Lawrenceville plasma physics June update

[chrismb]

As for WB-7 results... well, the most salient piece of data in our possession is that they're building WB-8. It's a bigger commitment of resources than any machine in the WB series received by an order of magnitude. That says Navy reviewers were probably satisfied they had answered the small-machine questions.

This is a remarkable piece of wishful thinking.

If there were indications of success at stage X, then you would THEN plan a programme of further tests, X+1, X+2, &c. to show a roadmap to a final build and also to provide confidence into the programme that it can get built what it *needs* to get built. It would be thoughtless to plan for ONLY an X+1 in an experimental setting because once built something may've not quite been right with it, and you'd not scrap a programme just 'cos one experiment doesn't work out after you've already shown some successes.

However, you would consider scrapping a programme of tests if they had repeatedly failed to deliver. The only question if you have a series of duds is; which is the last dud gonna be. If you still have doubts either way, you'd build them one at a time.

Therein lies your answer. It is either one of a series of debatable duds, or the Navy is so cunning that they know people would think through the logic above and only funding one at a time to create confusion.

[vankirkc]

My money is on dud. I think there may have been some merit at the beginning, but the secrecy and smokescreen tells me this is just a sophisticated swindle of the US taxpayer.

[ltgbrown]

If there were indications of success at stage X, then you would THEN plan a programme of further tests, X+1, X+2, &c. to show a roadmap to a final build

Isn't that exactly what the Navy did? They built WB-7, did the experiment, looked at the results and then issued a contract for WB-8 (X+1), laid out plans for WB-8.1 (X+2), and said to start putting plans together for a proposal for how to move forward on building a demo if WB-8 is successful (a final build). So, they did exactly what you said. None of that was planned prior to completion of WB-7 and the peer review. So, YOU have successfully convinced me they have seen "indications of success".

Thank you. I will sleep with a smile on my face tonight!

[GIThruster]

My money is on dud. I think there may have been some merit at the beginning, but the secrecy and smokescreen tells me this is just a sophisticated swindle of the US taxpayer.

If funding for Poly is secure, then there's no reason Rick would put out data unless Navy said that's fine.

Navy has no reason to disseminate the data, so, no news is. . .well. . .no news!

[ladajo]

My money is on dud. I think there may have been some merit at the beginning, but the secrecy and smokescreen tells me this is just a sophisticated swindle of the US taxpayer.

If funding for Poly is secure, then there's no reason Rick would put out data unless Navy said that's fine.

Navy has no reason to disseminate the data, so, no news is. . .well. . .no news!

Ahh, the point at hand. The navy did say it was ok, EMC claimed proprietary. I have that on first hand knowledge.

@ltgbrown: They did plan the path prior to WB7 results. It showed in various iterations, but more or less, what is on paper now is what they wanted to do for a while. The difference is that they now have money in hand an money earmarked to move through WB8.1, and They even were so bold enough to state that they expected positive results on WB8, and then therefore expect to execute WB8.1.
I think the results (WB7) have been positive enough, with engineering questions looming. I also think that WB8.1 was written in and conditionally contracted to drive the question/decision to go large with a DD or a PB&J demo.
I remain an optimist, albiet a bitter one over the way they have chosen to manage the visibility so far. But in fairness I must say, they have been able to keep it rolling forward, and thus deserve some credit.
Maybe I can figure out a way to be at OPTEVFOR when it finally rolls in the door...

[GIThruster]

Yes well, while optimism may make one seem naive and foolish at times, pessimism makes one seem grumpy, and that NEVER gets the chicks.

[TallDave]

As for WB-7 results... well, the most salient piece of data in our possession is that they're building WB-8. It's a bigger commitment of resources than any machine in the WB series received by an order of magnitude. That says Navy reviewers were probably satisfied they had answered the small-machine questions.

This is a remarkable piece of wishful thinking.

If there were indications of success at stage X, then you would THEN plan a programme of further tests, X+1, X+2, &c. to show a roadmap to a final build and also to provide confidence into the programme that it can get built what it *needs* to get built. It would be thoughtless to plan for ONLY an X+1 in an experimental setting because once built something may've not quite been right with it, and you'd not scrap a programme just 'cos one experiment doesn't work out after you've already shown some successes.

However, you would consider scrapping a programme of tests if they had repeatedly failed to deliver. The only question if you have a series of duds is; which is the last dud gonna be. If you still have doubts either way, you'd build them one at a time.

