I read in another thread that the WB6 machine used 200 turns of copper wire in each coil but the coils operated at 1000Amps. It was also my understanding that the coils were not cooled. If that is indeed the case, what gauge wire were they using in the coils?
The pictures I have seen of the WB6 core being assembled appear to be using wire that is maybe 10 gauge at the most, and also looks to be quite a bit more than 200 turns.
I don't see how 10gauge wire could stand up to 1000 Amps without significant cooling. Are we 100% sure of these figures or is it possible the 200,000 Amp-turns was achieved through some other combination of turns to input power?
WB6 Coil question
It is hard to say the gage without a good scale ... I might have guessed 8 AWG.
My experience with WB2 and WB3, made with 12 AWG magnet wire run at a couple of hundred amps, was that it got hot in a hurry. Depending on test duration, you might only have a few seconds to a minute before the copper got too hot for its insulation. It takes forever to cool these things since they are in a vacuum, so you might only get a couple of "shots" a day unless you could keep the "on time" really short.
These wicked heating cycles contribute to the short life of the coils.
My experience with WB2 and WB3, made with 12 AWG magnet wire run at a couple of hundred amps, was that it got hot in a hurry. Depending on test duration, you might only have a few seconds to a minute before the copper got too hot for its insulation. It takes forever to cool these things since they are in a vacuum, so you might only get a couple of "shots" a day unless you could keep the "on time" really short.
These wicked heating cycles contribute to the short life of the coils.
i am drawing the coils insulated by a layer of boron nitride/carbide with 1/16" diameter channels/tubes in the lower 25%(closer to copper coils) for cooling gas or liquid to flow through. i thought it would work out nicely to keep the temperatures at bay. xenon piped through for cooling. it looks cool in the sections and makes sense to me.
A very long time ago I built DC coils for neutral beam generation. I wound coils using copper tubing and ran water down the tube. I had lots of space to work with so nothing was tricky, but the same idea is pretty easy to adapt to building a higher powered "simple" internal coil for a polywell.
What we want is amp-turns. So 200,000 amp turns can come from 2000 turns at 100 amps or 20 turns at 10,000 amps. The latter is easier to do with cooling. It's an easy engineering design trade off, but finding the size of pipe and cross section of copper along with the heat exchange properties is pretty straight forward. Use water for cooling - it is cheap and has a really high heat capacity.
What we want is amp-turns. So 200,000 amp turns can come from 2000 turns at 100 amps or 20 turns at 10,000 amps. The latter is easier to do with cooling. It's an easy engineering design trade off, but finding the size of pipe and cross section of copper along with the heat exchange properties is pretty straight forward. Use water for cooling - it is cheap and has a really high heat capacity.
Dr. Mike,
WB4 was water cooled, as were the MPG machines. WB4 used custom-made square copper conductors (about 1/2 inch on a side) with about a 1/4" water channel down the middle. This packed the conductors tightly, but unfortunately was only suitable for square cross-section coils.
I was around when WB4 was being designed and built. The cooling requirements at the designed current levels are pretty tight on that size of machine, but they thought it would work. Had they built it with the WB6 form factor, it should have been a pretty good machine.
I dreamed up a number of cooling schemes while at EMC2, all of which were most suited for square cross sections. Once I understood the critical need for the round cross-section I dreamed up a coil design that might work in that shape. I have no idea how to actually fabricate it, but I see no reason it would not work. Might be patentable, so I'm not going to describe it in an open forum just yet.
One thing going for the cooling problem is the fluid channel does not necessarily have to be closed. The overall jacket means you can have a leaky path as long as most of the fluid goes where it needs to and all of it flows thru the overall enclosure. This opens up a world of conductor shape possibilities.
WB4 was water cooled, as were the MPG machines. WB4 used custom-made square copper conductors (about 1/2 inch on a side) with about a 1/4" water channel down the middle. This packed the conductors tightly, but unfortunately was only suitable for square cross-section coils.
I was around when WB4 was being designed and built. The cooling requirements at the designed current levels are pretty tight on that size of machine, but they thought it would work. Had they built it with the WB6 form factor, it should have been a pretty good machine.
I dreamed up a number of cooling schemes while at EMC2, all of which were most suited for square cross sections. Once I understood the critical need for the round cross-section I dreamed up a coil design that might work in that shape. I have no idea how to actually fabricate it, but I see no reason it would not work. Might be patentable, so I'm not going to describe it in an open forum just yet.
One thing going for the cooling problem is the fluid channel does not necessarily have to be closed. The overall jacket means you can have a leaky path as long as most of the fluid goes where it needs to and all of it flows thru the overall enclosure. This opens up a world of conductor shape possibilities.
