Polywell In Europe Raising Funds

[MSimon]

I just hope that there is some leadership at some point and it does not become a victum of an entrenched burocracy that is subservient to special intrests.

The idea is so attractive to the Navy (fuel oil is a BIG problem both cost wise and logistically) I can't imagine them shutting the project down unless hope of a viable reactor is near zero.

This is especially true if the possibility of a plant that could fit in smaller warships (DDs) is on the horizon.

In addition because of inherent safety the training of operators could probably be done in 1/2 the time it takes for fission nukes. That is a big expense.

[MSimon]

do we know anything about Fusion Energy Foundation? - http://www.fusionenergyfoundation.org/ - they are very keen to ask for donations, but offer no news. doesnt seem particularly investor freindly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Energy_Foundation : Lyndon LaRouche ... confrontational methods ... fraudulent fundraising ...

I bought a LOT of magazines they sold at airports.

[Stoney3K]

do we know anything about Fusion Energy Foundation? - http://www.fusionenergyfoundation.org/ - they are very keen to ask for donations, but offer no news. doesnt seem particularly investor freindly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Energy_Foundation : Lyndon LaRouche ... confrontational methods ... fraudulent fundraising ...

I bought a LOT of magazines they sold at airports.

That's a very different FEF from the one mentioned here. They may share the same name, but the 'current' FEF is registered under the Dutch trade register as a non-profit foundation.

We might have a look at Richard Branson (Virgin) for some VC, as he's a complete sucker for anything that can reduce our civilization's CO2 footprint by a large amount. Imagine a Polywell powering one of the future Rutan SpaceShips...

[rcain]

FEF a bit 'questionable' then. either way.

Would have thought we should be more interested in facilitators such as IP Group, Invesco, other R&D investment specialists - arguably they have the credibilty and experience required to bring something like Polywell to market. Or even to kick off complimentary/follow-up research and development.

Wasn't there some problem with EMC2 patent app some short while ago?

Interesting to review the IP aspects of 'ways to follow'. Just in case we do see a green light anytime soon.

[Tom Ligon]

As for the ability to do this project in a garage, have you seen the EMC2 lab? It is basically a garage.

However, the power available to a typical garage falls way short of the requirements to run even a WB6 machine.

I do think garage tinkerers of a sufficient caliber could make a difference. I know one who has three dye lasers and a superconductor fabrication facility in his garage. He's building his own company around it. Making magnets, emitters, or specialized instruments such as custom Langmuir probes could be done in a well-equipped garage.

[Stoney3K]

As for the ability to do this project in a garage, have you seen the EMC2 lab? It is basically a garage.

However, the power available to a typical garage falls way short of the requirements to run even a WB6 machine.

Well, I think it's more on the scale of a small machine shop, and there is plenty of real estate on rent throughout Europe which has the floor space and facilities (63A/125A three-phase would be nice) required.

Of course, a university research lab will always be better equipped, but given that EMC2 got this far with mostly household hardware, consider what already could have done if EMC2 had the resources of ITER.

[rcain]

... consider what already could have done if EMC2 had the resources of ITER...

.. unfortunately i think the answer to that question would be 'slightly less than ITER has, over an even longer period of time'.

just a natural effect of having 'all the money'. necessity being the mother of invention, etc.

[D Tibbets]

... consider what already could have done if EMC2 had the resources of ITER...

.. unfortunately i think the answer to that question would be 'slightly less than ITER has, over an even longer period of time'.

just a natural effect of having 'all the money'. necessity being the mother of invention, etc.

Assigning Tokamac time and cost scales to an evolving Polywell is innapropiate. Assuming that the power density advantage (~60,000) is anywhere close, the costs/ time for construction would be much less. Operational costs would also be much less. The time needed for planing and evaluation, and bueocratic and political bungling is less predictable; but it could hardly be worse than the Tokamac's history.

Dan Tibbets

[Art Carlson]

Assuming that the power density advantage (~60,000) is anywhere close, ...

Remind me again where this number comes from. I would have said, given the same fuel, and the same magnetic field strength, the power density scales with beta^2. Taking the beta of a tokamak reactor to be 10% (I think it is expected to be higher, but I couldn't find a solid reference right off) and the beta of a polywell reactor to be 100%, that gives polywell a respectable factor of 100 advnatage, but not 60,000.

[rcain]

...

..yes, but you miss my point. And Art says your numbers are wrong. And how long was Doc Bussard working on this already?

[Art Carlson]

Assigning Tokamac time and cost scales to an evolving Polywell is innapropiate. Assuming that the power density advantage (~60,000) is anywhere close, the costs/ time for construction would be much less. Operational costs would also be much less. The time needed for planing and evaluation, and bueocratic and political bungling is less predictable; but it could hardly be worse than the Tokamac's history.