Therein lies your answer. It is either one of a series of debatable duds, or the Navy is so cunning that they know people would think through the logic above and only funding one at a time to create confusion.

Uh, that's some remarkably wishful thinking of your own, ignoring the known facts. You do realize WB-8 is maybe the 12th Polywell machine, and the Navy contract calls for a reactor design to be delivered at the end of the contract (i.e., it is in fact a "programme")?

The fact the funding has suddenly jumped an order of magnitude says most likely the WB-7 results validated Bussard's claims of having worked out small machine issues. Otherwise, they would much more likely have said something like "Give us another small machine to address X, Y, and Z" and not asked for a reactor design.

[TallDave]

Ahh, the point at hand. The navy did say it was ok, EMC claimed proprietary. I have that on first hand knowledge.

A FOIA request is a legal issue, not one of preference. Not having legal grounds to deny a FOIA request isn't the same as being okey-dokey with releasing the data. As I've said before, you may be reading too much into the proprietary claim.

Subverting a FOIA without legal grounds can get one in some hot water, as some folks in the climate field found out.

[Maui]

Isn't that exactly what the Navy did? They built WB-7, did the experiment, looked at the results and then issued a contract for WB-8 (X+1), laid out plans for WB-8.1 (X+2), and said to start putting plans together for a proposal for how to move forward on building a demo if WB-8 is successful (a final build). So, they did exactly what you said. None of that was planned prior to completion of WB-7 and the peer review. So, YOU have successfully convinced me they have seen "indications of success".

I think the recovery act could explain WB-8 perhaps better than "indications of success" could. The gov hung a whole lot of money out for the taking. Given that alternative energy is something almost everyone is interested in these days, it wouldn't be hard to imagine gatekeepers to the money looking past less than convincing data and being easily swayed by the prospect of cheap, clean, US energy. It sounds sexy. That's why we're here, isn't it?

I'm sure there are people in power that want to believe as much as most of us here do... but the response to the FOIA request crushed most of the hope I had held out there. I haven't quite filed it in the EESTOR drawer yet, but I'm not far from it.

[TallDave]

think the recovery act could explain WB-8 perhaps better than "indications of success" could

I'm sure it was a factor. But again, if they hadn't worked out small machine issues, why build a 10x more expensive machine with magnets 8x as strong?

The B field loss scaling is probably now the big open question. They could not have answered that with another small machine, hence WB-8. If the scaling is favorable, indications are they want to build a reactor. That would be a huge deal.

Now, I would guess Rick would have been happy to try a reactor, but there are sufficient unknowns that they don't want to spend $100M and really embarass themselves, so an intermediate machine makes sense.

[Maui]

But again, if they hadn't worked out small machine issues, why build a 10x more expensive machine with magnets 8x as strong?

If the $ isn't a factor, why not?

[TallDave]

But again, if they hadn't worked out small machine issues, why build a 10x more expensive machine with magnets 8x as strong?

If the $ isn't a factor, why not?

Bigger money means bigger embarassment if it doesn't work, and bigger energies mean failure could be that much messier. Also, it would take longer, which could actually impede progress. Bussard seemed to make a new machine every year or so.

[KitemanSA]

To bring some reality into this discussion, the currently approved contract is SMALLER than a previously approved contract, so there is no "order of magnitude bigger funding".

As to lack of publicity: there are a large number of reasons, many of which have been discussed. But it could all just come down to a cranky admiral saying "I don't want to hear about..." and having a lower rank fellow say "Aye aye, sir".

[TallDave]

To bring some reality into this discussion, the currently approved contract is SMALLER than a previously approved contract, so there is no "order of magnitude bigger funding".

Hmm? Which one would that be? AFAIK, Bussard never built a machine anywhere near as expensive as WB-8. MPG-1,2, WB1-6, the PXLs... they're all fairly small and cheap from I can gather from Valencia. Maybe we're talking machine vs. contract. Bussard did build some things in parallel.

I've also been wondering lately what PXL stands for. Maybe it's in one of those papers.

[ladajo]

The PCR's were the first builds on the concept lines. It was a significant project in money terms. I will have to look it up again.

Pacific Coast Research.

Edit: It was Pacific Sierra Research, not Pacific Coast, Sorry...
Late 80's timeframe. They demonstrated Electron Confinement using a Magrid approach. Ie: Wiffleball Effect.