'Final Sucessful Test of WB-6'. Where is it?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Diederik
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:22 pm

'Final Sucessful Test of WB-6'. Where is it?

Post by Diederik »

Hi everyone,

I've seen some references to a report from EMC2 titled 'Final Succesful Test of WB-6', which has been made publicly available at some point. However, it does not seem to be available anymore. If anyone could send me a copy I would appreciate it.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

It is proprietary information and those that may have it are honor bound to refrain from divulging it. Your best bet would be to contact EMC2 if you have a valid need to know and offer to sign an NDA.

Good luck.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

in the google talks he said there were 3 neutron counts in a fraction of a second. and a magnet coil shorted so it broke down. i'm not sure what else one might hope to glean from a report, unless you're interested in details about the configuration and testing apparatus, which i'd imagine would be confidential. but unless you plan to build one yourself, you have all the pertinent information from the google talks. confinement was successful. a coil shorted. scaling laws. magnets conformal to the mag field, avoid metal surfaces. high vacuum, beta=1, some excess electrons, etc. etc. only thing i'd consider worth mentioning besides that is that you should ground the vacuum chamber so that the recirculation trajectories are bounded to a finite volume. (i figured that out myself from making a simulation.) the rest is math and engineering.

mattman
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 11:14 pm

Post by mattman »

New Post is Up!

You want Details on WB6?

This Post has everything:

http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/201 ... g-wb6.html









==============
Executive Summary:

This post reviews what is needed for a comprehensive simulation of the polywell. It has four sections: using WB6 as a benchmark, analytical expressions, the magnetic field in WB6 and the particle-in-cell method. Any code is first validated by duplicating the WB6 results. The machine is outline, including: the geometry, power supply, feedstock and diagnostics. Operation is summarized in five steps: tank pump down, applying the cage field, electron trapping, gas puffing and the neutrons produced. The electron emitter and beam are modeled. Beam speed is strongly controlled by emitter placement and this impacts trapping. Regardless of emitter placement, the magnetic will overpower the electric field. Energy loss from the beam is shown to be insignificant. Estimates of the field at the joint, corner and axis show that ring design emphasizes uniform containment. The axis and corner fields are close in value. The number of electron trapped is estimated. The magnetic field model for one ring of WB6 is encoded into Excel and MATLAB. The excel model required using a trapezoid approximation. Excel and MATLAB are compared against simple estimates and WB6 data, for benchmarking. Vector and energy density plots for a single ring, are generated.

The ring field is similar to the field made by two a-like poles placed close together. Therefore, the field points outward everywhere except through the rings themselves and the energy density is higher in machine center. It is suggested: that proper containment may balance the outward pointing fields and the magnetic mirror effect. This is not proven. The mathematical expression for all six rings is encoded into Excel and MATLAB. The field is modeled along three particle paths into machine center. These results are compared with expectations, estimates, single ring models and WB6 data for benchmarking. Vector and energy density plots for six rings are generated. Typical geometry, time steps and particles needed for a particle in cell simulation are given. The ion to electron ratio for WB6 is estimated at 0.98. The post concludes with nine suggestions for future work.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

The WB6 final Report was publicly available on the EMC2 website a few years ago, but then withdrawn. Those lucky enough to read it then gleaned some information. But, as mentioned, it was not all that much compared to other sources. Copyright laws probably preclude second hand distribution of the actual paper, but the information is out there and has been discussed on this forum. The thousands of pages(?) of internal documentation that had accumulated over the years is the real gold mine. Nebel mentioned that he had little chance to discuss this with the ailing Bussard at the time he took over as chief scientist. You would need this information to deeply evaluate the claims/ gains. We have to depend on the snippets of information available, and the reports of review councils which themselves are only hearsay.
The Patent applications available on Askmar, other papers on Askmar, and the financial trail are among our best sources now available.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Post by Stubby »

mattman wrote:New Post is Up!

You want Details on WB6?

This Post has everything:

http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/201 ... g-wb6.html









==============
Executive Summary:

This post reviews what is needed for a comprehensive simulation of the polywell. It has four sections: using WB6 as a benchmark, analytical expressions, the magnetic field in WB6 and the particle-in-cell method. Any code is first validated by duplicating the WB6 results. The machine is outline, including: the geometry, power supply, feedstock and diagnostics. Operation is summarized in five steps: tank pump down, applying the cage field, electron trapping, gas puffing and the neutrons produced. The electron emitter and beam are modeled. Beam speed is strongly controlled by emitter placement and this impacts trapping. Regardless of emitter placement, the magnetic will overpower the electric field. Energy loss from the beam is shown to be insignificant. Estimates of the field at the joint, corner and axis show that ring design emphasizes uniform containment. The axis and corner fields are close in value. The number of electron trapped is estimated. The magnetic field model for one ring of WB6 is encoded into Excel and MATLAB. The excel model required using a trapezoid approximation. Excel and MATLAB are compared against simple estimates and WB6 data, for benchmarking. Vector and energy density plots for a single ring, are generated.

The ring field is similar to the field made by two a-like poles placed close together. Therefore, the field points outward everywhere except through the rings themselves and the energy density is higher in machine center. It is suggested: that proper containment may balance the outward pointing fields and the magnetic mirror effect. This is not proven. The mathematical expression for all six rings is encoded into Excel and MATLAB. The field is modeled along three particle paths into machine center. These results are compared with expectations, estimates, single ring models and WB6 data for benchmarking. Vector and energy density plots for six rings are generated. Typical geometry, time steps and particles needed for a particle in cell simulation are given. The ion to electron ratio for WB6 is estimated at 0.98. The post concludes with nine suggestions for future work.

Did you really really really have to post this in 3 separate threads, 2 of which you started?

Oh moderator where art thou? I believe you contacted matt about spamming his material. He seems to have forgotten what you told him.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

Post Reply