Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:28 pm

randomencounter wrote:
303 wrote:the sun , works pretty good , without aid of machinery or engineering
I think you fail to understand the gravity of the situation.

Nice.

It would seem he is missing the depth as well.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:33 pm

Dr. B mentioned a 1.5m radius 100MW DD machine and a 2m radius pB11 machine, so I guess my "shipping container" statement isn't precisely true, but the volume is about right.

A D-D or PB&J Polywell (as we know it) would most certainly fit in a Perry Class FFG Main Engine Room volume. As I demonstrated long ago in a thread far far away.

93143 · Post by **93143** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:22 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:As when I have repeated Dan's "10^22 at 10 T" Ladajo objected me saying that B should not be higher 2T for commercial reactor.

Last I heard, EMC2's preliminary powerplant designs were around 10 T.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:26 pm

As far as I know, they have no power plant design. However, Dr. N. DID mention 10T coils but just as a "fer-instance" as far as I could tell.

The WB6 seemed to work ok. The WB8 seems to have problems with getting electrons in the core. This suggests that maybe the B was scaled too fast relative to the R. If WB6 was scaled evenly, the coils would be more like 1T. Maybe that would work better.

Tick tock.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:05 pm

As for polywell run time, WB6 and WB7 were limited by the hardware. Heating of the coils and limited capacity of the power supplies. We know of no physics that prevents a polywell from running continuous so long as the power supplies, cooling systems, and fuel feeds keep up.

As for power density, the polywell running at beta=1, compared to a tokomak at beta=0.1, would be expected to run on the order of 10 times the plasma density and 100 times the power density. Combined with expected viability at around 1/100th the power output, we're looking at a vastly smaller and less expensive device.

303 · Post by **303** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:15 pm

gravity of situation - we cant simulate gravity confinement with magnetic fields ?

except that the confining force in Polywell (electro-statics) is many orders of magnitude stronger than the force (gravity) in the sun so Polywell can be many orders of magnitude smaller too.

-Jospeh

my theory is thus: vacuum chamber, megatesla field, add dust, gas, give it a twirl and voila, steady state fusion - no new physics required a la rossi/blp etc

iu can scoff all you want, but on this forum alone we have

mach effect - possibly(probably) non existant effect relying on the distant mass of the universe

e-cat - possibly(definately) non existant effect relying on black box and mystery nanopowder

tokamak - 20 years of the 'most efficient design' torus, so far barely generated enough power to charge my iphone

polywell - possible non existant wiffleball, scaling , thermalisation, brehmstrung

btw initially i was just trying to bring some levity into the ping pong discussion ..

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:51 pm

Stars fuse because of gravity. Compare with "brown dwarf".

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:39 am

93143 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:As when I have repeated Dan's "10^22 at 10 T" Ladajo objected me saying that B should not be higher 2T for commercial reactor.
Last I heard, EMC2's preliminary powerplant designs were around 10 T.

Recently we had discussion on thermalization. My point is that at 10T big amount of alphas will be trapped together with electrons thermalizing then entire system. So, stronger field - faster thermalization. Certainly if Polywell will ever reach the significant fusion rate.

Take a look how alpha heating is considered e.g. by Prienston's guys: http://fire.pppl.gov/aps_08_meadef.pdf

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:41 am

303 wrote:my theory is thus: vacuum chamber, megatesla field, add dust, gas, give it a twirl and voila, steady state fusion - no new physics required a la rossi/blp etc

Till "megatesla" you try to create even kilotesla

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:58 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
93143 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:As when I have repeated Dan's "10^22 at 10 T" Ladajo objected me saying that B should not be higher 2T for commercial reactor.
Last I heard, EMC2's preliminary powerplant designs were around 10 T.
Recently we had discussion on thermalization. My point is that at 10T big amount of alphas will be trapped together with electrons thermalizing then entire system.

The Polywell has cusps. Even in wiffleball mode, the cusps appear fairly large to something with the energy of a fusion alpha. They rattle around for ~1e3 passes and then leave. The number density never gets very high.

Low-energy alphas can be excited artificially (my memory is vague on exactly how), so that they don't stick around and cause problems.

303 wrote:we cant simulate gravity confinement with magnetic fields ?

...No. Absolutely impossible. Magnetic fields do not work that way.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:41 am

93143 wrote:The Polywell has cusps. Even in wiffleball mode, the cusps appear fairly large to something with the energy of a fusion alpha. They rattle around for ~1e3 passes and then leave. The number density never gets very high.

Somewhere in this board Art Carlson asked to Nebel: "Rick, from where are you saying about passes numbers of particles?"
I know about cusps existence in mirror machines. And in other mirror concepts alpha heating was considered as significant factor.
Here I am only saying that stronger fields and larger dimensions lower leakage of particle through the cusps. And I have never seen such simulation. But only see discussion about thermalization via ion-ion collisions. But 0.1T for WB6 and 10T fields differ dramatically. And unlike to 0.1T 10 T will confine significal part. For reference, in other concepts number density of alphas will not be high too.
This question is not trivial. Have you seen some references?

