Talk-Polywell.org

Well, you're right, it does say 100 mW, but wasn't WB-6 a 100 mW machine? Does 100 milliwatts even make sense at the stage of development they are referring to with increased coil power and presumably a larger radius to evaluate scaling. Maybe what they mean to say is, "Show Break-Even Power?" But the SOW does say 100 mW, not 100 MW.

Aero wrote:Well, you're right, it does say 100 mW, but wasn't WB-6 a 100 mW machine? Does 100 milliwatts even make sense at the stage of development they are referring to with increased coil power and presumably a larger radius to evaluate scaling. Maybe what they mean to say is, "Show Break-Even Power?" But the SOW does say 100 mW, not 100 MW.

A "typo" so they can exceed expectations?

Aero wrote:Well, you're right, it does say 100 mW, but wasn't WB-6 a 100 mW machine? Does 100 milliwatts even make sense at the stage of development they are referring to with increased coil power and presumably a larger radius to evaluate scaling. Maybe what they mean to say is, "Show Break-Even Power?" But the SOW does say 100 mW, not 100 MW.

Estimates for WB-6 are around 100 uW. A 1,000X jump in power at this stage is significant. If scaling holds it puts you in striking range of theoretical break even with a 3 m 10 T machine.

If they are getting the extra power from increasing the drive voltage (possible due to an increase in B field) we are off to the races.

OK, what is AGEE, and does pulsating refer to the magnitic current, ion current, electron current, or electron drive voltage?

Increasing the current while decreasing the resistivity of the copper wires with cryogenic cooling would allow ~ 8 fold increase in the magnetic field as already mentioned. But, at least a portion of this could also be provided with more windings. Measuring the minor diameter of the WB4 magnet cans (from a picture) showed a ratio of ~ 25% of the major axis, while WB6 and WB7(?) had a 10% ratio. This additional volume would allow ~ 6 times the amp turns or 6 times the magnetic field strength at the same current (+ any additional current needed to compensate for the increased resistance from the longer copper wire run?).
Finally, how much larger of a magrid could they stuff into thier 1 meter vacuum chamber- 40 cm, 45cm?

Looks like an ambious project plan, which I'm guessing will require substantial additional funds if carried to completion. Also, looks like they may need to hire several additional people (or work overtime) just to handle all the government paperwork.


Dan Tibbets

ADVANCED GASEOUS ELECTROSTATIC ENERGY (AGEE)

Aero wrote:Well, you're right, it does say 100 mW, but wasn't WB-6 a 100 mW machine? Does 100 milliwatts even make sense at the stage of development they are referring to with increased coil power and presumably a larger radius to evaluate scaling. Maybe what they mean to say is, "Show Break-Even Power?" But the SOW does say 100 mW, not 100 MW.

Actually, WB 6 was a few hundred microwatt machine, if the neutron counts were acurate. WB 7 may have improved on this somewhat. Also, from my brief reading from M. Simon's blog, the 100mW might refer to a P-B11 machine. A similar D-D machine would presumably be higher as I doubt they are ready to try tackling the higer drive voltages where P-B11 fusion rates competes with D-D rates (or maby they are?).


A handy calculater for deuterium fusion neutrons and power in a Fusor:

http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/fus ... ulator.htm


Dan Tibbets

D Tibbets wrote:OK, what is AGEE, and does pulsating refer to the magnitic current, ion current, electron current, or electron drive voltage?

Increasing the current while decreasing the resistivity of the copper wires with cryogenic cooling would allow ~ 8 fold increase in the magnetic field as already mentioned. But, at least a portion of this could also be provided with more windings. Measuring the minor diameter of the WB4 magnet cans (from a picture) showed a ratio of ~ 25% of the major axis, while WB6 and WB7(?) had a 10% ratio. This additional volume would allow ~ 6 times the amp turns or 6 times the magnetic field strength at the same current (+ any additional current needed to compensate for the increased resistance from the longer copper wire run?).
Finally, how much larger of a magrid could they stuff into thier 1 meter vacuum chamber- 40 cm, 45cm?

Looks like an ambious project plan, which I'm guessing will require substantial additional funds if carried to completion. Also, looks like they may need to hire several additional people (or work overtime) just to handle all the government paperwork.

Dan Tibbets

AGEE is so they don't have to say "Polywell" ;-)

The coil size they are using is about the max size that can be done in a 1 m chamber. If the chamber is square figure about 3X the coil dimensions. For experimental reactors. Power reactors will probably be bigger.

I would think they would go with LN2 cooled Cu (evaporation cooled) to get more shots per hour. If they are getting good results going faster has advantages.

Is it possible we're misreading the 100 milliwatt number? I think they must have have meant megawatts.

Art and I did a calc way back before WB-7 and found a power of about 1 milliwatt for WB-6. When I get time I'll do a calc on the WB-8 fusion power, but my WAG is it would be in the range of a watt with the B^4 scaling (8^4=4096), so 100 milliwatt doesn't really make sense to me as a follow-on.

Yay! I found my WB-6 spreadsheet.


Machine, Tesla, power ratio, fusions, MeV from d fusion, ev produced, joules per eV, joules to watts
WB-6 0.1 1 1.00E+09 12500000 1.25E+16 1.6E-19 0.00200
WB-8 0.8 4096 4.10E+12 12500000 5.12E+19 1.6E-19 8.19200

Not very pretty spacing, but you get the idea hopefully. It's 8W of power at .8T (asuming size remains the same). I guess I could have just done .002W * 4096 but I thought I should start over from the fusions/sec just to be sure.

Aero wrote:I found the statement of work (SOW) quite interesting, especially when they talk of doing pb11 fusion with WB8.1 . Also about delivering specifications for a new device, WB9, to be a 100 MW machine if all goes well with the work on WB8 and WB8.1. The SOW also talks about computer simulations and improved understanding of scaling, to be presented to a big review within 40 days of end of contract. (Before? After?) Good stuff.

This is better news that I could anticipate by reading this forum so far. The computer simulations indicate that they are starting to focus on selecting the best design options for the forthcoming commercial level reactors. Obviously they have confirmed what Dr Bussard has said: Physics is solved, just engineering is remaining (quoted as I remember it).

They must have the WB8 design close to completion if not complete. The USN must have some reasonable degree of confidence in the polywell concept for all this new stuff to be published.

Woohoo! This sounds like good news to my ears! Especially the mention of a PB11 demo, that would awesome.

Talldave's post with prettier spacing.
It's 8W of power at .8T (asuming size remains the same). I guess I could have just done .002W * 4096 but I thought I should start over from the fusions/sec just to be sure.[/quote]

Aero wrote:ADVANCED GASEOUS ELECTROSTATIC ENERGY (AGEE)

This is an interesting acronym.

There is a move in the Japanese game of GO, that could sound the same
"aji" used to describe a move with "far reaching implications".

This project has a lot of aji!

MSimon wrote:https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... _CDRLS.pdf

This is a list of paperwork rqmts and delivery schedules. Monthly progress reports are required.

Conceptual dwgs and models. Scientific papers. - as required.

I suspect they were last time. Doesn't mean we can see them. But one can hope.

But OMG did you see the inventory? Talk about detailed minutia for the techno-cats on this forum.

Time to PLAY!