. Carlson ( a sceptic with a Tokamak research background) and Dr R. Nebel ( who heads up EMC's current efforts)
Dan Tibbets
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
I’ll put some numbers on, and talk through, the argument to try to clarify it.
Let’s say you’ve made *the* breakthrough and made what you believe is an over-unity DD fusion device. You could chuck in 500W and get 10^15 neutrons/second out of it, this being ~unity output.
Of course, the question would be whether you’d really want to! That’d kill you dead.
So instead you say “Ah! To remain safe without having to build 1000 tonne concrete walls like JET, all I have to do is operate at some lower collision energy and wind off my fusion reactivity factor, and in this way all the actual mechanisms in the device will remain mostly the same and hopefully proportionate. I don’t know this for sure, but this is how a real scientific experiment would start off, at small levels, rather than flicking on 100kV on day one. Let’s do some back-of-envelope calcs and I’ll figure the rest out later.”
So you do your calculations and first off you discover that the reactivity rate for DD is surprisingly linear over 20keV. See:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4657#p30233
Realising that this is all a bit hand-wavy order-of-magnitude stuff anyway, you say “if I *were* to be able to run this thing at unity somewhere in the 20-100keV range, as I ramp up voltage on this linear bit, for a given current I’d also ramp up power input. I’m interested in power input versus neutrons out, so whether I actually need to put in 20keV or 100keV to get it working, I’d be within one order of magnitude of seeing if this thing works either way if I could run at 20keV.”
Now let’s say that if you actually ran it you could get your 500W worth of neutrons out at 20keV for a 500W input. Maybe you could get 5kW of neutrons out at 100keV drive voltage, but the graph says the relative difference wouldn’t be much more than that, so that doesn’t trouble you much in this order of mag estimate.
And now let’s say that you decide on using a drive voltage into your device which aims to get 10^6 neutrons/second out, which is straight forward enough to detect without killing you. That’s 9 orders of mag less than 500W worth of neutrons. So you have to pick a drive voltage where the reactivity is 9 orders of magnitude less than at 20keV, which it is at ~2keV, and so at 2keV you should get around 10^6 n/s.
You go back to the ‘I’ll-figure-the-rest-out-later’ step and say; “maybe this only works if I work it at much higher power input levels. Let’s say 50kW rather than 500W”. Well, in that case you’d see 10^8 neutrons/s with a 50kW input at 2keV drive. Whatever!! You’d still see neutrons!! Any power input can be extrapolated back. You may even be a couple of orders of magnitude out because it won’t get to unity until 200keV drive. So what! You’d still see 10^4n/s if this were true!
Also at the ‘I’ll-figure-the-rest-out-later’ step, you may conclude that the dynamics of the device changes between 2keV and >20keV. I expect it surely will, but all the mechanisms I can think of that would change (field emissions, bremsstrahlung, thermal/microwave etc.) will make it much MORE difficult to operate at 20keV, not easier. So even if you DO see neutrons at 2keV drive, it still doesn’t mean you can get over unity at >20keV. But if you don’t then you’ll SURELY not get to unity output.
This is true for ANY DD fusion reactor. Can’t see any neutrons at 2keV drive voltage (500eV plasma ion temp) with ~kW drive power??..Then forget it as an over-unity device.
Best regards,
Chris MB.
(Note: this is my own back-of-envelope calculation in the hunt for fusion power and does not represent a formally recognised scientific proof. No liability accepted nor inferred if it causes you to bin a project that might’ve otherwise worked!!! If you think you know better, don’t let me stop you! )
Let’s say you’ve made *the* breakthrough and made what you believe is an over-unity DD fusion device. You could chuck in 500W and get 10^15 neutrons/second out of it, this being ~unity output.
Of course, the question would be whether you’d really want to! That’d kill you dead.
So instead you say “Ah! To remain safe without having to build 1000 tonne concrete walls like JET, all I have to do is operate at some lower collision energy and wind off my fusion reactivity factor, and in this way all the actual mechanisms in the device will remain mostly the same and hopefully proportionate. I don’t know this for sure, but this is how a real scientific experiment would start off, at small levels, rather than flicking on 100kV on day one. Let’s do some back-of-envelope calcs and I’ll figure the rest out later.”
