Talk-Polywell.org

Current polywell project has gone from;

We expect to determine if the Polywell is suitable as a clean energy source for electrical generation.

to

We expect to determine if the plasma scaling agrees with the Theoretical models.

OK, well, here's an experiment where the plasma scaling has agreed with theory;

Clearly it cannot be like that and you know it.
If you want to make a provocation you should at least change the poll options to be more focused on the argument. The way it is now the poll is meaningless.

OK. Poll duly deleted, if you feel it is too provocative.....

Proving 'plasma scaling' is useful, but it clearly does not lead to a proper understanding of determining the original project terms.

So I hesitate to point out that the project has already failed its original objective. What it can show is something we will wait to see, I guess.

If the scaling is proved it is known it can be an energy source of great utility, if conversion technologies and durability/operability are also economically engineerable. The graph you posted ironically does not show anything about how these other competing fusion schemes may be of any great utility, at least for any load now envisionable.

They are too big. That they meet predictions is besides the point, and of interest only to plasma theorists who are comfortable learning not much.

For example, I recall many predictions which were not met "This machine will do it. No! No! This machine will do it." I suspect the data behind your chart of being retconned into significance.

chrismb wrote:Proving 'plasma scaling' is useful, but it clearly does not lead to a proper understanding of determining the original project terms.

I completely agree with you on this point.

chrismb wrote:So I hesitate to point out that the project has already failed its original objective. What it can show is something we will wait to see, I guess.

It will fail its original objective if indeed the change in scope was volunteer.
I still hope that the different description for the project scope was just a matter of an error. As you said, we can just wait and see.

chrismb wrote:So I hesitate to point out that the project has already failed its original objective. What it can show is something we will wait to see, I guess.

Are you claming knowledge about WB8 results that we do not have? How do you know that they have not already completed their original objective and are using the extra money to figure how to best...?

Why would they change the summary objective of the project?

TDPerk wrote:If the scaling is proved it is known it can be an energy source of great utility, if conversion technologies and durability/operability are also economically engineerable.

Scaling is but one of the issues to make the Polywell a feasible energy source.
What is essential is also confinement time, scaling losses, Wiffleball formation and behaviour, and so on.

chrismb wrote:Why would they change the summary objective of the project?

The more I think about it with a cold mind, the more I think it can as well be a simple error.
After all the data and information on the recovery.org website do not have any contractual nor binding value, they are just informative webpages for the public.

I find it puzzling that they changed specifically that point, but maybe is really just an undergrad mistake while compiling the form.

chrismb wrote:Why would they change the summary objective of the project?

To be more precice about how they will fullfill the general objective? To be more reflective of the actual solicitation requirements rather than dumb it down for the masses?

FBO Solicitation wrote: Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract for research, analysis, development, and testing to validate the basic physics of the plasma fusion (polywell) concept as well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of polywell fusion with a delivered item, wiffleball 8 (WB8) and options for a modified wiffleball 8 (WB8.1) and modified ion gun.

Characterizing the plasma scaling isn't a direct or final test of reactor viability, but it is an indirect test, possibly useful in refining the design before a power demonstration is attempted. And it avoids misunderstandings of what the test article is supposed to do. It would be most embarrassing if WB-(whatever model) were publicly described as a fusion reactor but produced too little power to properly measure. The change in stated objective is consistent with not attracting too much attention too early.

The contract never changed.
What is all the hubbub about? We already knew that ONR goes to lengths to obscure the project. Recall the AGEE silliness? If you use words that are not standard key words in a search engine, then the odds drop by magnitudes that your gig will show up.
Folks have to know what to look for to find it.

They did jack up the recovery reporting, they did end up with two project chains (one with dashes in the contract ID, one without), and a skipped report. They do not update the EMC webpage in any organized manner. The last webpage update was co-incidental with the FOIA drama.
We know all this, why debate oversilliness?

I also do not know what all the hubbub is about. The second comment seams perhaps more precise as my impression is that scaling , especially loss scaling is perhaps the major goal of this stage of research.
At least someone typed in something, instead of just cut and pasting previous statements.

As to comparing with the Tokamak chart, I suspect if all is well, it will look quite similar, except for different time ranges. It should be a straight line (I think) on a logrhythmic scale.

I also wonder how meaningful the nice appearance of the line on the Tokamak graph is. I'm under the impression that the confinement scaling has repeatedly needed to be modified to larger sizes. Also, I wonder if the data includes macro instabilities, which has been a major headache for Tokamaks.

Additionally, the graph represents a series of machines, If the predicted vs observed results started to diverge, the next test series/ machine had updated predicted values, so any deviation would be corrected, so a graph would look good, but not necessarily indicate how sequential thinking has changed along the way. A series of charts showing time based predictions (1970, 1980, etc.) against results would be more revealing.

Dan Tibbets