I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Speculation

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

mattman
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 11:14 pm

I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Speculation

Postby mattman » Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:45 am

Hello,

Lockheed needs to give us facts. Publications not press releases. Another cold fusion fiasco would damage this whole community and effort.

What is good for Talk-Polywell, is not necessarily good for fusion power.

That's the position I am taking.

http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/201 ... ew-it.html

fahdad
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby fahdad » Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:41 am

but do you think there has been enough recent development in diverse semi-probable options in play right now that by the time (if) LM fails then others may have proven to the "funding community" :) that non tokamak designs are viable venues for research investment?

in a way can the weight of the LM and Skunk works brands be enough to finally shed the bad rep that non ITER fusion has had?

(im probably not phrasing "the bad rep that non ITER fusion" properly, but i hope you get the gist of what i mean)

AcesHigh
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby AcesHigh » Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:34 am

mattman wrote:Hello,

Lockheed needs to give us facts. Publications not press releases. Another cold fusion fiasco would damage this whole community and effort.

What is good for Talk-Polywell, is not necessarily good for fusion power.

That's the position I am taking.

http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/201 ... ew-it.html



You talk as if the cold fusion fiasco had affected non ITER fusion.

And anyway, LM never said they achieved break even, only for replication to fail. There will be no fiasco because LM just said they are researching and hopeful, nothing more.

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby 303 » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:46 am

Its a private company with extensive links to defense industry, be thankful they are providing any information at all.
Company has a proven track record of actually making stuff that works, like jet fighters. (admittedly theres less physics to argue about)
That they are taking a non tokamak approach seriously enough to put out press releases is good news, surely??

Betruger
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby Betruger » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:26 am

They did have that EEStor jaunt.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:01 am

LM just had 3 patents published and it looks like all that has happened is that LM has only stated through the media what was in those patents. I haven't seen any claims that step outside of that. There was stated their road map plans to prototype and time line, however, fusion is tough work to get to a prototype, time and again this has been shown.

By the way, thanks for all your work on trying to understand Polywell.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

mattman
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby mattman » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:09 pm

but do you think there has been enough recent development in diverse semi-probable options in play right now that by the time (if) LM fails then others may have proven to the "funding community" :) that non tokamak designs are viable venues for research investment?

in a way can the weight of the LM and Skunk works brands be enough to finally shed the bad rep that non ITER fusion has had?



Lockheed should have set the details in stone... that gives the world a starting point.

No institution has enough credibility to sell fusion power to mankind, without evidence.

I think acceptance of this technology will require a ton of education. These topics need to be out on the web, in the classroom, on YouTube and in graduate programs. They are not yet. We are not ready.

I do think this announcement will drive funding/interest. But allot of it will be misdirected, distorted or ill-understood.

That could lead to failures - and harsh criticism of little community we have going here.

hanelyp
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby hanelyp » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:38 pm

Mattman, no need to yell.

Lockheed-Martin has released enough details that, along with what I've learned fiddling with a synthetic FRC simulation, I could have some rough simulation results inside a week. The symmetry of the design promises to make both simulation and test machines simple compared to some other designs.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:02 pm

Polywell WB-7 nubs vs LM's CFP internal coil supports and coolant lines would seem to have similar heating issues, as hanelyp pointed out. LM may not have gotten to the point where that issue is seen, but I can't see a way around it.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

ladajo
Posts: 6185
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby ladajo » Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:30 pm

I also see this as a key point.
The photos they have posted celarly show flow all around the coils. In the WB8 based machines, this is not happening.
The nubs were a key influence on machine dynamics.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby happyjack27 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:58 pm

i feel the same as OP. It sounds like an advertising gimmick. This kind of speculative hyperbole and dearth of detail will only make people less trustful of science.

choff
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby choff » Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:16 pm

What gets me is the hard time the patent office gave EMC2 while LM gets a free pass on the nubs. Patent office wouldn't be favoring a large corp. over a startup, would they?
CHoff

Ivy Matt
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby Ivy Matt » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:42 am

The patent office has not made any decisions on Tom McGuire's patent applications yet.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby Ivy Matt » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:00 am

If someone at Lockheed mentioned the word "breakthrough", then I agree that Lockheed (probably) really screwed up. and even if the blame for that can be laid at the feet of the Reuters correspondent, the fact that she (?) felt the need to use that word is probably largely because Lockheed didn't do a very good job of getting their point across clearly.

Nevertheless, it looks like Lockheed is trying to be a little more specific about their claims:

The company currently has a roughly half-scale experimental device, and says that it is now gearing up to produce a compact 100-megawatt reactor.

Why announce the plans now?

Lockheed Martin has applied for a number of patents, and McGuire says that this week’s announcement was intended to get out in front of that process and ensure that people have the right context when those patents come through. Moving forward, he says that the team will be publishing its results in peer-reviewed journals.

“This is going to be conducted in the open,” he says.

i still have some criticism of Lockheed's presentation of the CFR (particularly on their corporate website), as well as the negative response thereto, which I may get to later.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

choff
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Postby choff » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:30 am

If the LM T4 works like the hybrid polywell spindle-cusp reactor described by Joel Rogers, the EMC2 has 100 times better potential output with the cubic polywell. However, the LM patents describe an oscillating technique for heating the plasma to fusion temperatures, perhaps this is the breakthrough they're talking about. Other considerations involve the vacuum systems of the two designs, that could be where LM gets an advantage.

All wild speculation of course.
CHoff


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests