A Sequel to The Google Talk

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby Tom Ligon » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:49 pm

Let me try that. OK, I'm an angel investor. I'm looking at $300M to fund a proof of concept demonstration. If it works, I will have zero difficulty attracting my filthy rich friends to put billions into building the first powerplant, and then much lower amounts into building copies. Worldwide. I've got people who will look up the market stats and potential profits. Yup, Park's numbers were a bit simplified, but the Electric Power Research Institute has all this stuff at hand.

So, what's at risk. Hmmm, I was thinking about that yacht the size of a small cruise ship. But really, how often would I take that out. And maybe I really don't need THREE mansions in Malibu.

You know, I was watching that Edison special on PBS a few nights ago. Maybe Edison is right. Maybe this could be really fun, even if it flops. And it certainly won't ruin me. And, after all, Edison was right. That electricity thing really did catch on.

Nope, the investor is sold, except there are some terms to discuss. Something about a big statue in his honor, and owning the world.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby MSimon » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:53 pm

GIT,

I have in the past had 3 or 4 companies come at me waving $10 million looking for a deal. That was about 4 or 5 years ago.

So your $2 million or so is low.

There were various reasons I will not go into why a deal couldn't be accomplished. But I'd say at this point $10 to $50 million to get to the next stage is probably not a problem.

It is obvious you will not do it because you have the biggest stumbling block ever invented in your way. You think it can't be done. It WILL be done by some one who thinks it can be done.

I will find a way or make one.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

mvanwink5
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:57 pm

GT, I haven't heard EMC2's business proposal yet and as far as I can tell neither has anyone else who has spelled out what it actually is. If I am mistaken and you are not claiming that the business plan is to go right to the $300M machine but only speaking hypothetically then I am just showing once again how poor my reading and understanding skills are (no news to me if so, therefore no shock there).

Hypothetically, I think EMC2 would need a stronger case than presented to jump to the big $300M machine and would expect a staged investment instead with the upfront understanding of what the full scale proof would cost (which is just like General Fusion's business deal).

Having said that, it is important to know where this device is heading and that IS what Park gave us when he said $300M and 3 years. It is actually 1/3 of General Fusion's prototype and that project is fully funded... in stages as that is the way these things are done.

Let us know, though, if anyone actually knows the details of EMC2 business proposals and will tell us what those are. :D
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby D Tibbets » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:26 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:They are different machines. In Polywell, the pressure referred to in Dr. Park's presentation is generated by the electrons at the boundary of the plasma where it meets the magnetic fields (remember the magnetic field is excluded inside the plasma due to diamagnetism) and not by the ions which have a different kinetic energy profile (slow at the electron / magnetic field boundary and fast at the plasma center - bottom of the potential well). Therefore your analysis is missing the dynamics of the plasma in the Polywell.


Concerning a pressure of ~ 100 atmosphere, it has occured to me that some, my self included was confused, but I have seen the light!

First the above refers to the electron pressure determining the edge pressure against the B field. This only applies with a deep potential well, otherwise the ions contribute considerably to this pressure. But that is an aside.

Concerning 100 atmospheres pressure at ~ 5-7 Tesla, the important point is that this is pressure. I was not appreciating this when I considered it as a density of gas/ plasma. The pressure is the product of the density times the temperature. So the density remains proportionate to a 100 atmosphere pressure only if the temperature is a standard/ constant.

In the Mini B test machine there was a stated density/ pressure of up to 100 pascals. That is 0.001 atmospheres. The important point is that this was at an average temperature of ~ 10 eV. This provided a near Beta = 1 condition. If the B field is increased to ~ 30 times higher, the confining pressure would increase ~ 1000 fold. The density would increase ~ 1000 fold to maintain the balance of pressures, but only if the temperature was constant. So, it is reasonable to talk of densities of 100 atm at STP (I am assuming that 10eV is close enough to ignore the temperature difference for this argument- or rather, the baseline is established by temp of 10 eV and 100 Pascals at ~ 0.2 Tesla). Increasing the B field pressure by 1000 fold allows for an increased plasma pressure which is the product of T * d. So, a 100 atm density (~ 10^27 charged particles/ M^3) is reasonable at a temperature of 10 eV. This is interesting for any number of plasma tests, but it is completely useless for any actual fusion. At a target temperature of 100,000 eV the density would be 10,000 times less or ~ 10^23 charged particles / M^3. The discrepancy between previous estimates and the video numbers are thus resolved/ clarified (at least within an order of magnitude).

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby GIThruster » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:47 pm

ogiw wrote:Been awhile since I raised my hand here.

GIT, you're working on VC for an MET project, IIRC.

Simon, you're working on VC for a Polywell project.

I am unaware of success in securing funding by either of you, past or present, these projects or others.

