Alan Bolye's Latest Artice

[Betruger]

By it, you mean WB7 at the moment of that picture?

[Skipjack]

Well by the end of the day Dr Nebel threw us a bone, I guess. But it is really nothing more than that. From Alans Article and the website, we dont really know anything beyond what we could have guessed already before. If it works, we will get another prototype...
Yo, not really that exciting in my book, sorry.
I think a year from now is a good guess as to when we will know more.

[BenTC]

I have a better one: they are trying to divert Chinese scientists into a dead end.

Not that that will do any good. They must have enough to spare in that billion population.

[TallDave]

I like Rick's position on this:

"No B.S. and no excuses," Nebel told me over the weekend. "If it looks like we have a problem with this, we're going to tell them."

I got the impression there was some previous B scaling work, though obviously nothing went as far as .8T, and as Rick says, beware extrapolations from small machines. So this will be interesting.

I have a better one: they are trying to divert Chinese scientists into a dead end.

Not that that will do any good. They must have enough to spare in that billion population.

You would think so, but as it turns out ~500 million are barely literate peasants making <$1,000/yr. Also, what they call "engineers" we often call "mechanics" so don't be fooled by the claims they're graduating 10x more engineers.

[MSimon]

Did I miss it? No mention whatsoever of EMC2's refusal to explain any quantitative measurements?

Plasma shines brightly inside EMC2 Fusion's WB-7 device

Proof [if any were needed] that it isn't working in a 'net-energy' mode.

Dang. A machine not expected to produce net energy is not producing net energy. The magic has failed. Time to call in the distance seeing folks for a better look.

[rcain]

I like Rick's position on this:

"No B.S. and no excuses," Nebel told me over the weekend. "If it looks like we have a problem with this, we're going to tell them."

well, he's hardly likely to say

"All B.S. and all excuses," .. "If it looks like we have a problem with this, we're not going to tell them."

so, 'zilch'.

China are by all accounts ramping up their fusion focus - see here: http://www.fusion.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?id=42

...though in my opinion its Japan (esp Kyoto) who are more likely to yield left-field (as opposed to mainstream) advances.

[MSimon]

rcain,

Well no. He is not likely to say that. But why address the question at all?

[chrismb]

Dang. A machine not expected to produce net energy is not producing net energy. The magic has failed. Time to call in the distance seeing folks for a better look.

Well, OK. So what 'mode' was this operating in at the time the picture was taken? I don't see why the confinement should be this bright when it is not producing any energy [if there are next to no lossy thermalising collisions going on].

This picture appears to show lossy collision processes from a flux at the cusps. I recognise all the associated risks with 'photo-diagnostics', and you may well be right that this has no bearing on intended operation, but why are we seeing cusp patterns if this is an experiment of 'intent', indicated by it being prominent on the home page? I would've added the sub-title "operation in a demonstration mode (with high pressure background to show cusps)" to avoid the possible misconceptions from people like moi.

[mvanwink5]

Once WB-8 is up and running, how long will it take the Navy to decide to fund WB-8.1 and WB-D with all hands on deck if scaling holds?

[D Tibbets]

The lack of AVAIBLE imformation is frustrating. But, while claimes based on this cloaked data need to be viewed with skeptimisim, the opposite also applies. Saying a process is invalid because you cannot see the data is fragile. In that case all you can do is adopt a wait and see attitude, or argue merits based of other data and theory that you think applies. The selection and application of these independent ideas need to be carefully selected for appropiatness. This is the basis of arguments about the validity of the process that are argued here.

I get the impression that attitudes are sometimes driven by the limited results and conclusions derived from WB 6 alone. Rember that this machine was the last in a long line of various machines which measured various things. NPG used up to 30,000 volts drive energy with ~80 Gauss magnetic fields. PZLx-1 operated at 15,000 volts drive energy and 35,000 Gauss magnetic field strengths. WB 5 data is absent, but it did drive home the importance of electron recirculation, and possibly cusp plugging effects and cusp ion flow chariteristics under some conditions.
The various machines reportedly lead to the developement of the models and were apparently consistant with predictions.

http://www.mare.ee/indrek/ephi/images.pdf

The lean budget did not allow for some measurement methods, and some of the data might be suspect. The confirmation of WB6 results by WB7, using improved diagnostics in at least one instance (as mentioned by Dr Nebel) is encouraging.

One area that is silent in any leaked results is the contibution of bremsstrulung losses in the D-D reaction. This would give confirming or confounding information about the potential well shape and energy distribution of the ions and electrons. Presumably the predicted bremsstrulung flux would be substantially different for a plasma ball near Maxwellian conditions -vs.- the picture put forth by Bussard, etel. Even with the short pulsed tests, the x- ray flux would presumably be great enough to get meaningfull measurements. The x-ray detector would need to be inside the vacuum vessel as the penitration of the produced x-rays would not be much at only a few 10's of KeV.

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

Once WB-8 is up and running, how long will it take the Navy to decide to fund WB-8.1 and WB-D with all hands on deck if scaling holds?

It depends on priorities. They might go for the full up demo project right away, or they might choose to go in a piecemeal approach by testing various magrid configurations, scaling levels, etc. This would develope a more robust physics, engeenering and prognostication base for future developement. From a Navy standpoint, if they expect that it would take 10 to 15 years before they could expect to begin building new ships with this technology, they might go this approach, especially if they hope to maintain a low profile.
I'm guessing that political and funding priorities might favor an early Demo phase. The opposite could also occur. Political (read - competative energy technology intrests) could supress or delay the process as much as possible. This is where open distribution of the data becomes critical.

Dan Tibbets

[rcain]

...But why address the question at all?

...because it sounds better than a plain 'no comment' - which is actually what he means.

[MSimon]

Once WB-8 is up and running, how long will it take the Navy to decide to fund WB-8.1 and WB-D with all hands on deck if scaling holds?

I'd estimate 1 month after review. Say 12 to 18 months from now.

And the money will be no problem. Our government (such as it is) will be desperate for some good news.

[MSimon]

Political (read - competative energy technology intrests) could supress or delay the process as much as possible. This is where open distribution of the data becomes critical.

There are very large corporations out there willing to put up the money if the WB-8 turns out positive.

[Toole]

I've read somewhere on internet (some russian noname physicist posted on some russian board) that WB-7 reached 10E9 neutrons for D-D reaction.
It is only unreliable rumor,of course.

If it is true- is it good or is it bad?