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:07 am

Rick Nebel is the source. He knows as well as anyone that it isn't trivial, and at the time the statement was made he probably knew more about Polywell than any other living man.

viewtopic.php?p=18432#18432

If you don't believe him, well, that's your call to make. EMC2 has done a lot of simulation in addition to the experiments and has worked notional reactor designs, and I don't think Dr. Nebel would have said that if he didn't have good reason to believe it was true.

...

It may be noted that the above is technically separate from the question of whether the alphas will be there long enough to significantly thermalize the plasma. However, there too we have information from Dr. Nebel, who declared that neutronicity will be about 8 orders of magnitude down from that of a neutronic power plant. Thermal p-¹¹B is only 3 orders down. That should give you some idea of the alpha rarefaction factor, since the alphas are involved in the primary neutron-producing reaction.

There's also this:
viewtopic.php?p=18445#18445

rnebel wrote:these devices are non-ignited (i.e. very little alpha heating) since the alpha particles leave very quickly through the cusps.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:26 am

93143 wrote:Rick Nebel is the source. He knows as well as anyone that it isn't trivial, and at the time the statement was made he probably knew more about Polywell than any other living man.

viewtopic.php?p=18432#18432
viewtopic.php?p=18445#18445

If you don't believe him, well, that's your call to make. EMC2 has done a lot of simulation in addition to the experiments and has worked notional reactor designs, and I don't think Dr. Nebel would have said that if he didn't have good reason to believe it was true.

...

It may be noted that the above is separate from the question of whether the alphas will be there long enough to significantly thermalize the plasma. However, there too we have information from Dr. Nebel, who declared that neutronicity will be about 8 orders of magnitude down from that of a neutronic power plant. Thermal p-¹¹B is only 3 orders down. That should give you some idea of the alpha rarefaction factor, since the alphas are involved in the primary neutron-producing reaction.

I know that Dr. Nebel is the source. But I have also read the question of Dr. Carlson. And could not find the answer then. My question only how well stated are these numbers: electrons pass inside X times before escaping, alphas - Y times. May be or not that those are only assumptions stated with nothing. May be or not that 3-men strength team from which only Nebel is theoretist can investigate all issues? Do you think that Polywell's theory less labor intensive than e.g. TOKAMAK?
Recall that by changing of B field and dimensions those numbers will change too.
Recall that with TOKAMAK's theory development thousands people were and are engaged. For example I saw electron-electron 2-stream instability investigation but could not see electron-ion. Does not required?

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:45 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:Do you think that Polywell's theory less labor intensive than e.g. TOKAMAK?

Maybe. A Polywell is a magnetohydrodynamically stable driven beam machine, and if either me or MSimon is correct the internal structure of the plasma exhibits self-organizing properties (he calls it beam bunching, as in a klystron; I call it the Langmuir onion, even though I didn't know what Langmuir waves were when I came up with the idea - something similar can be seen in the POPS work, and in the formation of a multiple well structure in a Japanese fusor). Contrast with the tokamak, where the fundamental magnetohydrodynamic instability is countered with an internal plasma current that can itself go unstable...

But I think it's beside the point. Alpha confinement is a first-order calculation. Given a working wiffleball mode, it should be fairly simple to calculate the approximate lifetime of an alpha in the plasma, and collision cross section is not a thousand-man job.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:03 am

93143 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Do you think that Polywell's theory less labor intensive than e.g. TOKAMAK?
Maybe. A Polywell is a magnetohydrodynamically stable driven beam machine, and if either me or MSimon is correct the internal structure of the plasma exhibits self-organizing properties (he calls it beam bunching, as in a klystron; I call it the Langmuir onion, even though I didn't know what Langmuir waves were when I came up with the idea - something similar can be seen in the POPS work, and in the formation of a multiple well structure in a Japanese fusor). Contrast with the tokamak, where the fundamental magnetohydrodynamic instability is countered with an internal plasma current that can itself go unstable...

But I think it's beside the point. Alpha confinement is a first-order calculation. Given a working wiffleball mode, it should be fairly simple to calculate the approximate lifetime of an alpha in the plasma, and collision cross section is not a thousand-man job.

And may not. As klystrons or any other vacuum tubes run at larger Debye length. And so, there we have the beams of separate particles, while for Polywell we have plasma. Rather dense plasma at 10T B-field.
And on stright question of this thread: "Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?" nobode could give the simple and clear answer: "Yes" or "No".
Recall that TOKAMAK's concept is much simple, and unlike Polywell TOKAMAK really has proved its self-stabilization capability. At least against electron-ion 2-stream instability at the beginning of its cycle Polywell should be unstable.
And "cheap" WB-6 we should copare with not costly T-1 TOKAMAK. And not with ITER.