POLL: What will WB-8 produce?
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
MSimon wrote:I wanted to vote for carrots.
TallDave wrote:Carrots are not allowed.
So I guess pie is a no go too?CaptainBeowulf wrote:What about radishes? Can we vote for radishes?
I voted for 64 watts. There might be some loss mechanisms that show up with these magnets and the higher power. OTOH if losses dont jog far from predicted scaling its probably moot. OTOH if the loss mechanism is easily dealt with, than Eff it, gimme some Boron11.
I will predict that DR Nebel will proclaim the results positive but "nuanced". At which point he will head back to the lab for WB-8.1 and address those nuances with due diligence.
BTW was WB-9 supposed to be the Boron burner? Something upthread made me question that.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Yes, but the WB-9 design requirement is ambiguous. I think it will most likely be based on the which worked better factor...WB8 or 8.1
If 8.1 rocks the lab, then I would expect they would then push to design based on that. If not, stick with a D-D.
Of course, these are chained options based on success of the preceeding deliverable.
If 8.1 rocks the lab, then I would expect they would then push to design based on that. If not, stick with a D-D.
Of course, these are chained options based on success of the preceeding deliverable.
Oops, just doublechecked and I am possibly wrong. WB9 is the conceptual demonstration device from the WB8 D-D task. The 100mW(MW?) "reactor" is the conceptual design from the WB8.1 pB11 task. The WB9 design will PREDATE the WB8.1 task, but they may call the WB8.1 design WB9 also. (WB9.1?) We shall see eventually!
Awright, I am still not 100% but, upon review, I think it is worded and layed out with the intent to flex the plan.
WB8 = Good for DD, not good enough for PB&J => WB9 DD
WB8 = GAHREAT for DD, looks good for PB&J => WB 8.1 (and Ion Gun)
WB8.1 = Good for PB&J => WB9 PB&J 100mW or MW (lawyer driven item
)
Regardless of promise => Modeling and Databases at WB8, WB 8.1, way ahead plan or drop it discussion each time.
<OR> Alternative interpretation:
WB8 => Results report/meeting and WB9 DD/DT Design => Decision for WB8.1 PB&J attempt
WB8.1 => Results/Report meeting and 100m(M)W PB&J proposal/concept package => Way Ahead coneptual plan => new contracts...or not...
Excerpts from Statement of Work:
1.1 Background
This procurement...<<< BLAH BLAH BLAH>>> exploring the concept. The current effort will build on what has been
completed under these previous contracts as well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential
applications of AGEE with a delivered item, wiffleball 8 (WB8) and options for a modified wiffleball 8 (WB8.1)
and modified ion gun. The objective of this procurement is validation of the basic physics of the AGEE concept as
well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of AGEE. It builds upon previous
concept-demonstration bench top versions of plasma wiffleballs. As such, it comes under the FAR 35.001
definition of applied research. The contract will be for a wiffleball 8 with 2 options for modifications to the
wiffleball based upon it’s success.
*** Key last sentance above ***
3.1.4 Within 30 days of build and test of WB8, the contractor shall provide a predictive model of WB behavior
including data points for detailed 2D/3D profile measurements of plasma density, ion energy and WB magnetic field structure during follow-on tests to validate the scientific basis for a Polywell fusion power reactor, and guide
further research. The contractor shall coordinate with the Government for a program review meeting at the
contractor’s facilities to be held no later than 40 days after the testing of the WB8 and shall provide the detailed
predictive model and data points at this program review meeting.
3.1.6 The contractor shall deliver a conceptual design for a follow-on fusion demonstration device, WB-9.
Conceptual studies will focus on the feasibility of extending the WB-8 results to this device and determining the
suitability of this concept as a fusion reactor. This design will be delivered at the end of the contract.
*** Possible key point last sentance above ***
3.2.1 Enhanced Ion Drive with PB11 (proton/boron 11): Based on the results of WB8 testing, and the availability
of government funds the contractor shall develop a WB machine (WB8.1) which incorporates the knowledge and
improvements gained in WB8. It is expected that higher ion drive capabilities will be added, and that a “PB11”
reaction will be demonstrated. The contractor shall investigate and validate the plasma scaling laws with respect to
B-field, voltage and reactor size. The contractor shall investigate the feasibility of a neutron-free fusion power
reaction using a polywell WB machine. It is anticipated that improvements in WB confinement, ion energy, and
fusion reactivity will be demonstrated in WB8.1. Improvements over the WB8 predictive, computational model are
expected, which should yield a better understanding of the WB fusion reaction thus allowing optimization of the
WB machine.
3.2.2 The contractor shall deliver a report detailing the results of the experimental testing of WB8.1. The report
shall provide sufficient information to guide programmatic and design decisions about further, refined design efforts
for similar devices. The report shall address the plasma dynamics of WB devices, and shall address the scaling laws
that apply to polywell fusion, and the feasibility of the PB11 reaction. The report shall address the conceptual
requirements for a polywell fusion reactor capable of generating approximately 100mW. (A0001)
3.2.4 The contractor shall refine the experimental database created under paragraph 3.1.4 including detailed 2D/3D
profile measurements of plasma density, ion energy and WB magnetic field structure to validate the scientific basis
for a Polywell fusion power reactor and to guide further research. The contractor shall coordinate with the
Government for a program review meeting at the contractor’s facilities to be held no later than 40 days after the
testing of the PB11 and shall demonstrate the database at this program review meeting.