So you do your calculations and first off you discover that the reactivity rate for DD is surprisingly linear over 20keV. See:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4657#p30233
Realising that this is all a bit hand-wavy order-of-magnitude stuff anyway, you say “if I *were* to be able to run this thing at unity somewhere in the 20-100keV range, as I ramp up voltage on this linear bit, for a given current I’d also ramp up power input. I’m interested in power input versus neutrons out, so whether I actually need to put in 20keV or 100keV to get it working, I’d be within one order of magnitude of seeing if this thing works either way if I could run at 20keV.”
Now let’s say that if you actually ran it you could get your 500W worth of neutrons out at 20keV for a 500W input. Maybe you could get 5kW of neutrons out at 100keV drive voltage, but the graph says the relative difference wouldn’t be much more than that, so that doesn’t trouble you much in this order of mag estimate.
And now let’s say that you decide on using a drive voltage into your device which aims to get 10^6 neutrons/second out, which is straight forward enough to detect without killing you. That’s 9 orders of mag less than 500W worth of neutrons. So you have to pick a drive voltage where the reactivity is 9 orders of magnitude less than at 20keV, which it is at ~2keV, and so at 2keV you should get around 10^6 n/s.
You go back to the ‘I’ll-figure-the-rest-out-later’ step and say; “maybe this only works if I work it at much higher power input levels. Let’s say 50kW rather than 500W”. Well, in that case you’d see 10^8 neutrons/s with a 50kW input at 2keV drive. Whatever!! You’d still see neutrons!! Any power input can be extrapolated back. You may even be a couple of orders of magnitude out because it won’t get to unity until 200keV drive. So what! You’d still see 10^4n/s if this were true!
Also at the ‘I’ll-figure-the-rest-out-later’ step, you may conclude that the dynamics of the device changes between 2keV and >20keV. I expect it surely will, but all the mechanisms I can think of that would change (field emissions, bremsstrahlung, thermal/microwave etc.) will make it much MORE difficult to operate at 20keV, not easier. So even if you DO see neutrons at 2keV drive, it still doesn’t mean you can get over unity at >20keV. But if you don’t then you’ll SURELY not get to unity output.
This is true for ANY DD fusion reactor. Can’t see any neutrons at 2keV drive voltage (500eV plasma ion temp) with ~kW drive power??..Then forget it as an over-unity device.
Best regards,
Chris MB.
(Note: this is my own back-of-envelope calculation in the hunt for fusion power and does not represent a formally recognised scientific proof. No liability accepted nor inferred if it causes you to bin a project that might’ve otherwise worked!!! If you think you know better, don’t let me stop you! )
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
I understand your arguments more now, I think. If I was planning to build a Polywell in my basement it would sure be nice to get measurable neutrons at 2 KV with a much easier setup and safer neutrol levels. But this test setup, while possible from a pure structural point (maby), does not nessisarilly indicate WB 6 results done at 12,000 volts are invalid. First the size constraints on the magnets ( in WB6 I think they operated at up to 1.2 Tesla), well depth volume/gradiant, rate at which the uncooled magnets heat up, structural strength, ratio of magnetic field strength vs. electrotic field strength/ size , etc, etc, etc. need to be considered. Will a 'Wiffleball' even form at 2KV?. In short there are probably alot of engeenering and theoretical and cost concerns that have to be factered in.
Also, keep in mind that neutron output, while possibly large even at low voltages, may be undetectable. Due to the efficiency, size, and location of the neutron detecter only a small fraction of the neutrons would be detected. In your example at 2KV, if 10^6 neutrons were produced instead of 10^9 at 10-12KV as in the WB6 tests then 0.003 neutrons would have been 'detected' in the short ~1 millisecond run. Obvously well below the noise limit of any detecter. If a WB6 type machine could be made to work at 2 KV, then possibly if you could run it steady state you might be able to extract statistically valid results after running for multiple seconds or many multiple runs (?). But the WB6 was limited to ~ millisecond runs due to the aviable power supply and ohmic heating of the magnets. And once heated up the magnets needed hours to cool down due to being in a good vacuum, so even if the appartus survived the abuse of so many runs it would takes months to accumulate the numbes needed extract the signal (I'm guessing). Dr bussard in the below link states that mechanical/ engeenering constraints limit a cooled Polywell machine to about 1.5 meters.
