Focus Fusion news story

[ladajo]

I am glad you can see what you wish. That is an important skill. It obviously serves you well.

Why do you persist with fantasy? 5M diameter? Beam Machines?

???

[Joseph Chikva]

Why do you persist with fantasy? 5M diameter?

A gigawatt-sized reactor would be a sphere about 15 meters in diameter.

Now if to admit that scaling R^3 is legit 50 MW power unit needed for warships will have D=5.52m.

This follows Mr./Dr. Larry C. Triola words quoted above. Also Mr./Dr. Larry C. Triola advocates aneutronic pB Polywell for Naval use forgetting that 5.52m aneutronic reactors need not less than 50 m length Direct Energy Converters. While neutronic reactors needed 0.7-1m of thickness blanket. And who from us is a fantazer?
Can you power warships with such power plan as claimed? Even an aircraft carrier?
Will entire power plant (and not only reactor) including reactor, power supply, vacuum systems, shielding and mainly direct energy converter be smaller than for example

S8G
Power: 220 MWth or 60,000 SHP
Reactor Compartment Dimensions: 42 feet in diameter, 55 feet long; 2,750 tons

? That provides as I understand high parameters (pressure, temperature) steam to turbines.
So, we need much smaller than Ф12.6m x 16.5m device producing electricity to electromotors if the goal is to power vessels smaller than carrier.

[KitemanSA]

Ladajo,
Please ignore him.

Joe reads a statement out of context in a report. FAILS to read the VERY NEXT sentance, does fantasy scalling to come up with a fantasy unit size, and claimes the report author said what he claims; even when that very next sentance gives lie to his statement.
He has done this a number of times already. Even when this is pointed ouyt to him he maintains his fantasy.

This is the very like the definition of INSANE.

Joe evinces characteristics of insanity. Please don't encourage him to spew more of it.

[ladajo]

Joe's pet rock is Toroidal confinement and hot plasmas. But he also has his inline beam machine project as a shiny pet rock.

Anything that doesn't work the way he thinks it should, on his terms, is obviously flawed. He doesn't accept that there are things he may not understand, and takes what he thinks he undeerstands as gospel. Combine those ingredients with a resistance to actually read anything and consider it en mass, corrupted by a healthy dose of Cherrypickitis, and we arrive at Joe's standard arguement.

Joe, I am familiar several flavors of G series plants, to include the Reactor Compartments. I am very aware of the sizes and constructs. I can also tell you that Polywell and secondary equipment was envisioned to fit inside an existing Submarine volume. For your education, the average submarine pressure hull (not counting missile sections for those that have them) is 2/3 engineering spaces. The Reactor Compartment is but a chunk of that volume. And Polywell was envisioned to fit inside the RC volume. So what to do with the rest of the available space...hmm...

[Joseph Chikva]

I am very aware of the sizes and constructs. I can also tell you that Polywell and secondary equipment was envisioned to fit inside an existing Submarine volume.

For first my respect. For the second big doubts. "was envisioned" means you know sizes of auxilliary equipment?

[ladajo]

Bussard's proposal's included volume estimations for a fully functional plant. You have already been shown some of this. Previous discussions on this forum have explored space needs several times.
You are correct that energy capture methodology do matter, but you assessments seem off from what I have seen.

For your edification, I have familiarity with S1W, A1W, S5W, S5G, S6G and S8G plants.

[polywellfan]

ting that 5.52m aneutronic reactors need not less than 50 m length Direct Energy Converters.[/u] While neutronic reactors needed 0.7-1m of thickness blanket. And who from us is a fantazer?

Interesting.
Your source for this claim?

[Joseph Chikva]

For your edification, I have familiarity with S1W, A1W, S5W, S5G, S6G and S8G plants.

I feel. But I also feel that nobody here including you do not aware how direct energy converter should work and what size that will have. On pB fuel can speak only that researcher who has not hope to approach to desired goal closely. As pB is too far from today's reality. We are not close even if would use DT.

[Joseph Chikva]

ting that 5.52m aneutronic reactors need not less than 50 m length Direct Energy Converters.[/u] While neutronic reactors needed 0.7-1m of thickness blanket. And who from us is a fantazer?

Interesting.
Your source for this claim?

Which claim? first or second?

[ladajo]

For your edification, I have familiarity with S1W, A1W, S5W, S5G, S6G and S8G plants.

I feel. But I also feel that nobody here including you do not aware how direct energy converter should work and what size that will have. On pB fuel can speak only that researcher who has not hope to approach to desired goal closely. As pB is too far from today's reality. We are not close even if would use DT.

Joseph, you really do not know enough about the folks around here to say that. You also do not know enough about the Polywell project to say the other thing.

Maybe you should take a broader look at Venetian Blinds.

And, in reference to previous post, "Both".

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph, you really do not know enough about the folks around here to say that. You also do not know enough about the Polywell project to say the other thing.

Really?
Direct Energy Conversion design is common for any device producing high energetic charged particles. And I think that you unlike some other Polywellers do know that I a little bit aware with some fusion approaches including some aneutronic. At least my source of knowledge in this branch are fundamental books of Artsimovich, Kristiansen, etc. And not NextBigFuture.

Sources of possible Converters designs are available from the web. One link I have provided several posts above. Though, any of them are extremely undeveloped. And there is not any difficulties in their development. But it needs a lot of man-years. And this is one more reason why I do not believe people who say: "Soon we will have warships powered by pB Polywell". Or may be I missed something and anyone (any group) works on Direct Energy Conversion seriously?
You are interested for where I took my estimation of Converter's length (tens meters)?
I do not remember where I leave old book on accelerator's principles, in which is a chapter on direct energy conversions. I will try to find that book tomorrow if you wish. But believe - real estimation is at least tens meters and may be longer.

70-100cm blanket's thickness is common for any dt reactors. You can simply google key words "test blanket module TBM" and will get up to 10 already developed designs only for ITER. All they have the same mounts and the same thickness. Some of them are cooled by steam, some by high pressure helium.

[polywellfan]

ting that 5.52m aneutronic reactors need not less than 50 m length Direct Energy Converters.[/u] While neutronic reactors needed 0.7-1m of thickness blanket. And who from us is a fantazer?

Interesting.
Your source for this claim?

Which claim? first or second?

First.

[Joseph Chikva]

Interesting.
Your source for this claim?

Which claim? first or second?

First.

See my post above yours.

[hanelyp]

The simplest form of direct conversion system, a collector plate that doesn't bother to sort fusion products by energy, can:
- achieve > 60% efficiency from B11-p fusion alphas. Exact limits depend on energy spread.
- with no more space than in needed between the collector plate and the electron recirculation grid than is needed to prevent vacuum discharge at the operating voltage.

I suspect the required gap is less than the space needed between the magrid and the recirculation grid. 10m spacing for this is ridiculous.

For an advanced venetian blind style collector that sorts the fusion product ions would take more space, but I doubt more than double.

[mvanwink5]

Hanleyp,
This was also obvious to me, I am confused what JC is thinking.
Best regards