I don't think there is any more reason for optimism for the polywell now than there was for the tokamak in the 60's. Conversely, knowing how the tokamak program has developed, there are good reasons to be cautious when you predict the future of the polywell - even if you ignore my theoretical objections and take Bussard's proclamations at face value (neither of which I would advise you to do).

[TallDave]

Assuming that the power density advantage (~60,000) is anywhere close, ...

Remind me again where this number comes from. I would have said, given the same fuel, and the same magnetic field strength, the power density scales with beta^2. Taking the beta of a tokamak reactor to be 10% (I think it is expected to be higher, but I couldn't find a solid reference right off) and the beta of a polywell reactor to be 100%, that gives polywell a respectable factor of 100 advnatage, but not 60,000.

Rick compared Polywell density numbers to ITER at the same magnet strength. The density is 250 times greater, so the power is 62,500x.

I don't think there is any more reason for optimism for the polywell now than there was for the tokamak in the 60's.

OTOH, we have the benefit of knowing why tokamaks failed and Polywell addresses those problems.

Of course, it may turn out to have new problems leading to similar failures. But we may have to attempt WB-9 to find that out.

Also, somewhat ironically, tokamaks are a bit of a cautionary tale for funders: given tokamaks' failures it's hard to see how Polywells could ever be allowed to waste as much money as tokamaks have.

[Art Carlson]

Assuming that the power density advantage (~60,000) is anywhere close, ...

Remind me again where this number comes from. I would have said, given the same fuel, and the same magnetic field strength, the power density scales with beta^2. Taking the beta of a tokamak reactor to be 10% (I think it is expected to be higher, but I couldn't find a solid reference right off) and the beta of a polywell reactor to be 100%, that gives polywell a respectable factor of 100 advnatage, but not 60,000.

Rick compared Polywell density numbers to ITER at the same magnet strength. The density is 250 times greater, so the power is 62,500x.

Either

1. he assumed the beta of ITER to be 0.4% (but he is not that stupid), or
2. he made different assumptions about the energies (which is unfair and would probably not help him anyway), or
3. he was talking about field at the coils and assumed the ratio of the field at the coils to the field at the plasma in ITER was at least 5.

Number (3) seems to be the most likely. The fusion power density scales with B^4 so this is where you get the most leverage. I don't believe the ratio in ITER is that high, but I am not sure. If he was assuming the ratio was unity in a polywell reactor, I would certainly challenge that. Since you seem to have dug out the reference, why don't you tell us exactly what it says?

[alexjrgreen]

viewtopic.php?p=4940#4940

[D Tibbets]

Assuming that the power density advantage (~60,000) is anywhere close, ...

Remind me again where this number comes from. I would have said, given the same fuel, and the same magnetic field strength, the power density scales with beta^2. Taking the beta of a tokamak reactor to be 10% (I think it is expected to be higher, but I couldn't find a solid reference right off) and the beta of a polywell reactor to be 100%, that gives polywell a respectable factor of 100 advnatage, but not 60,000.

I had to dig, but I finally foud the R. Nebel post about the power density that I based my post on.

JMC and MSimon:
Actually, you need to click on “read more” under the design section, then “main parameters” then on the “more” button. What you will find is that the average density of ITER is ~ 1.0e20/m**3. If you use the formula I sent you for the Polywell, you will get a density ~ 2.5e22/m**3. The upshot of this is that the Polywell has a power density that is ~ 62500 times bigger than ITER EVEN IF THERE IS NO ION CONVERGENCE! Thus, a Polywell should far outperform a Tokamak even with a constant density Maxwellian plasma. Even if Rider and Nevins were correct (which Chacon has pretty clearly shown they aren’t) this isn’t a show stopper. It has a lot more significance for Hirsch/Farnsworth machines that have low average densities than it does for the Polywell.
The best analogy that I can think of is that the wiffleball mode is the jet engine and the ion convergence is the afterburner. The 2.5e22/m**3 density is what the Polywell should have on the edge, and then it hopefully goes up a few orders of magnitude as it goes into the interior. I don’t mean to imply that ion convergence isn’t important. This power density boost is what enables the Polywell to be built in small attractive unit sizes and to easily use advanced fuels.
However, the wiffleball mode is essential and the ion convergence simply makes things better. If we can’t get the wiffleball, then we can kiss our behinds goodbye. That’s why we are focused on achieving the wiffleball and we aren’t paying any attention to Rider and Nevins. They’re just a distraction. Does this kind of make sense?

And the formula given earlier in the thread:

rnebel
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject:

"to JMC:

Since you are worried about Rider, let me suggest the following exercise. Let's assume that a Polywell reactor is in the wiffleball mode, namely that:

n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0)

to make it simple, let's use mks units and assume B = 10 Tesla, mu0 =4.0e-7*pi, Te = 1.0e4 eV and kBolt = 1.6022e-19 Joules per eV.

Calculate what n is and compare it to the ITER value at

http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_4.htm

"


Dan Tibbets