Perhaps it might be the wise and discreet thing to do for both of you to return to this subject here when one of you has actually secured funding.

The real problem is not these projects; it's with VC in the US, due to the horrible conditions for it right now. Probably will get better in 2017, but nothing is certain as long as the gubmint is run by folks more concerned with the size of the slices of the pie instead of ... baking more and bigger pies.

No, I'm not looking for funding. I have studied what is involved in raising funding, since that is the place of a founder once one gets to that point, but I am not expecting to require any sort of investment funding for a couple years--until after we reach our TRL7 goals and need to gear up for production.

BTW, investing has really not seen a downturn. There are more investment funds available today than ever before and hundreds of ideas get serious investor funding here in the US every year. Of about 4,000 companies looking for funding each year, about 200 will receive funds, and of that, about 15 will break the $100M revenue mark, and it is these that will provide 97% of return on all that investment. And I should note, all these investments combined, is probably a very small fraction of the $300M we're talking about. This should give you an idea of what a very big number $300M is--likely more than all the other VC and Angel investment in all the world that results in billions of dollars revenue.
Last edited by GIThruster on Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

D Tibbets
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby D Tibbets » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:50 pm

PS: In this machine, with the plasma gun delivering a cloud of particles at ~ 10 eV average temperature, much and perhaps most of the hydrogen would be ionized, or not. The carbon would only be partially ionized at best. Thus the calculation of charged particles would be complex. Some carbons may have charges of 0, +1, +2, or even -1, etc. I believe the energy/ temperature where 50% (?) of hydrogen is ionized is 11 eV, so a minority of the hydrogen may have actually been ionized. Most of the atomized carbon and hydrogen was possibly a neutral gas. The neutral gas would not interact with the magnetic fields, but would register as pressure when measured with a thermocouple or other common vacuum gauges. Laser interferometry measures density of plasma and neutral gas. Or does it only detect the ionized gas?
So, how accurate is the measurement of the electristatic pressure in the machine? Was it measured or calculated? How much uncertainty is reasonable?

DanTibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby MSimon » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:57 pm

ogiw wrote:Been awhile since I raised my hand here.

GIT, you're working on VC for an MET project, IIRC.

Simon, you're working on VC for a Polywell project.

I am unaware of success in securing funding by either of you, past or present, these projects or others.

Perhaps it might be the wise and discreet thing to do for both of you to return to this subject here when one of you has actually secured funding.

The real problem is not these projects; it's with VC in the US, due to the horrible conditions for it right now. Probably will get better in 2017, but nothing is certain as long as the gubmint is run by folks more concerned with the size of the slices of the pie instead of ... baking more and bigger pies.

Actually from what I see VC conditions in the US are quite good. There is lots of money out there looking for projects.

Peter Thiel for instance is looking for places to invest. He founded PayPal with Max Levchin and Elon Musk.
http://www.privateerholdings.com/press/

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/privateer-founders-fund/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Group
http://arcviewgroup.com/media/

As to me raising no money? Well it is true. But I was not looking. The money came looking for me. Now I'm looking - the mind set is different. We shall see.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby Tom Ligon » Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:36 pm

Back in 2007, money was coming to me looking to invest in EMC2, because Bussard had been under embargo for so long they didn't know how to contact him. All I could do was get them in touch, which I did. And then I didn't ask questions because I got the impression that would be unwelcome. I do know that RWB was not happy with some of the terms offered. But it is quite true that VC would usually rather let somebody else fund the risky up-front part, and when the Navy stepped up to fund the restart, I guess they were happy enough with that.

The restart got in fresh blood, Nebel and Park, for an honest attempt to see if Bussard's ideas were valid and his results (which totaled about ten neutron counts) real. This was sorely needed. In my opinion, the last phase did what it was supposed to do, with quality work that (like the first 10,000 of Edison's light bulb filaments) showed what not to do, and then how to actually get high beta.

I hope, looking at the discussions above, you guys now fully get just how Big a Deal this beta = 1 thing is. Its been theorized about for decades, but now finally demonstrated. It was not relevant to tokamaks because they can't hold it that condition. But knowing Grad was right and it can be done makes cusp confinement worth looking at again. Polywell is the cuspiest of the lot.

A recession has come and, at least as far as Wall Street seems to think, gone. I don't know if those same investors are out there, but I must believe there are people sufficiently interested. It would be depressing to think US business people have the same problem as the NE Pats did a couple of weeks ago.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby GIThruster » Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:56 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:I don't know if those same investors are out there, but I must believe there are people sufficiently interested. It would be depressing to think US business people have the same problem as the NE Pats did a couple of weeks ago.

There is a lot of money out there, but you have to know how to appeal for it. Again I suggest the Stanford series on How to start a startup for anyone who wants an insider's view of how investors operate. the entire series was put together by investors, so they could teach entrepreneurs what to do in order to get money.

