The vertices being the closest approach, where the magnets are closest together....two toroidal magnets. On either side of these vertices, the sort of triangle opening between magnets...the virtual magnets. Virtual magnets being where multiple magnetic fields come together? One side of the funny cusp?
Yes, the vertex is the closest approach of the toroids in the WB series,
The vertex is where the “funny” cusp should be, but since the toroids spread across the vertex too broadly, the WB has line cusps instead. Line cusps are supposed to be far leakier than point or funny cusps. But, since they have not yet built a machine that produces funny cusps instead of line, that is still theoretical.
Note that a spherical machine with a conformal cube-octahedral MaGrid would have funny cusps where every magnet would meet with 90 degree corners, both the squares and the triangles. Amazing how spherical geometry works!
Ok I think I get it. The magrid being grounded does not adequately stop electrons from squeezing past the magnets. So the magrid shouldn't be grounded...what is it currently grounded to? ...part of a generator circuit..earth ground? Stupid question I'm sure. My understanding is kinda here and there.
Being grounded prevents the MaGrid from recapturing the electrons that do squeeze thru the cusps.
Grounded to the chamber wall. With no positive potential tween the MaGrid and the chamber wall, the electrons just fly on out and dump their energy into said wall. If the MaGrid has a great enough positive potential, it will draw the electrons back (recapture them).
Besides not making the chamber a ground what about charging the chamber wall? Or would you end up trapping electrons between the chamber and magrid?
As stated before, there needs to be a high potential between the MaGrid and the universe (the chamber wall). It can be a very positive MaGrid, a very negative chamber wall, or some combo of both. IMHO, the positive MaGrid is by far the best option.
There are three appropriate polygons for a Polywell, an octagon, a cube-octagon, and an icosidodecahedron.
The picture shown is another truly awful implementation, but of the icosidodecahedron. Each of the large faces should have 5 edges, not 10; and the vertices should meet at a point, not a line! It too should be projected onto a sphere.
This unit is also replete with line cusps, not good.
The graphic below a cuboctahedron. The edges are the magnets. There is one combined magnet between each adjacent square and triangle. Because realistic building practices make sharp corners undesirable, the vertices (small globes) would actually have small gaps where the 4 magnet corners are rounded and thus don’t meet. That gap is what I call a “naked” funny cusp.
Now, wrap that cuboctahedron in a sphere and project the magnets onto said sphere and voila!
There are three appropriate polygons for a Polywell, an octagon, a cube-octagon, and an icosidodecahedron.
The picture shown is another truly awful implementation, but of the icosidodecahedron. Each of the large faces should have 5 edges, not 10; and the vertices should meet at a point, not a line! It too should be projected onto a sphere.
This unit is also replete with line cusps, not good.
The graphic below a cuboctahedron. The edges are the magnets. There is one combined magnet between each adjacent square and triangle. Because realistic building practices make sharp corners undesirable, the vertices (small globes) would actually have small gaps where the 4 magnet corners are rounded and thus don’t meet. That gap is what I call a “naked” funny cusp.
Now, wrap that cuboctahedron in a sphere and project the magnets onto said sphere and voila!
The graphic below a cuboctahedron. The edges are the magnets. There is one combined magnet between each adjacent square and triangle. Because realistic building practices make sharp corners undesirable, the vertices (small globes) would actually have small gaps where the 4 magnet corners are rounded and thus don’t meet. That gap is what I call a “naked” funny cusp.
Now, wrap that cuboctahedron in a sphere and project the magnets onto said sphere and voila!
The lines between the vertices are not line cusps? ....combined magnet?
Yes, combined magnet, no cusp. To clarify (I hope):
In your figure, there are areas with TWO silver segments running parallel, each magnet segment has current running opposite each other. That creates a pair of opposed magnets, thus a line cusp between them.
In my figure, each silver segment is a combo of two magnet segments (one from the square magnet, one from the triangle) with current funning in the SAME directing… effectively ONE magnet, no cusp.
In between any two or more magnets, anywhere on the magrid, the field lines should be going in the same direction...
I always assumed this to be the case but I am a layman. Why would Bussard do this to begin with?
AFAIK, historically speaking, I believe he was just trying to protect the highly charged grid against electron loss (electrons impacting the grid, the magnets deflecting the electrons away). Subsequently, he and his team decided that they could MAGNETICALLY contain the electrons too, and that containment was good.
