I added the 1998 Science Mag discussion with Rostoker, Monckton, Carlson, Nevins, etc. about the feasibility of the Colliding Bean Fusion Reactor to the IEC fusion Wikipedia page.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5375/307a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_e ... onfinement
Does that seem appropriate?
Oddly, there is a comment in the discussion from Carlson that appears to claim Rostoker's CBFR isn't IEC, which is a strange assertion. Does that make sense to anyone else? I've always heard it described as IEC, and from what I've seen of the design it seems to meet the definition.
Also, it seems, um, unfortunate that Nevins and Carlson, who have been arguing against the viability of IEC fusion for a decade, are the primary editors of the IEC fusion Wikipedia page (as well as the Polywell page). I'm not saying they're dishonest or deliberately unfair, but they certainly can't claim to be neutral observers. (In one wiki discussion, Carlson says IEC proponents are "totally out of touch with reality"). As I've said before, the tokamakkers will not go quietly.
If anyone here, more knowledgable than I, would like to add their contributions to the relevant Wikipedia pages, it would probably help a lot in terms of giving this tech a chance to prove what it can or can't do. Wikipedia is the first place most people go for information on new subjects, so as this tech gains public attention, it would help if the public wasn't immediately routed to sources that claim it can't work.
I don't want to turn the wikis into a Polywell/IEC sales job, I'd just like to see a chance that the best, most factual arguments win -- not the ones that have the most active advocates.
The CBFR is an IEC scheme, right? Your help solicited
Hrm. Yeah, FRC itself apparently doesn't necessarily have an electrostatic component.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-Reve ... figuration
At the very least, it's non-Maxwellian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-Reve ... figuration
More hrm. Rostoker's does seem to have IEC, though, albeit of electrons not ions.A Field-Reversed Configuration is formed in a cylindrical coil which produces an axial magnetic field. First, an axial bias field is applied, then the gas is pre-ionized, which "freezes in" the bias field, finally the axial field is reversed. At the ends, reconnection of the bias field and the main field occurs, producing closed field lines. The main field is raised further, compressing and heating the plasma and providing a vacuum field between the plasma and the wall.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... NwOzIwyrKAConfinement of the energy of electrons. The electron temperature must be maintained at a high level (tens of kiloelectron volts), or the proton beam slows down too rapidly. If there is significant plasma density at the first wall, electron transport of energy becomes important, reducing the electron temperature. The beam plasma equilibria that have been studied involve a reduction in plasma density at the wall of about 10 orders of magnitude compared to the peak density (10). Thus, there is a broad insulation region (a vacuum) between the plasma and the wall. In addition, the plasma has a positive charge, so that electrons are electrostatically confined by electric fields of the order of 10 kV cm1. In a steady-state reactor, the fusion product plasma extends beyond the fuel plasma. However, the FRC configuration has a natural diverter surrounding the fuel plasma because the magnetic field lines beyond the fuel plasma are open (Fig. 2). Particles that reach the open field lines rapidly scatter out of the plasma region into the direct converter generators (Fig. 3).
At the very least, it's non-Maxwellian.
-
jlumartinez
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
- Location: Spain
Heh, that must be the deletion Carlson was referring to. It was in January iirc.
The CBFR definitely utilizes electrostatic confinement of a sort. One could certainly argue it's not a fusor, but then neither is Polywell, and obviously the CBFR is non-Maxwellian so I would say it qualifies.
We'll just have to wait and see if its deleted I suppose.
The CBFR definitely utilizes electrostatic confinement of a sort. One could certainly argue it's not a fusor, but then neither is Polywell, and obviously the CBFR is non-Maxwellian so I would say it qualifies.
We'll just have to wait and see if its deleted I suppose.
If you look at discussion on IEC Wikipedia article, there is this comment from Carlson:TallDave wrote:Heh, that must be the deletion Carlson was referring to. It was in January iirc.
The CBFR definitely utilizes electrostatic confinement of a sort. One could certainly argue it's not a fusor, but then neither is Polywell, and obviously the CBFR is non-Maxwellian so I would say it qualifies.
We'll just have to wait and see if its deleted I suppose.
So you should definitely write those arguments that CBFR utilizes electrostatic confinement there. Or Carlson would delete it againI have reverted these edits. They seem to apply, like the other edit mentioned in this section, to the CBFR, not to any form of IEC. If you disagree, please explain why here.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-- Benjamin Franklin
Well, the CBFR seems to be non-neutral, so they use electrostatic force. It looks like mirrior devices like this can confine either ions or electrons electrostatically, depending on the plasma charge.scareduck wrote:I don't see how there is ANY electrostatic confinement in the CBFR, save of electrons by the plasma.
Search for the word "electrostatic" in any of the publicly available papers on the subject by the principles. I don't see it, except tangentially (i.e. an electrostatic field generated by plasmas, NOT by the device itself).TallDave wrote:Well, the CBFR seems to be non-neutral, so they use electrostatic force. It looks like mirrior devices like this can confine either ions or electrons electrostatically, depending on the plasma charge.scareduck wrote:I don't see how there is ANY electrostatic confinement in the CBFR, save of electrons by the plasma.
There is a reason. Pure Energy Systems is a nesting ground for loonies. There's a link on the Wiki home page as follows: "New Books Expose Patented UFO Technology, Exotic Propulsion Systems". These guys do not have good BS detectors, or if they do, they do not employ them.
Polywell doesn't directly generate a electrostatic field either. So you could argue it isn't really IEC either, if you want to be that strict.scareduck wrote:Search for the word "electrostatic" in any of the publicly available papers on the subject by the principles. I don't see it, except tangentially (i.e. an electrostatic field generated by plasmas, NOT by the device itself).TallDave wrote:Well, the CBFR seems to be non-neutral, so they use electrostatic force. It looks like mirrior devices like this can confine either ions or electrons electrostatically, depending on the plasma charge.scareduck wrote:I don't see how there is ANY electrostatic confinement in the CBFR, save of electrons by the plasma.
Otherwise, I think you have to accept magnetically confined non-neutral plasmas.