Talk-Polywell.org

I took it to mean pB11 producing alphas which can ideally be converted directly to drive the DC current with more force then it took to make the fusion happpen.

pfrit wrote:Why are they using the term "ion drive capabilities"?

I assumed that was referring to the source of boron ions.

-Dave

dnavas wrote:

pfrit wrote:Why are they using the term "ion drive capabilities"?

I assumed that was referring to the source of boron ions.

I took it as meaning the source for fuel ions as well.

bcglorf wrote: [/i]It is expected that higher ion drive capabilities will be added, and that a “PB11” reaction will be demonstrated.

Am I reading too much into this, or does it not say something very good about the results of WB7 that this solicitation expects a PB11 reaction to be able to be demonstrated with WB8? I know the language depends on the original results of WB8, but doesn't that still indicate a lot of confidence was gained from WB7?

I think so. It's apparently the only p-B11 reaction done experimentally except for the Russian picosecond laser deal, if one can trust the Wikipedia page on aneutronic fusion.

BTW, glad to see you're still following this. I remember seeing your name on the Slashdot article that originally piqued my curiosity, what seems like aeons ago.

TallDave wrote:It's apparently the only p-B11 reaction done experimentally except for the Russian picosecond laser deal, if one can trust the Wikipedia page on aneutronic fusion.

Thou shalt not trust Wikipedia.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0370-1298/65/9/306
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v108/i3/p743_1
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v91/i3/p599_1
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3085
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=4580596

...and I can't find that one experimental paper I know I've read... granted I only spent a few minutes looking, and I'm not at school so I can't use the Web of Science; I had to make do with Google Scholar...

These are all bombardment of a solid target. If you mean plasma fusion specifically, as in powerplant conditions, you may be right. Also, the Wikipedia page doesn't actually state that the Russian experiment was the only one...

Ah, thank you, I wondered how they could know the details of the reaction without some kind of experimental data. That makes more sense.

Anyways, it seemed to be implied...

None of the efforts noted here has yet actually tested its device with hydrogen-boron fuel, so the anticipated performance is based on extrapolating from theory, experimental results with other fuels and from simulations.

..although I'm guessing they just mean "in something more closely resembling a fusion reactor than a particle accelerator." But even there they do leave the door open for something not "noted here."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Looking at those links, they seem more like the latter. So we can at least hope this is the first time it's been done in something like a fusion reactor?

That would still be pretty exciting...

pfrit wrote:

bcglorf wrote:The solicitation has one point that really has me interested:
3.2.1 Enhanced Ion Drive with PB11 (proton/boron 11): Based on the results of WB8 testing, and the availability of government funds the contractor shall develop a WB machine (WB8.1) which incorporates the knowledge and improvements gained in WB8. It is expected that higher ion drive capabilities will be added, and that a “PB11” reaction will be demonstrated.

Am I reading too much into this, or does it not say something very good about the results of WB7 that this solicitation expects a PB11 reaction to be able to be demonstrated with WB8? I know the language depends on the original results of WB8, but doesn't that still indicate a lot of confidence was gained from WB7?

Why are they using the term "ion drive capabilities"? That smells like something in a rocket engine's description. This is just for a power plant design at this point, right?

I take this to mean a higher voltage on the MaGrid in order to create a deeper potential well in order to provide higher "j" to the pBj (yes, that should probably be a "J" for "Joules", but it is MSimon's term and I won't futz with it). True, if they are actually shooting the ions in with guns now, the gun voltage must also be boosted.

I agree that it should be J for Joules.

I may change it when the Joules are no longer imaginary. Heh.

In any case I wrote it that way more for style than accuracy. (The perils of marketing).

rcain wrote:Many congratulatoins to Rick, his team and the US Navy. He must have done a fine job in front of the review board.

Isn't it about time we heard from the man himself?

A result or two for us to chew over wouldnt go amiss either

I've often wondered what value Dr. Nebel gets out of posting here. I've often heard MSIMON talk about trying to get funding to build his own units, seemingly in direct competition with EMC^2. Since EMC^2 doesn't have robust patent protection at this point, I wonder that Dr. Nebel has providee as much information as he has. Am I missing something?

kttopdad wrote:

rcain wrote:Many congratulatoins to Rick, his team and the US Navy. He must have done a fine job in front of the review board.

Isn't it about time we heard from the man himself?

A result or two for us to chew over wouldnt go amiss either :)

I've often wondered what value Dr. Nebel gets out of posting here. I've often heard MSIMON talk about trying to get funding to build his own units, seemingly in direct competition with EMC^2. Since EMC^2 doesn't have robust patent protection at this point, I wonder that Dr. Nebel has providee as much information as he has. Am I missing something?

That is my take too. I'm more than willing to work with Rick. He has never made me an offer.

I'd like to see some University research on Polywell. So far no one has been interested in funding a chair.

Wasn't Dr Bussard supportive of as open a distribution of polywell technology as possible? Unless I'm remembering wrong, Dr Nebel would then only be keeping to himself because of silence imposed by the Navy during this continuing development phase. At this point it could be no help for him to say anything he's allowed to say.

Betruger wrote:Wasn't Dr Bussard supportive of as open a distribution of polywell technology as possible? Unless I'm remembering wrong, Dr Nebel would then only be keeping to himself because of silence imposed by the Navy during this continuing development phase. At this point it could be no help for him to say anything he's allowed to say.

I don't know what busness plan EMC^2 has (if any). Current lack of active patents is certainly a challenge. Also, EMC^2 was a tax free nonprofit organizarion, and presumably recieved some donations on that basis. I don't know what legal aspect that introduces . If, they are successful and persue profits, consulting fees may be more important than licencing fees.

Concerning P-B11 fusion in plasmas. While it may not have much realavance twoards sucessful commercial goals at this stage, one of the FRC or dense plasma focus labs would gain alot of prestage if they tried and suceeded before EMC^2 tries it.

Dan Tibbets

If it doesn't work, he can write a book about it all, and still make a lot of money.

D Tibbets wrote: ... Also, EMC^2 was a tax free nonprofit organizarion, and presumably recieved some donations on that basis.

No, it wasn't. There was a short term construct known as EMC2 Fusion Development Corporation, but it is not registered with the IRS as a tax exempt organization. Donations could, however, (and still can I presume) be made to the EMC2FDC via the 501(c)3 New Mexico Community Foundation.

I suspect that if the Navy hadn't re-started funding back in 07, the EMC2FDC might have been more of an issue.

kttopdad wrote:I've often wondered what value Dr. Nebel gets out of posting here. I've often heard MSIMON talk about trying to get funding to build his own units, seemingly in direct competition with EMC^2. Since EMC^2 doesn't have robust patent protection at this point, I wonder that Dr. Nebel has providee as much information as he has. Am I missing something?

You imply that Dr. Nebel is a money grabbing bastard. Some people have higher ideals.

Also, there are other ways to gain status and income from technology.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral ... -cauldron/
(note, this is software based, so not all will relate to hardware)