Yeah, I think the point of this thread has been reached. Dr. Carlson questioned where the data is, and the answer is that there's very little. Some additional annecdotal evidence from some involved, but not much published. Everyone agrees that, sans more data from the current experimentation, that not much can be derived from the data that does exist. What's there may be minorly positive in some ways, but in no way proves the viability of the BFR at larger scales.
Hence the WB-7.
So that throws the debate back into the realm of the theoretical, it seems to me. Score one for Dr. Carlson, in that nobody should throw, "well experiment seems to show that it works," at him in other threads. That's capitulation, in any case. If that's the only defense of the BFR, then that's no defense at all, just a "let's wait and see" attitude.
Mike
Where's the beef?
-
Jeff Peachman
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:47 pm
I've got a design for a welder and some scrap parts to build a first mock up. Hopefully I'll be able to collect some data one of these days and publish it too!
But I'll have to admit I agree with Art on this one - it'd be nice to see some data on density and currents to see if this "wiffle-ball" mode actually happens.
But I'll have to admit I agree with Art on this one - it'd be nice to see some data on density and currents to see if this "wiffle-ball" mode actually happens.
Well, okay, let's be clear here: the evidence from earlier machines probably "exists," we just don't have access to it.Yeah, I think the point of this thread has been reached. Dr. Carlson questioned where the data is, and the answer is that there's very little. Some additional annecdotal evidence from some involved, but not much published. Everyone agrees that, sans more data from the current experimentation, that not much can be derived from the data that does exist.
What's hard to say is how strong that evidence for WB trapping was; Bussard was certainly not infallible and he may have been wrong. But Nebel has said the difference was easy to see.
I think we'll know whether more research in this vein is funded or not. I'm assuming that as with WB-6, if the contract terminates without any renewal Nebel will be free to discuss the results.Do we know that we will get information about WB-7 experimental performance later this year, or are we just hoping that we will?
In this post Dr. Nebel said:
I wonder if they consider results previous to WB-6 in the cathegory of "already released". If so we could ask for some numbers about experiments like PXL-1 or WB-2. Having some hard data about the W-B and other phenomena would be nice.1. We can’t release data. The DOD has to determine what it wants to release ... this is their call. We are free to discuss anything which has been released (such as the WB-6) but they will control the new data.
What will it take?
Well here I go. I have avoided posting to this because I have no qualifications in this field. But I rarely let such things stop me.
Dr Carlson, from what you know about the WB-7 right now, do you believe it could produce results that would convince you that it was worth spending ~$200M attempting to build a net power device? Not just for scientific discovery, but specifically because you thought net power just might be possible based on WB-7 results.
If so, what specific results would you need to see from WB-7 that would convince you? Or, what other results, perhaps in concert with WB-7 results, would convince you that it was worthwhile to attempt the net power device?
Maybe this was already answered? Perhaps a “top 10 list” of things you would have to see? If so, could you point me to the post?
Thanks for your time!
Dr Carlson, from what you know about the WB-7 right now, do you believe it could produce results that would convince you that it was worth spending ~$200M attempting to build a net power device? Not just for scientific discovery, but specifically because you thought net power just might be possible based on WB-7 results.
If so, what specific results would you need to see from WB-7 that would convince you? Or, what other results, perhaps in concert with WB-7 results, would convince you that it was worthwhile to attempt the net power device?
Maybe this was already answered? Perhaps a “top 10 list” of things you would have to see? If so, could you point me to the post?
Thanks for your time!
Re: What will it take?
My answer is that regardless of results, going from $2M to $200M seems quite a jump. $20M would be justified if the published results gave good data on things like total power (either D-T or H-B), power gain (fusion out to electrical power in not including magnets), density distribution of the plasma, a good measurement of Beta, a detailed description of the next generation machine, etc.rj40 wrote:Dr Carlson, from what you know about the WB-7 right now, do you believe it could produce results that would convince you that it was worth spending ~$200M attempting to build a net power device? Not just for scientific discovery, but specifically because you thought net power just might be possible based on WB-7 results.
Maybe I am too frugal. Of course, I don't think we should spend a cent on ITER. Even if it works, it would never be economical. Don't forget that TFTR didn't work.
Fusion is easy, but break even is horrendous.
Re: What will it take?
TFTR had tritium pulses approaching breakeven from the point of view of power out/plasma heating power in as did JET. The magnetic coil dissipation wasn't included and the pulses only lasted a few tens of seconds though.pstudier wrote: Maybe I am too frugal. Of course, I don't think we should spend a cent on ITER. Even if it works, it would never be economical. Don't forget that TFTR didn't work.
So saying it didn't work is far too strong a word, TFTR and JET both set new fusion records.
They have political traction. $200M on polywell without resounding success just might kill it. $20M would be money well spent dependent on the findings of current studies. We need to delve deeper into the IEC designs, and whatever WB7 shows, will point in the right direction. There are a huge number of "tunings" to consider, some of which involve the physical machine itself.TallDave wrote:Hell, look what they've spent on JET, START and MAST already.
Getting data from WB-7 *is* success.
If it looks like we *will* eventually get an economical net power device, then it's pedal to the metal, and start developing all the ancillary systems that would be useless without a net power device. (We should hold off on developing an Alpha decelerator for example). We then would need to find the best designs and tunings as fast as possible too.
Wiffleball data:
When I first got on board with EMC2 I looked through the files for data from the WB-2 and the WB-3. I found some data sheets, but they weren't very helpful. From discussions I had with Dr. Bussard, I believe that the way he surmised the existence of the wiffleball was to look at the total light output with a PMT. What was observed was that the light intensity peaked as the magnetic field decayed. The interpretation was that when Beta=1 was achieved (by lowering the field) the plasma leaked out through the cusps so the light intensity dropped. Tom Ligon might want to comment on this since I suspect he was involved with the data.
Do we at EMC2 believe this is reliable? No. My understanding is that you can see the same kind of behavior in helicon sources which are nowhere near Beta=1. Am I concerned about this? No. You'll just have to stay tuned.
When I first got on board with EMC2 I looked through the files for data from the WB-2 and the WB-3. I found some data sheets, but they weren't very helpful. From discussions I had with Dr. Bussard, I believe that the way he surmised the existence of the wiffleball was to look at the total light output with a PMT. What was observed was that the light intensity peaked as the magnetic field decayed. The interpretation was that when Beta=1 was achieved (by lowering the field) the plasma leaked out through the cusps so the light intensity dropped. Tom Ligon might want to comment on this since I suspect he was involved with the data.
Do we at EMC2 believe this is reliable? No. My understanding is that you can see the same kind of behavior in helicon sources which are nowhere near Beta=1. Am I concerned about this? No. You'll just have to stay tuned.
I don't know, lack of resounding success hasn't stopped tokamaks. They just keep asking for more and getting it.$200M on polywell without resounding success just might kill it.
A resounding failure might doom it. But that would probably mean the concept is unworkable, in which case it should be killed. A partial success might keep it going, depending on the implications.
Someone invite A.Carlsonseedload wrote:If there is no beef, kill yourself a cow! Sounds like there are some freshly ground burgers in the freezer and hopefully a big picnic planned for the end of the summer.rnebel wrote:Do we at EMC2 believe this is reliable? No... Am I concerned about this? No. You'll just have to stay tuned.