The WB6 size was selected for cost and I presume theoretical/ practical reasons that they thought they could acheive on their shoestring budget. I'm sure they ran lots of tests on things like magnetic field strength, shape, ion traping, electron traping, etc before going for the sexy D-D fusion / neutron detection tests on the litterally last day. I don't know if they designed the system to just reach detectable neutron limits, or if they were just lucky. For that matter, I have have no idea of what the noise in a good, well shielded neutron detecter would be on a millisecond time scale.
Certainly the WB6 system results didn't occur in a vacuum ( well, actually they did ), they had multiple other designs that the WB6 evolved from. They did report neutron from othe machines, just not anywhere near the efficiency of WB6.
The link below points to a 'Velincia Paper' that is the best primer/ introduction on the Polywell efforts I have seen. From there, if you wish you can persue other references, or join in arguments on the Talk-Polywell site with Phd and engeener types.. In the paper Bussard addresses concerns about electron, ion traping, thermalizarion issues, etc. Certainly not in a very detailed manner, but at lest it showes he was aware of the multiple concerns and had satisfied them, at least in his mind. And Dr Nebel was convinced of the need to persue the concepts enough that he took a leave of abstance from Los Alamos Natl Labs to do so.
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ctors.html
and look for the link to 'The Valencia Paper [pdf]' on the right and ~ 1/5th of the way down the page.
Dan Tibbets
Also, keep in mind that neutron output, while possibly large even at low voltages, may be undetectable. Due to the efficiency, size, and location of the neutron detecter only a small fraction of the neutrons would be detected. In your example at 2KV, if 10^6 neutrons were produced instead of 10^9 at 10-12KV as in the WB6 tests then 0.003 neutrons would have been 'detected' in the short ~1 millisecond run. Obvously well below the noise limit of any detecter. If a WB6 type machine could be made to work at 2 KV, then possibly if you could run it steady state you might be able to extract statistically valid results after running for multiple seconds or many multiple runs (?). But the WB6 was limited to ~ millisecond runs due to the aviable power supply and ohmic heating of the magnets. And once heated up the magnets needed hours to cool down due to being in a good vacuum, so even if the appartus survived the abuse of so many runs it would takes months to accumulate the numbes needed extract the signal (I'm guessing). Dr bussard in the below link states that mechanical/ engeenering constraints limit a cooled Polywell machine to about 1.5 meters.
The WB6 size was selected for cost and I presume theoretical/ practical reasons that they thought they could acheive on their shoestring budget. I'm sure they ran lots of tests on things like magnetic field strength, shape, ion traping, electron traping, etc before going for the sexy D-D fusion / neutron detection tests on the litterally last day. I don't know if they designed the system to just reach detectable neutron limits, or if they were just lucky. For that matter, I have have no idea of what the noise in a good, well shielded neutron detecter would be on a millisecond time scale.
Certainly the WB6 system results didn't occur in a vacuum ( well, actually they did ), they had multiple other designs that the WB6 evolved from. They did report neutron from othe machines, just not anywhere near the efficiency of WB6.
The link below points to a 'Velincia Paper' that is the best primer/ introduction on the Polywell efforts I have seen. From there, if you wish you can persue other references, or join in arguments on the Talk-Polywell site with Phd and engeener types.. In the paper Bussard addresses concerns about electron, ion traping, thermalizarion issues, etc. Certainly not in a very detailed manner, but at lest it showes he was aware of the multiple concerns and had satisfied them, at least in his mind. And Dr Nebel was convinced of the need to persue the concepts enough that he took a leave of abstance from Los Alamos Natl Labs to do so.
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ctors.html
and look for the link to 'The Valencia Paper [pdf]' on the right and ~ 1/5th of the way down the page.