You brought up an interesting point. Should people not post ideas that could be patentable if said ideas had fully dimensioned schematics, 3-d drawings, computer simulations, composed materials, methods of operation, and methods of fabricating said machine? Just a question other readers might have.
e
e
If we dare not post anything that could be patentable then we will get nowhere here.
Because, I suspect that a good patent attorney could find things to patent in most threads.
But it is a big conundrum.
What about open source?
Because, I suspect that a good patent attorney could find things to patent in most threads.
But it is a big conundrum.
What about open source?
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
I post new ideas as I get them. Ideas are a dime a dozen and cheaper by the gross. I had 10 new ideas today and will have 20 by tomorrow.
So how will I profit?
By getting a job in the industry (if we can gather enough ideas to make a BFR work). Or giving speeches. Or writing a book.
Of course others may want to operate differently. Nothing wrong with that either. However, there is always the possibility that some one else will think of your great idea and then if you try to patent it will be argued that it was obvious to any practitioner in the field.
So how will I profit?
By getting a job in the industry (if we can gather enough ideas to make a BFR work). Or giving speeches. Or writing a book.
Of course others may want to operate differently. Nothing wrong with that either. However, there is always the possibility that some one else will think of your great idea and then if you try to patent it will be argued that it was obvious to any practitioner in the field.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yes, I would rather have my ideas escape into the wild than to be captured by someone else.
I don't have the resources to nail down any of them with patents so I would rather see every one use them.
Those (globally) who are really threats would use them in any case.
(assuming I have any that are worth using.)
I don't have the resources to nail down any of them with patents so I would rather see every one use them.
Those (globally) who are really threats would use them in any case.
(assuming I have any that are worth using.)
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
Actually, I'm not so much trying to be proprietary ... its just that I've had so many neat ideas over the years that could have been patented and have made a mint for someone else. Every place I've worked, if the CEO had a bright idea, it was patented. If I had a good idea it was considered trivial. Where I work now, all the boss's patents are on bronze plaques in the lobby. My ideas are in my notebook.
That experience, BTW, includes my time at EMC2 ... Dr. Bussard had so many patents over the years, including one on the Polywell, and supposedly a bunch a couple of years ago, that he could not remember them all. My bright ideas ended up in EMC2 notebooks and hardware.
Over the years (and I know every inventive soul has a similar tale), I've dropped the ball on two money-makers I can recall right off the bat, the ink jet printer and a fuel injector pump intended for small two-stroke gasoline engines. Last year I dreamed up an aeroload torque simulator for hardware in loop simulation.
I actually made an incredibly lucky guess many years ago, just for purposes of science fiction, that high temperature superconductors could be made using scandium and/or rare earths, and that the stuff would technically be a ceramic. This nutty piece of guesswork was based on needing a reason to mine the asteroid belt, for something that needed to be far more valuable than gold, for purposes of a story. The punch line, of course, is several years after I made that stupid guess, it turned out to actually work. I could have been a freaking guru!
So here I have an idea for a patent to support the Polywell. I don't care if it makes a dime, but I sure would like to have my first patent, and have it help out a save-the-world project. OTOH, if I'm just gonna sit here and dream about it, I should not delay its use on the project. Frankly, though, I bet you guys have either figured it out or will shortly.
That experience, BTW, includes my time at EMC2 ... Dr. Bussard had so many patents over the years, including one on the Polywell, and supposedly a bunch a couple of years ago, that he could not remember them all. My bright ideas ended up in EMC2 notebooks and hardware.
Over the years (and I know every inventive soul has a similar tale), I've dropped the ball on two money-makers I can recall right off the bat, the ink jet printer and a fuel injector pump intended for small two-stroke gasoline engines. Last year I dreamed up an aeroload torque simulator for hardware in loop simulation.
I actually made an incredibly lucky guess many years ago, just for purposes of science fiction, that high temperature superconductors could be made using scandium and/or rare earths, and that the stuff would technically be a ceramic. This nutty piece of guesswork was based on needing a reason to mine the asteroid belt, for something that needed to be far more valuable than gold, for purposes of a story. The punch line, of course, is several years after I made that stupid guess, it turned out to actually work. I could have been a freaking guru!
So here I have an idea for a patent to support the Polywell. I don't care if it makes a dime, but I sure would like to have my first patent, and have it help out a save-the-world project. OTOH, if I'm just gonna sit here and dream about it, I should not delay its use on the project. Frankly, though, I bet you guys have either figured it out or will shortly.
Tom,
99.9% of all Patents never make their owners a dime.
However, if you want to get into that game you have to have a patent lawyer and lots of $$$$. Typically a patent will cost you $10K per.
This is one of the best diatribes against patents (for the little guy) I have ever read:
Don Lancaster On Patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Tom: You have already made more money and gotten more recognition from your writing and public speaking than patents are ever likely to be worth to you.
99.9% of all Patents never make their owners a dime.
