@Dan
Would the results be better if you were to replace the permanent magnets with copper coils and then hook up the copper coils to the same power source as the cathode? Thanks for all the help as I appreciate it because I am very new to this.
Playing with Permanent Magnet Magrids
-
butterfingers
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:48 am
Combining the [power supplies is out of the question. The magnet power supply is a low voltage, high current supply of preferably well filtered DC current. A car or Murione 12 volt battery works well. The EMC2 work with WB6 used several mauring batteries in parrelel and / or serial to provide up to several thousands of amps. This provided ~ 200,00 amp turns in their coils and this generated ~ 1,000 Gauss fields in their geometry.
The electron accelerating power supply for WB6 was at ~ 12,000 volts, and needed to deliver in excess of 40-50 amps. This is a lot of power (approaching 500,000 W. EMC2 had to use high voltage capacitors to provide this high voltage power, as they could not afford the high voltage power supplies that could deliver this power. They had a supply that could deliver a couple of amps at 12,000 V. They used this to charge up their capacitor banks, then ran the tests off of the capacitors.
The magnet low voltage current had to be isolated from the high voltage on the magrid metel shell surfaces. In fact it was probably a short between these two systems that destroyed the device.
Making electromagnets certainly is preferable to using permanent magnets.My effort was similar to WB1, except I didn't bother with electron injection, just a simpler central cathode that produced a glow discharge. Still it showed the morphology of the plasma. It would take a tremendous electron current to overcome the losses the permanent face centered cusps, so establishing a Wiffleball would be extremely difficult. The magnets would probably crack from the heat first (or reach their Currie point). The Wiffleball compression - high Beta state is dependent on the B field strength vs the product of the electron (and ion) energy in KeV and the current (which is equivalent to the density). At a given B field strength and eV kinetic energy of the charged particles, as the current is increased confinement improves untill a given density can be maintained with a minimum of current. There is a formula, but I believe you could achieve a Wiffleball (Beta= 1) confinement with even small magnetic (B ) fields) and currents, so long as the balance was maintained. Of course using neutron production as a measure of performance would be extremely difficult as fusion scales at the 4th power of the B field. If operating at ~ 10 Gauss, the yield would be ~ 1/ (100^4) or ~ 1/ 100,000,000. Or about 5 neutrons per second isotropically. Very difficult to detect, even if the run time is in hours. Actually, the yield would be higher than this, even without magnetic fields due to the baseline performance of a fusor, so it would be even more difficult to measure anything over the noise floor. Measurements of other parameters with tricky launguer (sp?) probes and photometry or Tompson scattering, etc is a different story.
There is arrangements that would decrease the penalty of these face centered cusps (N and S poles), and these have been shown in threads. There is an example at the beginning of this thread, if you could find magnets that were polarized radially as opposed to longitudinally on the flat faces of the magnets.
And, no, I am not that individual.
Dan Tibbets
The electron accelerating power supply for WB6 was at ~ 12,000 volts, and needed to deliver in excess of 40-50 amps. This is a lot of power (approaching 500,000 W. EMC2 had to use high voltage capacitors to provide this high voltage power, as they could not afford the high voltage power supplies that could deliver this power. They had a supply that could deliver a couple of amps at 12,000 V. They used this to charge up their capacitor banks, then ran the tests off of the capacitors.
The magnet low voltage current had to be isolated from the high voltage on the magrid metel shell surfaces. In fact it was probably a short between these two systems that destroyed the device.
Making electromagnets certainly is preferable to using permanent magnets.My effort was similar to WB1, except I didn't bother with electron injection, just a simpler central cathode that produced a glow discharge. Still it showed the morphology of the plasma. It would take a tremendous electron current to overcome the losses the permanent face centered cusps, so establishing a Wiffleball would be extremely difficult. The magnets would probably crack from the heat first (or reach their Currie point). The Wiffleball compression - high Beta state is dependent on the B field strength vs the product of the electron (and ion) energy in KeV and the current (which is equivalent to the density). At a given B field strength and eV kinetic energy of the charged particles, as the current is increased confinement improves untill a given density can be maintained with a minimum of current. There is a formula, but I believe you could achieve a Wiffleball (Beta= 1) confinement with even small magnetic (B ) fields) and currents, so long as the balance was maintained. Of course using neutron production as a measure of performance would be extremely difficult as fusion scales at the 4th power of the B field. If operating at ~ 10 Gauss, the yield would be ~ 1/ (100^4) or ~ 1/ 100,000,000. Or about 5 neutrons per second isotropically. Very difficult to detect, even if the run time is in hours. Actually, the yield would be higher than this, even without magnetic fields due to the baseline performance of a fusor, so it would be even more difficult to measure anything over the noise floor. Measurements of other parameters with tricky launguer (sp?) probes and photometry or Tompson scattering, etc is a different story.
There is arrangements that would decrease the penalty of these face centered cusps (N and S poles), and these have been shown in threads. There is an example at the beginning of this thread, if you could find magnets that were polarized radially as opposed to longitudinally on the flat faces of the magnets.
And, no, I am not that individual.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
butterfingers
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:48 am