I have studied the art of the pitch many times over the years and can agree with the ideas behind the 11 slide pitch deck, the 30 second pitch and 2 minute pitch explained in session 19. And I stood opposed to Jim Woodward and others when they assembled a 60 slide pitch deck. I told them what they were doing wrong and they didn't listen.

Fact is, most people who screw up their fund raising think they know what they're doing when they haven't got a clue, and there is no excuse for this as investors have always been transparent as to what they want and need in a pitch. It is really arrogance and vanity on the part of the scientists, IMHO.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby MSimon » Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:14 pm

GIThruster wrote:
Tom Ligon wrote:I don't know if those same investors are out there, but I must believe there are people sufficiently interested. It would be depressing to think US business people have the same problem as the NE Pats did a couple of weeks ago.

There is a lot of money out there, but you have to know how to appeal for it. Again I suggest the Stanford series on How to start a startup for anyone who wants an insider's view of how investors operate. the entire series was put together by investors, so they could teach entrepreneurs what to do in order to get money.

I have studied the art of the pitch many times over the years and can agree with the ideas behind the 11 slide pitch deck, the 30 second pitch and 2 minute pitch explained in session 19. And I stood opposed to Jim Woodward and others when they assembled a 60 slide pitch deck. I told them what they were doing wrong and they didn't listen.

Fact is, most people who screw up their fund raising think they know what they're doing when they haven't got a clue, and there is no excuse for this as investors have always been transparent as to what they want and need in a pitch. It is really arrogance and vanity on the part of the scientists, IMHO.


Did you read what Paul Graham looks for?

http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html
"In the startup world, most good ideas seem bad initially."

Paul discusses the five points in the above link in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asYPbPfKd7w

And the take away from all that is that VCs care more about the character of the people than the project.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

paperburn1
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby paperburn1 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:24 am

I'm about to show my ignorance here so be kind, so far every configuration of Polywell I've seen has been equal sided. My question is would be possible to have a Polywell configuration that is not equal sided to perhaps allow for a site for the ion injection. Just a random thought going through my head
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby mvanwink5 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:54 am

This is an old project with a critical breakthrough and with a lot of physics and data already, in an industry the VC's have been boring billions just trying to break into. If there is a even a chance, which this goes way beyond, there will be a match made, bungled approaches won't be the issue.

The problems with solar and wind are huge (incomparable) compared to the problems of EMC2 going forward. I'm still a bit surprised the Navy has kicked the can to someone else, especially at this point of development. Of course, once it is developed the Chinese will immediately have it free of charge by simple hacking. :lol:
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

choff
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby choff » Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:25 am

Hopefully Dr. Park can publish in a major science journal soon, stir up a lot of controversy in the fusion community and force the right people in government to get involved. That would probably get more VC people interested.
CHoff

crowberry
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:34 am

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby crowberry » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:00 am

The slides as shown in the Microsoft talk are available as a PDF (including duplicate pages were Dr Park is going back and forth in the presentation).
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=238715

D Tibbets
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: A Sequel to The Google Talk

Postby D Tibbets » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:32 am

paperburn1 wrote:I'm about to show my ignorance here so be kind, so far every configuration of Polywell I've seen has been equal sided. My question is would be possible to have a Polywell configuration that is not equal sided to perhaps allow for a site for the ion injection. Just a random thought going through my head


Short answer is no. But...
Spherical symmetry, or what is called quasi-spherical symmetry to account for the cusp bulges is desired so that there is a centrally directed potential well. This may provide a concentrating effect or central focus of fast ions. An asymmetric bulge is probably harmful. But everything is relative. Ion injection is not much of an issue as they need to be at low energy as they are introduced on the edge. Even low injection efficiency of ions does not cost much from an energy input perspective. It is the electrons that need to be injected at high energy that is the challenge. I suspect some manipulation of the cusp opening in some areas may be needed. But, this will probably be some timed/ pulsed variation timed with internal wave density variations (such as POPS) that will try to minimize losses while these injection holes are transiently opened up. If it works at all, the dance may be very complex.

There may not need to be an even number of sides- such as a linear three ring arrangement- somewhat like the Lockheed design. But, I think, there will need to be symmetry through the center. Any line drawn through the center must meed the outer surface at equal distances from the center. A question may be weather this includes the cusp bulges. Some drawings suggest they do not need to line up one on one, so long as there is net symmetry over larger surface areas. I suspect this may not be desirable, others might disagree. Having said this, some small amount of elongation in one axis (an ovoid shape) may be tolerable and allow for some variation in wave motions- traveling density fluctuations back and forth on this axis. With a three ring design you could even vary the core shape from a dumbbell through spherical to torus shape and oscillate through these variations. What this would present for possible plasma manipulation is purely speculative on my part.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests