Yeah. Why indeed, when those involved have got a nice income funded by the Navy? None at all, because to come out early with positive results would merely mean that others might pick up the mission for themselves, and in doing so accelerate the benefit of fusion to the whole of mankind. Clearly, then, the interest lies in the former reason, rather than the latter. Why bother seeking to benefit mankind when you've got a nice little earner going? OK, so Bussard's founding principles were for non-cartel and beneficial exploitation by all, but, hey, times change, right?Chuck Connors wrote: Why rush to the public when they have the both the need & opportunity to continue fleshing out WB8+. Their current funding is solid- No reason to rock the boat unless they find it necessary to keep up with the Joneses (ie. workable alternative device).
Lawaranceville E-Newsletter
My dismal prediction is simple; DPF will generate fractions to units of joules of energy, just like DPF devices always have, and Polywell will produce micro- to milli-watts of power, just like IEC always have. Delineating specific usage profiles is putting the horse so far in front of the cart that it's out of sight.DeltaV wrote:DPF (we hope) yields megawatts.
Polywell (we hope) yields gigawatts.
Different applications.
Yes, I would tend to think it would have the opposite effect.Skipjack wrote:Funny, I would predict quite the oposite. It would spark more research and more interest in investing in it. The reasoning would be that if one can do it, so can others.That is true, yet a successfull fusion device might sign the end of the fusion research in other apparatus for quite some time.
Unlike Polywell, Lerner has a successfully-applied-for patent in place, and if his innovation, a twist that imparts rotational inertia to the plasma, is the key feature (without which other attempts won't work) then one outcome of success is that others will then steam ahead to work out another method to do fusion that avoids paying him a dime in royalties. At that point, I think there will be a 'gold-rush' of research into fusion, because it will then be seen as a viable area of research on sub-$30bn budgets, and not something that is regarded like it is alchemy (which is currently the case).
I don't see any related outcomes at all. DPF works with thermalising plasmas, Polywell cannot. DPF is intended to work 6 orders of mag pressure above Polywell. DPF uses magnetic field compression, Polywell [as far as I have read material made public so far] appears to use the mystic forces of Peter Pan that say if you believe in something enough, like no thermalisation and annealing, then it will happen.Betruger wrote:Above are many politic-ish pros and cons for EMC2 should DPF work out, but what about the actual technical consequences? It could be that novel understanding due to working DPF could strengthen or weaken Polywell approach.
Polywell will be using the more reliable Glenda Force discovered by a 19th Century humbug. I saw it in a move once. Poppies and snow.chrismb wrote:I don't see any related outcomes at all. DPF works with thermalising plasmas, Polywell cannot. DPF is intended to work 6 orders of mag pressure above Polywell. DPF uses magnetic field compression, Polywell [as far as I have read material made public so far] appears to use the mystic forces of Peter Pan that say if you believe in something enough, like no thermalisation and annealing, then it will happen.Betruger wrote:Above are many politic-ish pros and cons for EMC2 should DPF work out, but what about the actual technical consequences? It could be that novel understanding due to working DPF could strengthen or weaken Polywell approach.
BTW the only reason you need annealing is thermalization. So if you are sure there is no thermalizing that is a BIG breakthrough. Have you announced?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Chuck Connors
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm
-My last comment related to a potential release of information, not necessarily that it was a successful device. But I'll play along.chrismb wrote:Yeah. Why indeed, when those involved have got a nice income funded by the Navy? None at all, because to come out early with positive results would merely mean that others might pick up the mission for themselves, and in doing so accelerate the benefit of fusion to the whole of mankind. Clearly, then, the interest lies in the former reason, rather than the latter. Why bother seeking to benefit mankind when you've got a nice little earner going? OK, so Bussard's founding principles were for non-cartel and beneficial exploitation by all, but, hey, times change, right?Chuck Connors wrote: Why rush to the public when they have the both the need & opportunity to continue fleshing out WB8+. Their current funding is solid- No reason to rock the boat unless they find it necessary to keep up with the Joneses (ie. workable alternative device).
I think you need to step back to earth and a little reality. Bussard was smart enough not to get bogged down in his lofty ideals when the Navy began funding this project, nor unaware of their own motivations. Are you suggesting that EMC2 just to give away their intellectual property.....for the good of mankind? Would Bussard agree with this right now? Excuse me while I laugh hysterically...
If this works- It will mean commercial development, licensing, and big money, and who best to benefit than those doing all the hard work.
..I read what he said as meaning he would, yes.Chuck Connors wrote: Are you suggesting that EMC2 just to give away their intellectual property.....for the good of mankind? Would Bussard agree with this right now?
"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion, and thus to solve the problems posed by excessive dependence on controlled fossil fuel resources - most notably oil. The achievement of full scale IEF clean fusion power systems would allow easy access to energy, both thermal and electrical, for all nations, and all peoples, everywhere - free from cartels and controlled production and pricing. This is a goal worthy of pursuit, and EMC2 will be happy to work with any organization interested in undertaking such a venture."
from "The advent of clean nuclear fusion", R Bussard, EMC2, 57th International Astronautical COngress, Valencia, Spain, Oct 2-6, 2006.
--My highlight. Can you see anywhere in there which says EMC2 want to control the pricing for their own commercial purposes?
If it works, It will mean commercial development, licensing, and big money in the short term. Longer term, the genie will be out of the bottle. Patents will eventually expire. Trade secrets will be stolen or reverse engineered, or independently rediscovered as each nation exerts its complete industrial might to securing their energy future.Chuck Connors wrote:If this works- It will mean commercial development, licensing, and big money, and who best to benefit than those doing all the hard work.
How many years was it after the A-bomb till every other big nation could make them? How long after the nuclear sub? How long after the super computer?
Despite political and motive speculation, there has not been much useful information. The comments by Chrismb are applicable only to aneutronic fusion. A thermalized Polywell will not work for P-B11 fusion*, true, but if you are comparing apples to apples, then a thermalized Polywell (based on other claimed properties) will work better than a Tokamak with DT, and certainly D-D fusion. A DPF would also work better with these fuels. The problem with DPF with these 'easy' fuels is that the neutron flux and heat in this compact machine would quickly destroy them, so commercial viability may be extremely difficult if not impossible.
It all boils down to the achievable densities and thus the critical confinement lifetimes. Temperatures achievable is also certainly important but secondary to this argument.
Claims for the three machines:
Tokamak
Density = ~10^19 or 10^20 ions/ M^3
Confinement time= ~ 800 sec (taken from Chrismb statement)
Polywell
Density=~ 10^22 or 10^23 ions / M^3
Confinement time =~ 20 milliseconds or more (my general impression)
DPF
Density =~10^25 ions/ M^3
Confinement time=~ 100 nanoseconds
Rounding off to convenient numbers for confinement times
gives ~ 1000 s vs 0.01 s vs 0.0000001 s respectively.
If you take the Density squared as the determinant of the fusion rate at comparable temperatures, then the relative fusion rates would be:
Tokamak gives relative density of 1 = fusion rate of 1
Polywell gives relative density of 1000 = fusion rate of 1,000,000
DPF gives relative density of 1,000,000 = fusion rate of ~ 1,000,000,000,000 . Taking the inverse of these should give the differences in the claimed confinement times.
or ~ 1000 seconds vs ~ 1 millisecond vs ~ 1 nanosecond.
These are rough comparisons, but gives the relative differences within an order of magnitude or so.
It is not surprising that these numbers work out this way. What is important from this analysis is that the claimed densities have to be met. All three seem to claim that this has been confirmed experimentally. This is the reason that the Wiffleball Ttraping Facter is of primary importance for the Polywell.
What else is important for these machines is ignition (self heating) for Tokamaks, and possibly for DPF. Polywell does not suffer this constraint.
Quality of confinement is also important. Polywell and DPF may have the advantage here until/ unless Tokamaks can solve macro instabilities.
Power extraction may also favor Polywells and DPF. And of course the possibility of at least considering aneutronic fuels excludes Tokamaks.
Modifiers such as edge annealing, confluence, and maximized recirculation modifies the performance of the Polywell. Annealing (delay of FULL thermalization of the ions over their lifetime) is probably critical for the Polywell burning of P-B11 fuel, but not for deuterium.
I should add that the relative fusion rates per unit volume greatly favor the smaller machines, as their constructions costs generally scale log rhythmically with size.
* Actually, if a thermalized Polywell incorporated Learner's high efficiency X-ray loss recovery scheme, it might manage marginal positive power output with boron. The DPF is a thermalized machine and it uses this claimed mechanism to overcome the same barrier, though it admittedly also uses the claimed quantum effects of very high magnetic fields.
Dan Tibbets
It all boils down to the achievable densities and thus the critical confinement lifetimes. Temperatures achievable is also certainly important but secondary to this argument.
Claims for the three machines:
Tokamak
Density = ~10^19 or 10^20 ions/ M^3
Confinement time= ~ 800 sec (taken from Chrismb statement)
Polywell
Density=~ 10^22 or 10^23 ions / M^3
Confinement time =~ 20 milliseconds or more (my general impression)
DPF
Density =~10^25 ions/ M^3
Confinement time=~ 100 nanoseconds
Rounding off to convenient numbers for confinement times
gives ~ 1000 s vs 0.01 s vs 0.0000001 s respectively.
If you take the Density squared as the determinant of the fusion rate at comparable temperatures, then the relative fusion rates would be:
Tokamak gives relative density of 1 = fusion rate of 1
Polywell gives relative density of 1000 = fusion rate of 1,000,000
DPF gives relative density of 1,000,000 = fusion rate of ~ 1,000,000,000,000 . Taking the inverse of these should give the differences in the claimed confinement times.
or ~ 1000 seconds vs ~ 1 millisecond vs ~ 1 nanosecond.
These are rough comparisons, but gives the relative differences within an order of magnitude or so.
It is not surprising that these numbers work out this way. What is important from this analysis is that the claimed densities have to be met. All three seem to claim that this has been confirmed experimentally. This is the reason that the Wiffleball Ttraping Facter is of primary importance for the Polywell.
What else is important for these machines is ignition (self heating) for Tokamaks, and possibly for DPF. Polywell does not suffer this constraint.
Quality of confinement is also important. Polywell and DPF may have the advantage here until/ unless Tokamaks can solve macro instabilities.
Power extraction may also favor Polywells and DPF. And of course the possibility of at least considering aneutronic fuels excludes Tokamaks.
Modifiers such as edge annealing, confluence, and maximized recirculation modifies the performance of the Polywell. Annealing (delay of FULL thermalization of the ions over their lifetime) is probably critical for the Polywell burning of P-B11 fuel, but not for deuterium.
I should add that the relative fusion rates per unit volume greatly favor the smaller machines, as their constructions costs generally scale log rhythmically with size.
* Actually, if a thermalized Polywell incorporated Learner's high efficiency X-ray loss recovery scheme, it might manage marginal positive power output with boron. The DPF is a thermalized machine and it uses this claimed mechanism to overcome the same barrier, though it admittedly also uses the claimed quantum effects of very high magnetic fields.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
A side note from the previous post. If you use the density dependent fusion rate and translate it into distance traveled to mean fusion, and again use Chrismb's estimate of distance to fusion in a Tokamak of ~ several hundred thousand kilometers (say ~ 500,000 KM for this comparison) then in a Polywell with similar temperatures and density the distance traveled would be similar. In a 1 meter diameter Polywell this would translate into ~ 500,000,000 transits of the machine by an average ion before it fused.
But because the claimed density is ~ 1000 times greater in the Polywell, and the resultant fusion rate is ~ 1,000,000 times greater, the average ion transits before fusion would be a million times less, or ~ 500. This seems to support statements that an ion in a Polywell would need ~ 1000 passes (or less in this example) before fusion occured.
At an assumed velocity of ~ 500,000 Meters/s (this may be in the range of 20-30 KeV energy for deuterium ions) this translates into ~ 500 ion transits till fusion within a 1 meter diameter machine (500 meters) divided by the speed of the ions (500,000 meters/s) = ~ 0.001 seconds mean lifetime of the fuel ion before it fuses within this example Polywell. This is compatible with the fusion lifetime I used in the previous post, and illustrates the relative confinement time that is required, between the machines.
My guesstimate of 20 ms for the Polywell may seem much more than is required for high fuel burnup rates, but remember that the Tokamak numbers are based of D-T fusion rates, which are ~ 100 times faster than D-D fusion rates at the same temperature. This is where variations in the achievable average temperature, and the claimed more monoenergetic temperature variation in the Polywell can more than make up the difference.
Dan Tibbets
But because the claimed density is ~ 1000 times greater in the Polywell, and the resultant fusion rate is ~ 1,000,000 times greater, the average ion transits before fusion would be a million times less, or ~ 500. This seems to support statements that an ion in a Polywell would need ~ 1000 passes (or less in this example) before fusion occured.
At an assumed velocity of ~ 500,000 Meters/s (this may be in the range of 20-30 KeV energy for deuterium ions) this translates into ~ 500 ion transits till fusion within a 1 meter diameter machine (500 meters) divided by the speed of the ions (500,000 meters/s) = ~ 0.001 seconds mean lifetime of the fuel ion before it fuses within this example Polywell. This is compatible with the fusion lifetime I used in the previous post, and illustrates the relative confinement time that is required, between the machines.
My guesstimate of 20 ms for the Polywell may seem much more than is required for high fuel burnup rates, but remember that the Tokamak numbers are based of D-T fusion rates, which are ~ 100 times faster than D-D fusion rates at the same temperature. This is where variations in the achievable average temperature, and the claimed more monoenergetic temperature variation in the Polywell can more than make up the difference.
Dan Tibbets
Last edited by D Tibbets on Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To error is human... and I'm very human.
That's nonsense. Nonsense can sometimes turn out to be true, but not this bit, I strongly surmise. It will always be nonsense.D Tibbets wrote:A thermalized Polywell will not work for P-B11 fusion*, true, but if you are comparing apples to apples, then a thermalized Polywell (based on other claimed properties) will work better than a Tokamak with DT
Why? And if it were even true then just run slower pulses! The material tech will catch up quick enough, if the thing can bump up another 6 oom.D Tibbets wrote:The problem with DPF with these 'easy' fuels is that the neutron flux and heat in this compact machine would quickly destroy them
blah blah.. it's the triple product you should be comparing. I did this calc for DPF above, toakamk is currently just under spec, and polywell is nowhere because it has no data to calculate a triple product for.D Tibbets wrote:It all boils down to the achievable densities and thus the critical confinement lifetimes. Temperatures achievable is also certainly important but secondary to this argument.
Claims for the three machines:
Dan, I respect your regular and loyal dispensation of calculations, etc., but there is no way you can say 'polywell does this and tokamaks/DPF does that' because the latter two are experiments with REAL EXPERIMENTAL DATA to work with. You should really stop making claims like "Polywell does not suffer this constraint" when that is just outright, baseless speculation beyond a few numbers on a bit of paper.D Tibbets wrote:What else is important for these machines is ignition (self heating) for Tokamaks, and possibly for DPF. Polywell does not suffer this constraint.
Does it, now. Show me your evidence for this, if you please.D Tibbets wrote:Modifiers such as edge annealing, confluence, and maximized recirculation modifies the performance of the Polywell.
Dan, you talk about comparing apples with apples, so it is quite quite wrong of you to then compare extant experimental results with speculative theories.
Chrismb, in answer to your criticisms:
First, in a thermalized Polywell the fusion physics will be the same as in a Tokamak. The fusion rate per unit volume is only dependent on temperature and density. Viability is determined by the confinement time in relation to these. ie: the triple product roughly speaking. In an ignition machine the confinement time is critical to the fusion process as the fusion products maintain the heat of the system against losses. In a non ignition machine like the Polywell, the confinement time is not important in this regard. Of course it is important in determining the final input/ output performance (positive Q). In my post I essentially used the triple product considerations with the assumption that the temperature was a constant. I compared the claimed densities and confinement times and their consequences with the temperature a constant.
The DPF, just like the LIF can produce brief pulses of intense x-ray and neutrons for various uses, But, for USEFULL commercial power applications, the pulse rate has to be swift enough to approach some usefull power per second output, and to do so at some reasonable cost and durability.
Evidence for the Polywell exists, just as it does for any other approach. You can argue the volume and validity of the information, but not it's existence. In your world view. the atomic bomb cannot possibly work, because the evidence is not freely available in peer reviewed literature.
You can apply reasoning based on accepted science and the claimed features, but this is not foolproof, unless you are very careful to account properly for all the possible assumptions and alternative explainations. As an example I give you Art Carlson's statenment that RFC could not work due to prevailing physics knowledge and assumptions at the time. But the experiments disproved this widely held view.
As has been argued repeatably on this forum, you can argue merrits, based on facts in evidence. The existance OR aviability of those facts are critical, but only within the admitted limits of the analysis.
In short, experiment trumps theory. But, a valid analysis is only possible if you have access to the experimental facts. Lack thereof does not invalidate the experiment, though it does encourage skepticism from the perspective of the outsider.
Without the actual details, you can argue against a claim if it violates some presumed condition. In the Polywell I see this as two fold. What is possible in a thermalized plasma, and what modifications need apply if the plasma is not thermalized, the conditions necessary for this and the consequences. The other argument point is the difference between neutral plasmas and non neutral plasmas and the subsequent consequences.
Most arguments against the Polywell, seem almost universally couched in thermalized, and neutral plasma assumptions. I have not seen a reasoned argument against edge annealing (which is simply a reasoned thermalization process under the local conditions). I have not seen a reasoned argument for bipolar cusp flows that do not assume a neutral plasma and possibly an inappropriately strongly coupled plasma. In my admittedly limited understanding, this seems misdirected, and possibly misleading. And with the thermalized assumption, the Polywell, and DPF for that matter, obey the same physics as Tokamaks. The ignition consideration forces some modification in perspective but the end result is the same. The perspective consideration is that it takes alot of input energy to achieve ignition, but little input energy thereafter. In non ignition machines the input energy needs to be continued to keep it hot, but less of the fusion energy needs to be recycled within the machine to maintain this condition and thus more of it is available as output energy. It balances out within the defined temperature, pressure and confinement conditions.
Dan Tibbets
First, in a thermalized Polywell the fusion physics will be the same as in a Tokamak. The fusion rate per unit volume is only dependent on temperature and density. Viability is determined by the confinement time in relation to these. ie: the triple product roughly speaking. In an ignition machine the confinement time is critical to the fusion process as the fusion products maintain the heat of the system against losses. In a non ignition machine like the Polywell, the confinement time is not important in this regard. Of course it is important in determining the final input/ output performance (positive Q). In my post I essentially used the triple product considerations with the assumption that the temperature was a constant. I compared the claimed densities and confinement times and their consequences with the temperature a constant.
The DPF, just like the LIF can produce brief pulses of intense x-ray and neutrons for various uses, But, for USEFULL commercial power applications, the pulse rate has to be swift enough to approach some usefull power per second output, and to do so at some reasonable cost and durability.
Evidence for the Polywell exists, just as it does for any other approach. You can argue the volume and validity of the information, but not it's existence. In your world view. the atomic bomb cannot possibly work, because the evidence is not freely available in peer reviewed literature.
You can apply reasoning based on accepted science and the claimed features, but this is not foolproof, unless you are very careful to account properly for all the possible assumptions and alternative explainations. As an example I give you Art Carlson's statenment that RFC could not work due to prevailing physics knowledge and assumptions at the time. But the experiments disproved this widely held view.
As has been argued repeatably on this forum, you can argue merrits, based on facts in evidence. The existance OR aviability of those facts are critical, but only within the admitted limits of the analysis.
In short, experiment trumps theory. But, a valid analysis is only possible if you have access to the experimental facts. Lack thereof does not invalidate the experiment, though it does encourage skepticism from the perspective of the outsider.
Without the actual details, you can argue against a claim if it violates some presumed condition. In the Polywell I see this as two fold. What is possible in a thermalized plasma, and what modifications need apply if the plasma is not thermalized, the conditions necessary for this and the consequences. The other argument point is the difference between neutral plasmas and non neutral plasmas and the subsequent consequences.
Most arguments against the Polywell, seem almost universally couched in thermalized, and neutral plasma assumptions. I have not seen a reasoned argument against edge annealing (which is simply a reasoned thermalization process under the local conditions). I have not seen a reasoned argument for bipolar cusp flows that do not assume a neutral plasma and possibly an inappropriately strongly coupled plasma. In my admittedly limited understanding, this seems misdirected, and possibly misleading. And with the thermalized assumption, the Polywell, and DPF for that matter, obey the same physics as Tokamaks. The ignition consideration forces some modification in perspective but the end result is the same. The perspective consideration is that it takes alot of input energy to achieve ignition, but little input energy thereafter. In non ignition machines the input energy needs to be continued to keep it hot, but less of the fusion energy needs to be recycled within the machine to maintain this condition and thus more of it is available as output energy. It balances out within the defined temperature, pressure and confinement conditions.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
That's absolute hockum. If Polywell can work as a thermalised machine with multiple cusps, then why can't mirror machines be made to work by employing the same cusps? D'you think magnetic cusp confinement hasn't been tried, tried, and tried again?D Tibbets wrote:First, in a thermalized Polywell the fusion physics will be the same as in a Tokamak.
If what you said were an accepted reality, then tokamak would be dropped tomorrow.
Please, stop disseminating such a statement as "thermalised polywell.. will be the same as tokamak..", it is an outright confusion to those that are not well-acquainted with fusion physics.
Like b*ll*cks, it isn't! If ions do not fulfill a long-enough path during their short lives in ANY fusion device then there will be insufficient chance for the ions to meet up and fuse with other ions, before being lost. A lost ion is energy input in for no gain. You have to beat that equation before you can hope to get over unity energy out.D Tibbets wrote:In a non ignition machine like the Polywell, the confinement time is not important in this regard.
I absolutely can. Just because neutrons have been measured* doesn't mean they came from 'Polywell-mechanisms'. Go read up on the sorry outcome of so many of the early experiments, Zeta in particular. Claim-after-claim of certainty that the right conditions had been met because neutrons were measured.. and yet egg was already descending on faces.D Tibbets wrote:Evidence for the Polywell exists, just as it does for any other approach. You can argue the volume and validity of the information, but not it's existence.
The data needs to show convincingly and completely that the neutron emissions are from colliding particles at the centre; isotropic uniform output, with neutron spectra and TOF as backup evidence. Without that THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T EXIST.
*[I'll not bother to argue any statistics on that - if you pump multi kV into evacuated deuterium you're damned unlucky not to get any neutrons]
I think he said that an FRC was far more stable than expected, which is not at all the same thing.D Tibbets wrote:As an example I give you Art Carlson's statenment that RFC could not work due to prevailing physics knowledge and assumptions at the time. But the experiments disproved this widely held view.
But the point is that just because following one erroneous comment of another experiment proved to be in error, or otherwise, that doesn't mean that any experiment for which there are negative comments is therefore proven viable.
Please do a check for non-sequitur arguments in your text, and eliminate them.
Yes you have. Mine. My argument - if edge annealing works, why hasn't it been seen in fusors, to any degree whatsoever.D Tibbets wrote:Most arguments against the Polywell, seem almost universally couched in thermalized, and neutral plasma assumptions. I have not seen a reasoned argument against edge annealing (which is simply a reasoned thermalization process under the local conditions).
Dan, look, you are missing the point. You are making statements of equivalence between experiments for which there is data, material and results with another which you are simply covering by saying 'well, there's no proof that it doesn't work'. There's no evidence that disproves pink lifting fairies keep the Moon in the sky, but there are sufficiently well formulated ideas that mean there is no justification to go looking for it.
..and there are already well formulated ideas that show when Polywell thermalises, it'll do diddly other than convert a lot of electrical power into waste heat.
Arguing with chrismb is like arguing with a rock. Polywell is different from mirror machines because the claimed confinement times and density is much different, as is the gometry and other considerations. Again, as he harps on, density, temperature and confinement are critically important, but he seems unable to accept that it is indeed a triple product. The final result is denpendent on the product of all three conditions. As one goes up, another can go down.
Claiming a Polywell is like a mirror machine is like saying a Tokamak is like a Spheromak. On the surface they may look similar, but the difference is in the details. I don't see why you simply assume a cusp machine is different from a Tokamak in physics. Both claim to confine ions long enough to achieve useful fusion, within the interacting confinement time, temperature characteristics and density. Obviously, the methods of confinement is somewhat different. The common denominator is that there has to be magnetic confinement of some charged particles. electrons are presumably confined much better in the Tokamak, but because the plasma is neutral , there is no space charge that would in effect polarize the plasma. Due to the neutral plasma, and the much greater gyroradii of ions, they are contained relatively poorly. Purely magnetic ion confinement is considerably worse in the Polywell both because of cusps and the much smaller distances the ions have to drift (ExB drift) to reach the magnet surfaces. It is given that cusp losses would dominate these losses. But the non neutral plasma/ excess electrons confines the ions and the magnetic confinement of the ions is unimportant, at least for this simple picture. The physics of magnetic electron confinement is clear and I doubt you could come up with an argument against it, at least in areas away from the cusps. The presence of the cusps, of coarse modifies things considerably, thus the required cusp throat pinching of the Wiffleball effect. This is still not enough to overcome the dominate cusp electron losses, thus the recirculation. These multiple mechanisms are conveniently added together, but each seems reasonable by themself. Wiffleball trapping has been reported by both Bussard and Nebel, and with seperate measurement methods. The methods of measurement have been revealed, though any analyst would obliviously want to have access to the full details. The WB7 review panel and earlier reviewers had access to this data. You can claim that they are fools, liers, etc, but that is an article of faith on your part and seems based on your lack of access to this data as the sole justification.
As far as edge annealing is concerned, this has been discussed in several other threads. If you did not see the light (or convince me of the darkness ) there is no point in following it further here.
Why do you think the confinement chariteristics of a Fusor should match a Polywell. The nature of the central wire cathode approach is well described. The ions are contained moderatly well as the may make up to 10-20 passes before hitting the wall or cathode wire. This is better than simple mirror machines, but is limited in part by the relative intercept area of the cathode wire grid. Of course the dominance of the neutrals messes the interactions up. In a Polywell the confinement of the ions is similar, except there is no physical central cathode. As described, an ETW variation of the fusor more closely matches a Polywell This theoretically can confine ions well through electrostatic means within the limits of upscattering provided the ions are introduced below the periferal anode. Of course in the ETW machine the electrons are still lost after ~ a few passes. The incorperation of the supplemental magnetic field is what is the claimed game changer. Both for maintaining the the potential well with significantly less electron losses. and providing some magnwetic containment of upscattered fuel ions. If the ion is upscattered it can still be turned by the magnetic field (unless it hits a cusp) This supplements the electrostatic ion containment at the cost of less central convergence. This is discussed in one of the Bussard papers
I have searched for actual testing and characterization of a ETW fusor, but other than the theoretical work, I have not found any references..
Chrismb and others have repeatedly used "three Neutrons" as the presented evidence for Polywell funtioning. This is of course suggestive of what the Polywell might accomplish, but it indeed says nothing of the mechanisms. For that you need to broaden your horizons, contemplate the theoretical considerations individually and in total, and dig through the outside sources.
There is plenty of claimed measurements of potential wells, energy distribution, measured density, electron loss rates, etc. Some of the limited information on energy distribution (non Maxwellian) that I have seen is from early work in the late 1980's by EMC on their first large machine. Much of the available information on the potential well nature is from independent work with fusors, such as a Japanese group. Aviable information on central convergence is partially from work at the Univ. Wisconsin. They have clearly shown peak fusion rates per unit of volume even in their neutral gas polluted glow discharge fusors. There is some contradictory conclusions that need to be resolved. Others have shown a increasing dominance of Beam - Beam fusion as the density is decreased below ~ 1 Micron pressure, because the interfering background neutrals become less prevalent. This is a natural consequence for the Polywell if Wiffleball trapping exists. This in effect increases the proportion of ions to neutrals within the machine by several thousand. It would be similar to decreasing the background pressure in a fusor (ion gun fed fusor) to ~ 1 milli micron (~ 10^-9 atm.) This is ~ a 100-1000X increase in the ratios that starts to show beam- beam fusion dominance and scaling. The reason this is important is that this ratio is achieved in the Polywell (if WiffleBall trapping occurs)while the ion densities remain high enough to achieve useful fusion rates.
You have to dig for this information, and extrapolate. But it is out there.
There are a number of interdependent processes that have to work. There is some public data and related information that supports at least some of these claims. And, with the possible exception of argument/s by A. Carlson and Rider there have been no strong disproofs that I am aware of. My admitted fan boy defense against these arguments is that their assumptions were wrong- thermalized and neutral plasmas. Also arguments by Chacon apparently counters some of them. A. Carlson's failure (or disdain) in addressing some vacuum tube technology that some have claimed applies also weakens his position.
I might add, that despite chrismb's claims otherwise (in another thread) there are several hints that electrostatric forces may play a significant role in the TriAlpha approach to the FRC. They also do not share their data, That does not disprove their ideas anymore that it does EMC's.
Dan Tibbets
Claiming a Polywell is like a mirror machine is like saying a Tokamak is like a Spheromak. On the surface they may look similar, but the difference is in the details. I don't see why you simply assume a cusp machine is different from a Tokamak in physics. Both claim to confine ions long enough to achieve useful fusion, within the interacting confinement time, temperature characteristics and density. Obviously, the methods of confinement is somewhat different. The common denominator is that there has to be magnetic confinement of some charged particles. electrons are presumably confined much better in the Tokamak, but because the plasma is neutral , there is no space charge that would in effect polarize the plasma. Due to the neutral plasma, and the much greater gyroradii of ions, they are contained relatively poorly. Purely magnetic ion confinement is considerably worse in the Polywell both because of cusps and the much smaller distances the ions have to drift (ExB drift) to reach the magnet surfaces. It is given that cusp losses would dominate these losses. But the non neutral plasma/ excess electrons confines the ions and the magnetic confinement of the ions is unimportant, at least for this simple picture. The physics of magnetic electron confinement is clear and I doubt you could come up with an argument against it, at least in areas away from the cusps. The presence of the cusps, of coarse modifies things considerably, thus the required cusp throat pinching of the Wiffleball effect. This is still not enough to overcome the dominate cusp electron losses, thus the recirculation. These multiple mechanisms are conveniently added together, but each seems reasonable by themself. Wiffleball trapping has been reported by both Bussard and Nebel, and with seperate measurement methods. The methods of measurement have been revealed, though any analyst would obliviously want to have access to the full details. The WB7 review panel and earlier reviewers had access to this data. You can claim that they are fools, liers, etc, but that is an article of faith on your part and seems based on your lack of access to this data as the sole justification.
As far as edge annealing is concerned, this has been discussed in several other threads. If you did not see the light (or convince me of the darkness ) there is no point in following it further here.
Why do you think the confinement chariteristics of a Fusor should match a Polywell. The nature of the central wire cathode approach is well described. The ions are contained moderatly well as the may make up to 10-20 passes before hitting the wall or cathode wire. This is better than simple mirror machines, but is limited in part by the relative intercept area of the cathode wire grid. Of course the dominance of the neutrals messes the interactions up. In a Polywell the confinement of the ions is similar, except there is no physical central cathode. As described, an ETW variation of the fusor more closely matches a Polywell This theoretically can confine ions well through electrostatic means within the limits of upscattering provided the ions are introduced below the periferal anode. Of course in the ETW machine the electrons are still lost after ~ a few passes. The incorperation of the supplemental magnetic field is what is the claimed game changer. Both for maintaining the the potential well with significantly less electron losses. and providing some magnwetic containment of upscattered fuel ions. If the ion is upscattered it can still be turned by the magnetic field (unless it hits a cusp) This supplements the electrostatic ion containment at the cost of less central convergence. This is discussed in one of the Bussard papers
I have searched for actual testing and characterization of a ETW fusor, but other than the theoretical work, I have not found any references..
Chrismb and others have repeatedly used "three Neutrons" as the presented evidence for Polywell funtioning. This is of course suggestive of what the Polywell might accomplish, but it indeed says nothing of the mechanisms. For that you need to broaden your horizons, contemplate the theoretical considerations individually and in total, and dig through the outside sources.
There is plenty of claimed measurements of potential wells, energy distribution, measured density, electron loss rates, etc. Some of the limited information on energy distribution (non Maxwellian) that I have seen is from early work in the late 1980's by EMC on their first large machine. Much of the available information on the potential well nature is from independent work with fusors, such as a Japanese group. Aviable information on central convergence is partially from work at the Univ. Wisconsin. They have clearly shown peak fusion rates per unit of volume even in their neutral gas polluted glow discharge fusors. There is some contradictory conclusions that need to be resolved. Others have shown a increasing dominance of Beam - Beam fusion as the density is decreased below ~ 1 Micron pressure, because the interfering background neutrals become less prevalent. This is a natural consequence for the Polywell if Wiffleball trapping exists. This in effect increases the proportion of ions to neutrals within the machine by several thousand. It would be similar to decreasing the background pressure in a fusor (ion gun fed fusor) to ~ 1 milli micron (~ 10^-9 atm.) This is ~ a 100-1000X increase in the ratios that starts to show beam- beam fusion dominance and scaling. The reason this is important is that this ratio is achieved in the Polywell (if WiffleBall trapping occurs)while the ion densities remain high enough to achieve useful fusion rates.
You have to dig for this information, and extrapolate. But it is out there.
There are a number of interdependent processes that have to work. There is some public data and related information that supports at least some of these claims. And, with the possible exception of argument/s by A. Carlson and Rider there have been no strong disproofs that I am aware of. My admitted fan boy defense against these arguments is that their assumptions were wrong- thermalized and neutral plasmas. Also arguments by Chacon apparently counters some of them. A. Carlson's failure (or disdain) in addressing some vacuum tube technology that some have claimed applies also weakens his position.
I might add, that despite chrismb's claims otherwise (in another thread) there are several hints that electrostatric forces may play a significant role in the TriAlpha approach to the FRC. They also do not share their data, That does not disprove their ideas anymore that it does EMC's.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.