FRC: ways forward

Discuss how polywell fusion works; share theoretical questions and answers.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Solo
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Wisconsin

FRC: ways forward

Postby Solo » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:12 pm

It looks to me like the two main approaches to FRC fusion are
1) pulsed
a. theta-pinch
b. imploding liner
c. translation
d. gun-formed/merging
e. inductively sustained

2) sustained
a. rotating magnetic field
b. neutral beam

It looks like U. of Wash folks are pushing two programs at once: the translation/compression is the one we've discussed, but they're also floating a proposal for a combination RMF/NBI:
http://www.fec2008.ch/preprints/ic_p4-1.pdf

This looks really promising. I suspect they are hunting for funding for this.

Giorgio
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:04 pm

Interesting, and the logic looks sound on a first read.
I think you gave me something interesting to look at durig the weekend :)

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

Postby rcain » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:47 pm

good find.
do we know when it was published? (all i can see is after 2007).

interesting quotes for me were:

The RMF process for creating the
original FRC, and for building up and sustaining the poloidal flux is now well understood,
and simple scaling laws show how to reach the flux levels necessary for TNBI ion ring
production to be effective

and
If all this experimental and theoretical work is borne out, the
great promise of the FRC/FRM approach to fusion would be given a significant boost.

Solo
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Solo » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:27 pm

@rcain:by the text of the link, I'm guess 2008. :lol:
Those are the parts I homed in on too. The fact that they've got a detailed, well-supported plan is very hopeful. As I recall, the theta-pinch folks were having a hard time getting enough flux to allow neutral beam capture.

BTW, it really bugs me that TriAlpha went underground, as it were. UCI has some current work on gun-formed, inductively sustained FRC's but those seem to be a dead-end in terms of reactors (only good for studying reconnection and instabilities, I think). I just wonder what Rostoker found that was so promising that he started that company.

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

Postby rcain » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:33 pm

Solo wrote:@rcain:by the text of the link, I'm guess 2008. :lol: ..

.... ah yes, now i see it. thanks. :oops:

Solo wrote:BTW, it really bugs me that TriAlpha went underground, as it were. UCI has some current work on gun-formed, inductively sustained FRC's but those seem to be a dead-end in terms of reactors (only good for studying reconnection and instabilities, I think). I just wonder what Rostoker found that was so promising that he started that company.


yes. what happend? totally off the scope it seems.
reconnection and instabilities studies still very useful stuff however.
must say i still like the sound of Migma beam-beam approach (FRC also). Why is no one still pursuing it? From what i read, it had become mainly a task of controling (hideous) Bremsstrahlung.


Return to “Theory”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests