ITER vs the Stone Axe

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

TallDave wrote:Hmm, I don't think so. Basically, it's only applicable for a thermal plasma.
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived[1] by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published[2] in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without external power input.
If you're not heating/accelerating the plasma with fusion products, it can't apply, and of course you can't directly accelerate with fusion products.

Though, you could argue that if you're feeding fusion products through an alpha conversion mechanism or even (D-D/D-T) through a steam turbine to power the electron drive, that might essentially amount to a less direct version of the same thing.
but the Lawson Criteria is stated as an inequality (co-domain), with Temperature appearing only on the rhs. for any given temperature, the Lawson Criteria sill applies, and equates to our familiar 'confinement time' probability function, or an equivalent (poly-)well gradient.

quoting from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_cri ... _ne.CF.84E):: (hope my mark-up is readable)::

wikipedia various - including discussion from art carlson! wrote:
...

where σ is the fusion cross section, v is the relative velocity, and { } denotes an average over the Maxwellian velocity distribution at the temperature T.
...

The volume rate of heating by fusion is f times E_ch, the energy of the charged fusion products (the neutrons cannot help to keep the plasma hot).

The Lawson criterion is the requirement that the fusion heating exceed the losses:

f E_ch >= P_loss

iff

1/4 * n_e^2 {sigma*v} E_ch >= (3n_ek_B * T)/tau_E .....note: 1

iff

n_e tau_E > L === 12/E_ch * k_B * T /{sigma * v}

The quantity T/{sigma * v} is a function of temperature with an absolute minimum. Replacing the function with its minimum value provides an absolute lower limit for the product n_e * T_e. This is the Lawson criterion.

For the D-T reaction, the physical value is at least

n_e * tau_E >= 1.5 * 10^20 s/m^3

The minimum of the product occurs near T = 25 keV.
so, it appears to me, it has still to obtain, for what we want from WB.

T is only introduced at 'note 1' above. Any other distribution function can replace the pure { Maxwellian } on offer, so long as other physical relations are still satisfied.

i take your point that, some of the terms get converted, but we can easily see how. the dimensions are the same, the end result is the same.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

for any given temperature, the Lawson Criteria sill applies,
I don't see how. Maybe I'm oversimplifying this or missing something, but the Lawson criteria is supposed to describe a situation in which the fusion products are sufficient to directly power the reaction with no other energy input. That just can't happen in an IEC reactor, regardless of density, temperature/velocity, and confinement time.

I think it's one of those things that only make sense in LTE-land.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

TallDave wrote:
for any given temperature, the Lawson Criteria sill applies,
I don't see how. Maybe I'm oversimplifying this or missing something, but the Lawson criteria is supposed to describe a situation in which the fusion products are sufficient to directly power the reaction with no other energy input. That just can't happen in an IEC reactor, regardless of density, temperature/velocity, and confinement time.

I think it's one of those things that only make sense in LTE-land.
hi talldave

the way i see it:

on the left is a term for confinement time (regardless of the cause) - n_e tau_E

on the right is the (maxwellian) energy distribution it (ordinarily) equates to.

we admit in the WB (steady-state) regime we have something other than maxwellian, BUT it still contains maxwellian (lte) components (in certain regions, under certain conditions/states/transitions)

the P_loss becomes P_WB_loss, and

P_loss_T_actual_WB_steady_state({WB_ss_sigma * v})
+ P_loss_purturbation_({sigma * v}, {WB * v}

where {WB..} replaces lte

i posit this equates to an equivalent confinement time, it is confinement time thaht is related to probability of self-sustained fusion (ignition - normaly via lte, but now by indirect (non-thermal) means of polarization of the distribution).

the possible 'hysteresis/inflection' in P_WB_loss is a representation of the polywell lip (+wiffle-ball) itself.

does this not make sense?

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Post by pfrit »

Hey guys? Is this news or theory? Interesting reading, but it sets off my alarms.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

rcain,

Yes...ish. The term on the right is the losses, the term on the left is confinment time * pressure * temp/velocity. You need values for all three. Generally, temp is the one you have most control over.

Of course, since there's no feedback from the fusion products in IEC, now you're just describing something like "net power" again.

pfrit,

Meh, I don't spend a lot of time worrying whether I'm coloring inside the lines.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

erm .... ish ... i think its the '..ish' we're currectly hoping will be described better by experiment.

overall gain / Q, feeback from products of fusion - i agree, that's how i see the terms fitting together (or not, within our present state-of-the-art).

to pfrit: yes totally agree. waaay off topic. sorry about that.

i wont bother asking for news.

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

pfrit wrote:Is this news or theory?
No.

We're arguing over semantics, basically.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

/agree

Post Reply