mvanwink5 wrote:Art, no disrespect, I understand that you have skill in the theory, but I don't believe R. Nebel is playing with words, but that is just me. Thanks for your reply.
Diogenes, it is not odd, it is just my failing. Perhaps if I had understood your objection better I would have remembered it. Still, I will wait for test results. Thanks for your thoughts.
The arguments of biploar flow in the cusps has been argued by A. Carlson and others before. From my admittedly limited understanding, it would be reasonable if it was a static situation, a neutral plasma, or if local coulumb forces dominated in a fusion plasma- which they do not (at least from one reference I have read). Because the plasma contains excess electrons which are immediatly replaced as they leak out, the net negative charge inside the magrid stops most ions before thay can enter deeply into the cusps. Meanwhile the electrons are actually being pushed out, so that if they find a hole in the Wiffleball, they will depart. Very few ions will spend enough time so close to these individual electrons that their local fields will effect the ions more than the space charge (hopefully I am using the right term) inside the magrid. This is my justification for prefering R. Nebel's position that the cusps are not ambipolar.
Also, keep in mind Bussard's claim that energy loss due to ions leaking out are trivial because they are at the top of their potential well, as opposed to the electrons, which are at bottom of their potential well. While recirculation will presumably reduce the nessisary electron gun current by a factor of ~ 10-100(?), it will not effect the ions much. The only (sort of) concerns about ion losses is maintaining the external vacuum, and any knob adjustments nessisary to maintain the accelerating potential on the magrid.
TallDave wrote: Yes, I've made that point as well. The other scaling questions are so much more important, why screw around with a new geometry at this point when it isn't even an order of magnitude?
Because some new geometries may just solve the electron loss problem.
TallDave wrote: Yes, I've made that point as well. The other scaling questions are so much more important, why screw around with a new geometry at this point when it isn't even an order of magnitude?
Because some new geometries may just solve the electron loss problem.
Or make it worse. (the theory I favor).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
KitemanSA wrote:Because some new geometries may just solve the electron loss problem.
Or make it worse. (the theory I favor).
What about four-sided, a 3D pyramid? Already covered somewhere no doubt...
The problem with a pyramid is that it does not have an even number of faces in which two face each other. I don't know about a truncated pyramid. I assume the opposing faces need to be symetrical and like sized.
I registered here when I heard about these new developments (i.e. the website update). I'm a fission person myself, and I'm follow developments in many different approaches for future sustainable energy.
I find it awfully bizarre that the only information the public has been given is a website update, and this entire thread was prompted by that. It sounds like they're obtaining encouraging results, but it's strange to not have a reliable outlet for this. Or maybe I'm just missing something - one reason I'm posting here. Do we have concrete releases substantiating that phase 1 is complete??
I've seen other people mention FOIA requests, and I hope they turn up something, or the company (and non-profit organization which is confusing) just release some credible updates.
But overall this is not encouraging in terms of the potential for success of polywell fusion versus other attempts. To be honest, the danger of them coming up with something that is so promising that we need to keep it safe from China and/or competitors is not worthy of merit in the slightest. Economical fusion will not be achieved in any shocking breakthrough and the only way it really can happen is for the current players to come out with humble and realistic results then for everyone to put their heads together to figure out how to finally crack the problem.
I just thought I'd share the observations of an unconnected observer...
MSimon wrote:Or make it worse. (the theory I favor).
What about four-sided, a 3D pyramid? Already covered somewhere no doubt...
The problem with a pyramid is that it does not have an even number of faces in which two face each other. I don't know about a truncated pyramid. I assume the opposing faces need to be symetrical and like sized.
A tetrahedron (4 sided pyramid, i.e. four equilateral triangles) will not work per the original thesis of Dr. B.'s patent (even number of fields at each vertex). A RECTIFIED tetrahedron will. A rectified tetrahedron is also known as an octahedron, and appears to be the suitable polyhedron with the lowest number of magnets possible (4).
What it gains in simplicity, it may lose in sphericity.
MSimon wrote: Or make it worse. (the theory I favor).
You seem to favor any theory that opposes any thought process that doesn't lead to your salvaged SC MRI magnet design.
Maybe I am just seeing things, but you seemed to argue against the simplicity of the octahedron and the sphericity of the icosidodecahedron. What do you believe you know that Dr.B. didn't?
Still nothing on Cosmic Log. MSimon or anyone else who talked to A.Boyle: did it sound like he might not write anything at all given the lack of news to report?
media blackout or no, EMC2 website is pretty darn poor imo. cant they afford a few shillings for a make-over and a bit more gumph? or are they really not bothered about attracting additional investment and academic/public interest?
I think that website is fine ... compared to tomligon.com.
Needs a lot more pages of data, though.
That web page was created by Dr. Bussard, a fellow who still thought black and white overhead transparencies created on a photocopier was the modern way to do presentations. I thought it was quite remarkable, actually.
All Rick has ever done is update the info a little while retaining the original structure.
If they paid a web designer for eight hours of time, it might spend all it ever raised.
Please note the most recent change to the website. The WB8 "accomplishment" has been recredited to WB7.1. Unfortunately, it is still under the same picture which raises the question, is that the WB8 or not?
TallDave wrote: Yes, I've made that point as well. The other scaling questions are so much more important, why screw around with a new geometry at this point when it isn't even an order of magnitude?
Because some new geometries may just solve the electron loss problem.
Well, again, it's not expected to make even an order of magnitude difference. I'm not sure what problem you're referring to; if electron losses were way out of line with expectations and you just couldn't make it work with a truncube, you might try a dodec, but afaik there's nothing to suggest that's the case.
The picture is certainly confusing. 2010 is WB-8 territory, there was no ".1" add-on to WB-7, and the timeline below still says WB-8. My money is on a typo by a web designer.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
TallDave wrote: Yes, I've made that point as well. The other scaling questions are so much more important, why screw around with a new geometry at this point when it isn't even an order of magnitude?
Because some new geometries may just solve the electron loss problem.
Well, again, it's not expected to make even an order of magnitude difference. I'm not sure what problem you're referring to; if electron losses were way out of line with expectations and you just couldn't make it work with a truncube, you might try a dodec, but afaik there's nothing to suggest that's the case.
The picture is certainly confusing. 2010 is WB-8 territory, there was no ".1" add-on to WB-7, and the timeline below still says WB-8. My money is on a typo by a web designer.
I'm guessing that WB7.1 was WB7 modified with ion guns instead of gas puffers. EMC2 did get some suplimental funding to develope ion guns and use them (?) after the WB7 results were reviewed.