Bussard’s Polywell Fusion Passes a Major Test

[ohiovr]

http://the-briefing.com/external/bussar ... test/view/

[ohiovr]

moderators: If this is a dupe please remove. I found this on google alerts.

[D Tibbets]

I don't recall seeing it before. It is just another source reporting the news. There are some glaring miss statements, but it does get across the point that this is a critical step for this approach.

Dan Tibbets

[mattman]

I just got on there and left this comment:

====
Thanks for covering this research. It does not get the attention it deserves (just yet). It is very exciting, for people like you, who can see the implications and possibilities. I have some comments to your article:

1.The polywell works as follows:
1a. The rings make a magnetic field.
1b. Electrons are trapped in this field.
1c. The electrons make a negative cloud
1d. The positive ions fall into that cloud.
1e. The ions speed rises.
1f. Ions slam into one another and fuse.

That last step is the fusion mechanism. The polywell (like all IEC machines, fusors, POPS,ect…) uses an electric field to heat ions to fusion conditions.

2. Dr. Robert Bussard developed the concept of the polywell. His machines are named WB5, WB6, ect… the “Whiffle Ball” was a term used to describe how electrons are trapped – like marbles in a whiffle ball. The navy paper gives us a much deeper, better and clearer understanding of this trapping – so much so, that I think the term “whiffle ball” will be phased out for a better description of cusped confinement.

3.Your coverage of the Navy work is good – the big conclusion is that the polywell may be the worlds’ best plasma trap. ITER has a trapping 0.03, where as this is approaching 1.

4.The Navy uses 8 diagnostics. They are getting data that “polywell watchers” have wanted for many, many years… The Navy can do this because they can pay for the tools required. Both Bussard and the University of Sydney teams never had enough cash to get these measurements.

5.Eric lerner does not have a PhD. Calling him “Dr. Lerner” is not appropriate.

Finally, the navy has tapped into a very old, very extensive body of fusion work: ~200 or so papers worth of work, dating from ~1954 to ~1980. Good review papers by: Spalding (1971) and Haines (1977). All of this work centers on the idea of “cusped confinement”. Cusped confinement was never really seen experimentally (at its full potential) it was always an “on paper” idea. We collectively need to resurrect this old body of knowledge and figure out where to go with it.

====

But I think it needs to be approved before it will show up!

[krenshala]

Just looked at that page and see a comment from M.Simon, but not the one you show above.

[MSimon]

Just looked at that page and see a comment from M.Simon, but not the one you show above.

The editor is an old friend (I actually helped him start blogging). I'll have a word with him.