TallDave wrote:Polywell doesn't directly generate a electrostatic field either. So you could argue it isn't really IEC either, if you want to be that strict.
The Magrid carries a large positive charge, which is why you need to magnetically shield the casing. It absolutely is electrostatic.
One can similarly argue that the charge on the plasma in the CBFR is just as necessary, therefore it too absolutely is electrostatic.
Or one could argue the Magrid is "tangential," since the main function of the machine is to create a negative well by confining electrons magnetically.
93143 wrote:Well, yes it does. The magrid is charged to accelerate electrons into the core. After that is when the magnetic trapping kicks in. It's basically an EXL fusor.
The Magrid has a positive charge. It accelerates electrons and keeps them circulating, but the magnetic field is what confines them and keeps them from hitting the grid.
So you could argue Polywell is magnetic confinement.
93143 wrote:Well, yes it does. The magrid is charged to accelerate electrons into the core. After that is when the magnetic trapping kicks in. It's basically an EXL fusor.
The Magrid has a positive charge. It accelerates electrons and keeps them circulating, but the magnetic field is what confines them and keeps them from hitting the grid.
So you could argue Polywell is magnetic confinement.
The ions are confined by electrostatic forces.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
93143 wrote:Well, yes it does. The magrid is charged to accelerate electrons into the core. After that is when the magnetic trapping kicks in. It's basically an EXL fusor.
The Magrid has a positive charge. It accelerates electrons and keeps them circulating, but the magnetic field is what confines them and keeps them from hitting the grid.
So you could argue Polywell is magnetic confinement.
We're talking about electrostatic confinement in either case.
In any case, whatever we choose to call it, they are similar enough that many of the same issues apply. That's why in the Science discussion of the CBFR, Rider's paper, titled "A general critique of inertial-electrostatic confinement fusion systems," is cited.
TallDave wrote:We're talking about electrostatic confinement in either case.
In any case, whatever we choose to call it, they are similar enough that many of the same issues apply. That's why in the Science discussion of the CBFR, Rider's paper, titled "A general critique of inertial-electrostatic confinement fusion systems," is cited.
Except that Nevins cited "Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium" (Phys. Plasmas 4, 1039) and Art Carlson (who seems to show up a lot on Wikipedia, huh) cited Rider's PhD thesis bearing the same title. You're confusing those with an earlier paper with the title you cite (Phys. Plasmas 2, 1853).