However, if you want to get into that game you have to have a patent lawyer and lots of $$$$. Typically a patent will cost you $10K per.
This is one of the best diatribes against patents (for the little guy) I have ever read:
Don Lancaster On Patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
My attitude? If you give the stuff away no one can steal it from you.At one time, way back in the golden age of inventing, ideas were worth as much as a dime a dozen. These days, they are worth less than a dime a bale in ten bale lots. An idea becomes useful only when and if it can get converted into some marketable product that in fact ends up solving end user needs. A concept known as the idea mortality curve clearly shows the many and costly steps needed to get from raw idea to value.
If you cannot demonstrate end users getting off on your idea, it has no value. It ain’t creative unless it sells.
Tom: You have already made more money and gotten more recognition from your writing and public speaking than patents are ever likely to be worth to you.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Patents are an interesting concept. In the 1800's they had a huge purpose and made sense. In the 2000's they don't make a whole lot of sense in most cases, unless it is helping a university stay alive. Like Tom, I've come up with lots of great ideas that end up being built by others. From the stand point of academics it's important to publish first - but for patents you can't do that!
Given how fast technology moves and how much fun there is playing with it, getting a patent doesn't seem very useful to me. By the time a patent is granted, most ideas are obsolete. For large companies it makes sense to have patents and to use an army of lawyers to maintain them. But for individual inventors they seem fairly useless.
At the Univ. of Wisconsin many profs go for patents because there is literally an army of lawyers to help them and because the Univ. gets most of the money - the profs get to keep their jobs and play with more toys. A very few get spin off companies. But the bottom line is that the original thought process and invention gets nothing in return - other than more time to play.
I think moving faster is more fun than fighting, but that's just me! I'd rather not dink with patents. But I've never really had to worry about it either.
Given how fast technology moves and how much fun there is playing with it, getting a patent doesn't seem very useful to me. By the time a patent is granted, most ideas are obsolete. For large companies it makes sense to have patents and to use an army of lawyers to maintain them. But for individual inventors they seem fairly useless.
At the Univ. of Wisconsin many profs go for patents because there is literally an army of lawyers to help them and because the Univ. gets most of the money - the profs get to keep their jobs and play with more toys. A very few get spin off companies. But the bottom line is that the original thought process and invention gets nothing in return - other than more time to play.
I think moving faster is more fun than fighting, but that's just me! I'd rather not dink with patents. But I've never really had to worry about it either.
*
http://www.physorg.com/news130164408.html
*
http://www.physorg.com/news130164408.html
*
The research found the greatest motivator for entrepreneurs is passion about new ideas with 41.4 per cent of those surveyed citing this as their prime motivation for starting a business. 39.7 per cent were primarily driven by ‘wanting to be their own boss’.
Professor Jimmy Hill from the University’s Management School said “We were surprised to see that only a small number of people cited financial gain as their motivation to start a new business. It is great to see that entrepreneurial spirit is not dead and that so many people are driven by their passion for new ideas.
“Passion is not enough on its own, however, and anyone starting a business needs to be realistic about the financial viability of their plans. There must be adequate business insight to turn an idea into a viable business opportunity and this is where entrepreneurs need help from experts and peers who can advise.”
Dominic Schiller, Director of EntrIPneur who uses Venture Navigator to support his business, said: “Many businesses can run into financial problems after the start-up phase. Venture-Navigator is a good tool - it can outline these issues and offer sound advice before it’s too late.”
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, then, in light of the above and in realization of the fact I'd never get around to contacting a patent attorney, and my wife would faint if she heard the cost, here's the idea.
The problem is how to pack the most copper into a round cross-section magnet, and still be able to put cooling channels into it. The answer is to draw a circle and divide it into pie slices. The pie slices are the cross sections of the conductors you need.
You could have these fabricated with cooling channels inside them, as we did for the custom-made square conductors used on WB4 ... I don't know the exact method, but there is evidently a whole industry that does this all the time, and I'll bet there are extruders and rollers involved.
The alternative to an enclosed channel would be to cut a channel into the side of the conductor. The assembly method I have in mind would seal it, and even if it leaked a little it would not be a problem.
A friend of mine specializes in magnet construction. He makes both copper and high temperature superconductor magnets. He claims to hold the world's record for the highest field achieved with copper wound magnets, which he does with a design that uses copper ribbons in a ceramic (or ceramic epoxy) matrix. He may use something like Rescor. The key is, the matrix handles high temperature much better than magnet wire varnish.
It would probably take specialized machinery to coax my pie-slice conductors into a nice, round, compact core, but that ought to be a nice challenge for a mechanical/industrial engineer. You could probably place a thin "doped fabric" of fiberglass or Kevlar soaked with perhaps Rescor in between the turns to insulate and adhere them, clamp the whole thing together between heated clamshells, and bake to perfection. These would then drop into 316 stainless outer shells. There will be more challenges connecting them together ... special copper pieces and e-beam welding maybe.
