WB-6 tests results: FOUR successful tests. Lab notes

[jlumartinez]

Now ,after listening to the achievement of plasma into the WB-7 reactor, it is a good time to remember those results obtained with WB6. Online is available an EMC2 report with the final results of WB-6 last tests. Just for info to newest visitors:

http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbi ... nl0107.pdf

For lazy people which don´t want to read the whole report I will extract the most important idea:

With WB6 they had FOUR SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENTS in the four times they tried before the machine failure (4 over 4). They shielded the neutron detectors to avoid background noise to interfere in the measurement.

I copy below the experimental results in these four tests where EMC2 researchers increased step by step the voltage and intensity conditions: the neutron counter is the definitive data which confirms that a powerful fusion reaction was happening in the center of the device. Even at 5 kV some fusion took place !!!

1) 5.0kV , 800A B-field, 1 count
2) 9.8kV , 750A B-field, 2 counts
3) 12.5kV , 700A B-field, 2 counts
4) 12.5kV , 800A B-field (1 kG), 3 counts

Before to these latest experiments they did many more tests at lower voltages just to calibrate the machine (Beta = 1 tests). According to the lab notes, those tests were entirely consistent finally with the numerical simulations of Polywell about electron lifetime. A clear symptom that if these previous tests were fitting with the model is a point to assure that finally the machine was behaving as expected for many years.

I recommend to read at least the last 3 pages of the report because is full of great details.

[TallDave]

It's an important point. Detractors have been waving their arms and shouting "only three neutrons!"

Tom's notes on neutron shielding have been helpful as well.

I made a small update to the Polywell Wikipedia page re this issue.

[Roger]

It's an important point. Detractors have been waving their arms and shouting "only three neutrons!"

DO I have this right...
Neutrons come out of the machine in different directions.. no? and the detectors only represent/cover a small sample. SO couldnt the machine have generated 90 neutrons.....

If.... neutrons come out at 360 degrees, and the detectors only cover 3.6 degrees.... then WB6 made 300 neutrons....... or some really impressive number ?

[scareduck]

The important thing is the number of neutrons divided by the number of microseconds the device was running.

[tonybarry]

Roger, you have it right. (micro)seconds of operation * (4pi steradians / solid angle subtended by detector) * counts. There is of course some statistical work to be done to account for background noise. The trouble with three counts is that there isn't a lot of counts to work from. The good thing is that the time space between the counts gives a lot of confidence that they are not background counts.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[Roger]

The important thing is the number of neutrons divided by the number of microseconds the device was running.

Not an answer, especially for the newbies that will be coming here over the next 3 months. Consider this, in English, the sun is a polywell, the earth is a neutron detector. How much of the polywells neutrons hit the detector/fall on the earth? The answer is a minute amount.

Does a polywell emit neutrons in a 360 degree manner ?

[tonybarry]

Roger, Simon indicated that to his knowledge, neutrons were emitted isotropically from the polywell. Of course some angles will be shielded by the MaGrid and other structures.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[drmike]

Is there any math bb-code? I think all the comments here are relevant - especially for people who want to get up to speed quickly. The concept of solid angle is "trivially obvious" to anyone working with it every day, but the numbers get amazing when you deal large distance and small appertures.

Having the math pop out on the page would make it a lot easier to get a point across. Especially one as important as initial proof of fusion.

[TallDave]

DO I have this right...
Neutrons come out of the machine in different directions.. no? and the detectors only represent/cover a small sample. SO couldnt the machine have generated 90 neutrons.....?

Yes, in fact I think Bussard calculated 5E5 fusions or something like that, which would be a whole lotta neutrons.

But what's important in terms of proof is the number detected, and as others point out, over what length of time.

[Roger]

Roger, Simon indicated that to his knowledge, neutrons were emitted isotropically from the polywell.

I know that.

I am trying to make the point that the average Joe isnt going to grasp the notion of 3 counts in just microseconds as meaningful. But what is far easier to grasp is the picture of the Sun as a Polywell & the Earth a neutron detector.

The analogy should instantly paint a picture, where the vast majority of Neutrons simply dont hit the detector.

The foundation for this "frame" starts with neutrons being emitted istropically. Or in law mans terms... 360 degrees, just like the sun.

Having the math pop out on the page would make it a lot easier to get a point across. Especially one as important as initial proof of fusion.

This is a vital point, but unless one is a mathematician the task is very difficult, if the target audience is the average Joe.

I was at a political event recently in NJ, a Presidential straw caucus. I was speaking to a NJ Obama campaign official, he mentioned that Obama does have plenty of experience. I asked him why he was repeating the Hillary campaign frame that Obama lacks experience ?

I told him the proper frame was that people will vote for the candidate who they think "gets it". He said to me that I was right. He smiled and shook my hand.

Its about the "frame".

I will bet everyone here a cup of coffee that the Sun/Polywell Earth/neutron detector analogy or frame is a winner. And, oh yea, those neutron counts occurred during a couple of microseconds.

[drmike]

Yeah, unfortunatly that makes way too much sense. Gee whiz is all the general public needs, but they need it done carefully and respectfully. The nuclear power guys got traction in France only because the public perception there was that it was the Germans who were the major protestors in the '70's. Everywhere else the anti-nukes got the wrong point across using really bad analogies and the engineers just said "they don't know what they are talking about!"

Even if polywell works, it won't get traction without the correct frame. Good luck with that - I know I ain't the one to open my mouth!!

[scareduck]

Even if polywell works, it won't get traction without the correct frame.

Respectfully disagree. The advantages are so legion it would be suicide not to use it. Fossil fuel alternatives are going to be sorely taxed to produce even at their present levels much longer.

[drmike]

Obviously I totally agree with you scareduck - but for every good idea there are powerful critics. China had the opportunity to create a navy that would have allowed them to conquer the world in the 1500 - 1600 time frame, but the bureacracy stopped it. Just because technology makes sense doesn't mean it gets used. Eventually, yes. But immediately - it has to be done carefully.

[MSimon]

The one big advantage we have is that the Navy wants it and they have a 50+ year record of safe fission reactor use despite the loss of a couple of submarines.

[drmike]

Again, 100% agree. But the Navy also has some of the largest piles of spent fuel which has not been processed and is highly radioactive. We know how to solve the technical problem of reprocessing, but we are not politically allowed to. The critics can twist the problem into a useful lie.

We are now in a situation where nuclear energy looks ok, but people are still afraid of the word "nuclear" (and some presidents still can't pronounce it right). Fusion is nuclear energy. Getting people past the word "nuclear" is going to be a problem, and I think Roger hit it bang on with "it has be in the right frame".

I haven't a clue how to do it. But being on the front lines of the anti-nuke movement and trying to talk sense to nut jobs taught me it won't be easy. No matter how useful or important and obvious.