IMHO the combination of magnetic AND electro-static containment of the electrons is best.
In between any two or more magnets, anywhere on the magrid, the field lines should be going in the same direction...
I always assumed this to be the case but I am a layman. Why would Bussard do this to begin with?
AFAIK, historically speaking, I believe he was just trying to protect the highly charged grid against electron loss (electrons impacting the grid, the magnets deflecting the electrons away). Subsequently, he and his team decided that they could MAGNETICALLY contain the electrons too, and that containment was good.
IMHO the combination of magnetic AND electro-static containment of the electrons is best.
Regarding what we are talking about (geometry) is this what Dr Park wanted to do?
In between any two or more magnets, anywhere on the magrid, the field lines should be going in the same direction...
I always assumed this to be the case but I am a layman. Why would Bussard do this to begin with?
AFAIK, historically speaking, I believe he was just trying to protect the highly charged grid against electron loss (electrons impacting the grid, the magnets deflecting the electrons away). Subsequently, he and his team decided that they could MAGNETICALLY contain the electrons too, and that containment was good.
IMHO the combination of magnetic AND electro-static containment of the electrons is best.
Regarding what we are talking about (geometry) is this what Dr Park wanted to do?
Not sure. AFAIK, he just wanted a bigger, badder, torus based unit like the WB series. That is what I have been arguing AGAINST. With 3D printing, the sphere conformal, square and triangle magnet cans should be easy enough to print and then wind. The toroids were what was possible, cheaply, at the time. Times have changed. Before too long, they might have changed enough to print the entire magnet, wire, insulation, coolant tubes, can and all!
WRT the magnetic field lines that we were talking about is there agreement about that on this forum?
To this layman it makes sense...but is it the case in past tests wherever field lines were running parallel the electrons were well contained?
Not as much as I would like, but I keep trying.
In past tests with the WB series, the unit was quite leaky so the containment time was very short. Long enough to gather data, not long enough to demonstrate likely positive energy production.
This forum almost died when an Aussie (IIRC) did a calc that demonstrated that the WB wouldn’t work. I question the validity of the calc because it didn’t model an ACTUAL Polywell, as far as I could tell, just the toroidal unit.
With regard to geometry, I believe the requirement is that there are an even number of faces meeting at each vertex, so the current (viewed from the outside) around each of those faces can alternate between clockwise and counter-clockwise. In the cuboctahedron graphic posted by KitemanSA on May 2, one could have the current running clockwise around each square and counter-clockwise around each triangle (or vice-versa). Come to think of it, that means building only the square coils would provide the necessary current along each edge. Or only four triangular coils for the octahedron.
The line cusps found on the edges of the cube are not really leaky. The point cusps at the corners (8 of them) and the point cusps at the centers of each face (6 of them) comprise the 14 leakage points of concern.
Charging the coils is unnecessary for DT, and may not be needed for P-B11 the way thinking is tracking. It was a diversion in practice, and got ahead of the fundamentals: Get High Beta, Drive a deep (-) potential well efficiently enough (dependent on holding High Beta), have sufficient fuel heating (sustained deep well) for fusion.
Physical testing (WB-X) and subsequent sim work shows the point cusps to be the thing to focus on. WB-X proved High Beta (Step 1 in Fundamentals). Old thinking had concerns about the 'line' cusps on the edges. This is no longer a concern.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
The line cusps found on the edges of the cube are not really leaky. The point cusps at the corners (8 of them) and the point cusps at the centers of each face (6 of them) comprise the 14 leakage points of concern.
Charging the coils is unnecessary for DT, and may not be needed for P-B11 the way thinking is tracking. It was a diversion in practice, and got ahead of the fundamentals: Get High Beta, Drive a deep (-) potential well efficiently enough (dependent on holding High Beta), have sufficient fuel heating (sustained deep well) for fusion.
Physical testing (WB-X) and subsequent sim work shows the point cusps to be the thing to focus on. WB-X proved High Beta (Step 1 in Fundamentals). Old thinking had concerns about the 'line' cusps on the edges. This is no longer a concern.
I don't know how to post pics so I'll post Kiteman's link. Using this geometry and what jrvz said (current in squares and triangles in opposite directions): How would this effect the cusps?