WB8 = Good for DD, not good enough for PB&J => WB9 DD
WB8 = GAHREAT for DD, looks good for PB&J => WB 8.1 (and Ion Gun)
WB8.1 = Good for PB&J => WB9 PB&J 100mW or MW (lawyer driven item
)Regardless of promise => Modeling and Databases at WB8, WB 8.1, way ahead plan or drop it discussion each time.
<OR> Alternative interpretation:
WB8 => Results report/meeting and WB9 DD/DT Design => Decision for WB8.1 PB&J attempt
WB8.1 => Results/Report meeting and 100m(M)W PB&J proposal/concept package => Way Ahead coneptual plan => new contracts...or not...
Excerpts from Statement of Work:
1.1 Background
This procurement...<<< BLAH BLAH BLAH>>> exploring the concept. The current effort will build on what has been
completed under these previous contracts as well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential
applications of AGEE with a delivered item, wiffleball 8 (WB8) and options for a modified wiffleball 8 (WB8.1)
and modified ion gun. The objective of this procurement is validation of the basic physics of the AGEE concept as
well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of AGEE. It builds upon previous
concept-demonstration bench top versions of plasma wiffleballs. As such, it comes under the FAR 35.001
definition of applied research. The contract will be for a wiffleball 8 with 2 options for modifications to the
wiffleball based upon it’s success.
*** Key last sentance above ***
3.1.4 Within 30 days of build and test of WB8, the contractor shall provide a predictive model of WB behavior
including data points for detailed 2D/3D profile measurements of plasma density, ion energy and WB magnetic field structure during follow-on tests to validate the scientific basis for a Polywell fusion power reactor, and guide
further research. The contractor shall coordinate with the Government for a program review meeting at the
contractor’s facilities to be held no later than 40 days after the testing of the WB8 and shall provide the detailed
predictive model and data points at this program review meeting.
3.1.6 The contractor shall deliver a conceptual design for a follow-on fusion demonstration device, WB-9.
Conceptual studies will focus on the feasibility of extending the WB-8 results to this device and determining the
suitability of this concept as a fusion reactor. This design will be delivered at the end of the contract.
*** Possible key point last sentance above ***
3.2.1 Enhanced Ion Drive with PB11 (proton/boron 11): Based on the results of WB8 testing, and the availability
of government funds the contractor shall develop a WB machine (WB8.1) which incorporates the knowledge and
improvements gained in WB8. It is expected that higher ion drive capabilities will be added, and that a “PB11”
reaction will be demonstrated. The contractor shall investigate and validate the plasma scaling laws with respect to
B-field, voltage and reactor size. The contractor shall investigate the feasibility of a neutron-free fusion power
reaction using a polywell WB machine. It is anticipated that improvements in WB confinement, ion energy, and
fusion reactivity will be demonstrated in WB8.1. Improvements over the WB8 predictive, computational model are
expected, which should yield a better understanding of the WB fusion reaction thus allowing optimization of the
WB machine.
3.2.2 The contractor shall deliver a report detailing the results of the experimental testing of WB8.1. The report
shall provide sufficient information to guide programmatic and design decisions about further, refined design efforts
for similar devices. The report shall address the plasma dynamics of WB devices, and shall address the scaling laws
that apply to polywell fusion, and the feasibility of the PB11 reaction. The report shall address the conceptual
requirements for a polywell fusion reactor capable of generating approximately 100mW. (A0001)
3.2.4 The contractor shall refine the experimental database created under paragraph 3.1.4 including detailed 2D/3D
profile measurements of plasma density, ion energy and WB magnetic field structure to validate the scientific basis
for a Polywell fusion power reactor and to guide further research. The contractor shall coordinate with the
Government for a program review meeting at the contractor’s facilities to be held no later than 40 days after the
testing of the PB11 and shall demonstrate the database at this program review meeting.
True, though it's been suggested we may be seeing beam-background fusions which have much weaker scaling.B^4*R^3 scaling isn't much in doubt... Loss scaling is much more in doubt.
I thought about posting the same question for losses, but I haven't tried to figure what's a "good" loss at WB-8 conditions.
Well, p-B11 is going to be much more challenging. Since the payoff for a successful reactor is so high, I think they will definitely try 100MW D-D/T first (unless they do both at once). If they can get even 10MW output it will raise eyebrows all over the world. The benefit of p-B11 is mostly commercial.Yes, but the WB-9 design requirement is ambiguous. I think it will most likely be based on the which worked better factor...WB8 or 8.1
Of course, we've known for years they were putting together reactor designs for both, though this is apparently the first formal mention of them in a contract.
No radishes or horse radishes or horses. Pie will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...