There is always a balance in this situation between amps and turns ... take your pick, the power is about the same ... and cooling. The more turns, the smaller the allowable cooling channel area and the longer the cooling channel run. Cooling favors short, fat conductors and high current. Some balance must be struck. WB4 was intended to force water in one end, from a reservoir of ice and water, into the coils at 300 psi or so (pump, reservoir, etc floating at high voltage!!!) and thru the coils into a dump tank. You must not allow the water in the tube to boil as that totally fouls up the cooling, so the desired condition is to have the water come out the other end hot enough to brew coffee. Some side business brewing espresso is not out of the question.
The same general scheme would also be adaptable to exotic coolants, mentioned elsewhere, or liquid nitrogen. LN2 doesn't carry the heat of water, but would drop the conductor resistance enormously, and might be just the ticket for short-duration tests at very high currents.
There are further tradeoffs regarding magnet electrical/cooling arrangements. I favor making each magnet independent rather than connecting all in series. I have three reasons for this. The first is, you want to make the cooling path as short as possible. The second is, it would be nice to eliminate those short interconnecting stubs on WB6, right in the spot where they wanted to eliminate the "funny cusp". The third reason is it would be convenient to make all the magnets identical to avoid the hassle of the interconnection bits, and to allow very easy replacement of individual magnets.
The downside is, each magnet must be on a big feedthru plate, on, I think, four insulated standoffs of substantial size. Two carry magnet current and water, two are just support. These will interfere with outside electron circulation, but I'm betting that is less trouble than the interconnects (relatively low electron density outside the coils), and using four insulators allows them to be placed wherever the models suggest the density is lowest.
The problem is how to pack the most copper into a round cross-section magnet, and still be able to put cooling channels into it. The answer is to draw a circle and divide it into pie slices. The pie slices are the cross sections of the conductors you need.
You could have these fabricated with cooling channels inside them, as we did for the custom-made square conductors used on WB4 ... I don't know the exact method, but there is evidently a whole industry that does this all the time, and I'll bet there are extruders and rollers involved.
The alternative to an enclosed channel would be to cut a channel into the side of the conductor. The assembly method I have in mind would seal it, and even if it leaked a little it would not be a problem.
A friend of mine specializes in magnet construction. He makes both copper and high temperature superconductor magnets. He claims to hold the world's record for the highest field achieved with copper wound magnets, which he does with a design that uses copper ribbons in a ceramic (or ceramic epoxy) matrix. He may use something like Rescor. The key is, the matrix handles high temperature much better than magnet wire varnish.
It would probably take specialized machinery to coax my pie-slice conductors into a nice, round, compact core, but that ought to be a nice challenge for a mechanical/industrial engineer. You could probably place a thin "doped fabric" of fiberglass or Kevlar soaked with perhaps Rescor in between the turns to insulate and adhere them, clamp the whole thing together between heated clamshells, and bake to perfection. These would then drop into 316 stainless outer shells. There will be more challenges connecting them together ... special copper pieces and e-beam welding maybe.
There is always a balance in this situation between amps and turns ... take your pick, the power is about the same ... and cooling. The more turns, the smaller the allowable cooling channel area and the longer the cooling channel run. Cooling favors short, fat conductors and high current. Some balance must be struck. WB4 was intended to force water in one end, from a reservoir of ice and water, into the coils at 300 psi or so (pump, reservoir, etc floating at high voltage!!!) and thru the coils into a dump tank. You must not allow the water in the tube to boil as that totally fouls up the cooling, so the desired condition is to have the water come out the other end hot enough to brew coffee. Some side business brewing espresso is not out of the question.
The same general scheme would also be adaptable to exotic coolants, mentioned elsewhere, or liquid nitrogen. LN2 doesn't carry the heat of water, but would drop the conductor resistance enormously, and might be just the ticket for short-duration tests at very high currents.
There are further tradeoffs regarding magnet electrical/cooling arrangements. I favor making each magnet independent rather than connecting all in series. I have three reasons for this. The first is, you want to make the cooling path as short as possible. The second is, it would be nice to eliminate those short interconnecting stubs on WB6, right in the spot where they wanted to eliminate the "funny cusp". The third reason is it would be convenient to make all the magnets identical to avoid the hassle of the interconnection bits, and to allow very easy replacement of individual magnets.
The downside is, each magnet must be on a big feedthru plate, on, I think, four insulated standoffs of substantial size. Two carry magnet current and water, two are just support. These will interfere with outside electron circulation, but I'm betting that is less trouble than the interconnects (relatively low electron density outside the coils), and using four insulators allows them to be placed wherever the models suggest the density is lowest.