Dan Tibbets
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
For me, this last post of your lays out point-by-painful-point all the reasons that the Polywell can be reasonably considered bogus. Pulsed operation, long cool down periods between huge magnetic field energy consumption, structural strength limitations, mag field shaping, &c., &c..
I've scanned the paper you've just referenced and [particularly] the bit that says;...
"Results of these studies showed that IEF power sources could be used for a wide variety of aerospace propulsion applications, ranging from HTOL vehicles from earth-to orbit, to fast transit vehicles to the orbit of Saturn and throughout the solar system..and even to the fringes of interstellar space"
...just switches me RIGHT off. This is unconstrained pretense. Why say this? It may even be true [that IEC devices could conceivably be employed in this task] but Polywell has no particular claim to this sci-fi idea and has less chance of shipping out quality fast ions than most IEC systems. This appears to me to be borderline troll material, manifesting in what should be a scholarly document about scientifically proving an as yet unproven idea.
Polywell - get off 1st base with a few statistically significant neutrons before you start planning your star-ship propulsion systems, PLEASE!! In my perception, Polywell is descending into over-sold trolling farce.
I've scanned the paper you've just referenced and [particularly] the bit that says;...
"Results of these studies showed that IEF power sources could be used for a wide variety of aerospace propulsion applications, ranging from HTOL vehicles from earth-to orbit, to fast transit vehicles to the orbit of Saturn and throughout the solar system..and even to the fringes of interstellar space"
...just switches me RIGHT off. This is unconstrained pretense. Why say this? It may even be true [that IEC devices could conceivably be employed in this task] but Polywell has no particular claim to this sci-fi idea and has less chance of shipping out quality fast ions than most IEC systems. This appears to me to be borderline troll material, manifesting in what should be a scholarly document about scientifically proving an as yet unproven idea.
Polywell - get off 1st base with a few statistically significant neutrons before you start planning your star-ship propulsion systems, PLEASE!! In my perception, Polywell is descending into over-sold trolling farce.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Have ANY projects got a future?
Chris,
I am glad that you finally said what I have been feeling for a while now. It seems any opporturnity in this forum to plug polywell seems to capitalized on. There is no technical contribution and nothing moving forward but only continued propaganda spreading.
I too feel there is a high troll factor to many of the polywell posts but have resisted coming right out and saying that for a variety of reasons. It is a similar technology to what our goals are but there is a void of valid scientific basis the claims and a lack of results. The former being the most important criteria for me. If it looks like it is violating the laws of physics as we understand it then it probably is. I can say this with no risk of missing something new based on the machine's operating parameters and underlying physics.
There are no new physics in polywell so there are no powers of 7 scaling possibilities. In fact there has never at least to my knowlege any star or any other phenomenom in our knowlege bank that can be 300 m across and have the output of our sun. Excuses and quotes and promises and side talk but no mojo.
Troll science, troll advertising, troll hype, and no new contributions to this site.
With that said, I do not favor banning these folk or deleting posts but I think they need to more closely follow the spirit and guidlines of this forum. If not then I say "out spot out".
Frank Sanns
I am glad that you finally said what I have been feeling for a while now. It seems any opporturnity in this forum to plug polywell seems to capitalized on. There is no technical contribution and nothing moving forward but only continued propaganda spreading.
I too feel there is a high troll factor to many of the polywell posts but have resisted coming right out and saying that for a variety of reasons. It is a similar technology to what our goals are but there is a void of valid scientific basis the claims and a lack of results. The former being the most important criteria for me. If it looks like it is violating the laws of physics as we understand it then it probably is. I can say this with no risk of missing something new based on the machine's operating parameters and underlying physics.
There are no new physics in polywell so there are no powers of 7 scaling possibilities. In fact there has never at least to my knowlege any star or any other phenomenom in our knowlege bank that can be 300 m across and have the output of our sun. Excuses and quotes and promises and side talk but no mojo.
Troll science, troll advertising, troll hype, and no new contributions to this site.
With that said, I do not favor banning these folk or deleting posts but I think they need to more closely follow the spirit and guidlines of this forum. If not then I say "out spot out".
Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS