http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/This is just a first run. Now begins the actual experimentation and data gathering.
I do believe this is the WORLD’S FIRST AMATEUR POLYWELL!!!
Famulus fusion
Hip Hip Hurrah!
Impressive. The ocilliscope tracing looks similar to other graphs that show the electron confinement. potential well duration. It would be interesting to know how his results compares to other electrron confinement ia an Polywell or IEC POPS type device. The magnitude of the potential well and it's decay time is presumably a measure of the achievable potential well depth and confinement time.
As the decay time increases, presumably the performance is increasing.
I assume this was a pulsed test. What was the time frame of the decay process?
Dan Tibbets
Impressive. The ocilliscope tracing looks similar to other graphs that show the electron confinement. potential well duration. It would be interesting to know how his results compares to other electrron confinement ia an Polywell or IEC POPS type device. The magnitude of the potential well and it's decay time is presumably a measure of the achievable potential well depth and confinement time.
As the decay time increases, presumably the performance is increasing.
I assume this was a pulsed test. What was the time frame of the decay process?
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
You guys all realize that we can muddle some of the scaling law with his data?
We have info on WB6 results, and can compare his smaller device against it. Of course we would have to figure his B and also try for neutron counts. But I think that there is something to be found in the electron confinement data alone in regard to scaling.
We have info on WB6 results, and can compare his smaller device against it. Of course we would have to figure his B and also try for neutron counts. But I think that there is something to be found in the electron confinement data alone in regard to scaling.
Maybe, a little. I don't think he has a Magrid with the Teflon, though, so I'm not sure he can get cusp-plugging. Also the altered WB-8 design had much better confinement than WB-6/7. So I'm not sure how much we can say about the loss scaling as it might apply to a reactor.
OTOH, the more data the merrier!
Great work Mark, if you happen to read this.
OTOH, the more data the merrier!
Great work Mark, if you happen to read this.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
The only thing in the public we know about WB8 is that it is x8 B field. The coil dimension is not public, and also the nubs status for wallmount or not. The argument in the forum (as you know) is that the coils are bigger (based on analysis of the graphic), and the nubs are a guess (again based on the graphic).
But that said, I agree that Suppes setup does not have the conformal case of the magrid, but even some data about confinement level for the coil size is a contributer to the pile. Once he gets his proper magrids in, that will tell us a lot, but in the mean time, any numbers we can get out of him now will be useful to chew on and compare to WB6. If we can get some WB7 data that would be cool as well.
The thing to consider as data is compared is that whatever Suppes has for data is going to be worse perfomance than WB6/7/8 due to designs and experimentel experience improvements made by EMC2. But that to me is ok, as it is a known offset.
But that said, I agree that Suppes setup does not have the conformal case of the magrid, but even some data about confinement level for the coil size is a contributer to the pile. Once he gets his proper magrids in, that will tell us a lot, but in the mean time, any numbers we can get out of him now will be useful to chew on and compare to WB6. If we can get some WB7 data that would be cool as well.
The thing to consider as data is compared is that whatever Suppes has for data is going to be worse perfomance than WB6/7/8 due to designs and experimentel experience improvements made by EMC2. But that to me is ok, as it is a known offset.
-
happyjack27
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
we also know thatladajo wrote:The only thing in the public we know about WB8 is that it is x8 B field. The coil dimension is not public, and also the nubs status for wallmount or not. The argument in the forum (as you know) is that the coils are bigger (based on analysis of the graphic), and the nubs are a guess (again based on the graphic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#F ... rk_and_outIn a recent interview when referring to WB-8, Dr Park commented that "This machine should be able to generate 1,000 times more nuclear activity than WB-7, with about eight times more magnetic field...We'll call that a good success. That means we're on track with the scaling law."
Putting the two together and the scaling law formula one could get an estimate on the coil size.
alternatively one could estimate the coil size needed to produce 8x the field strength, assuming the same parameters used for the WB-6. off the topic of my head i'd guess 2x the major radius = 4x the coil circumference and 2x the coil cross section = 4*2=8x the field strength. hence i'd guess the wb-8 coils are twice as big as the wb-6/7 coils.
A metallic charged magrid surface is not needed for confinement analysis. The electron guns can provide the necessary accelerating voltage. It would be nice to have the surfaces neat the cusps grounded so that recirculation could occur. But, the exposed low voltage in the copper coils may serve this purpose, even though they have varnish insulation. After all the electrons are not supposed to be able to reach the surface of the coils anyway due to the magnetic shielding. I'm uncertain of how the insulation affects the space charge around these near ground coils.TallDave wrote:Maybe, a little. I don't think he has a Magrid with the Teflon, though, so I'm not sure he can get cusp-plugging. Also the altered WB-8 design had much better confinement than WB-6/7. So I'm not sure how much we can say about the loss scaling as it might apply to a reactor.
OTOH, the more data the merrier!
Great work Mark, if you happen to read this.
Sense this is similar to the WB4 configuration, you would expect less contribution from recirculation anyway (by a factor of ~ 10-100?).
The biggest confounding issue may be size. Dr Nebel mentioned that going to smaller sizes than WB6 would only confuse things as the outgassing becomes more significant, and the smaller signal is burried in more noise.
Despite this, I agree that this device may generate useful information and comparisons. Especially if Famulous can operate it steady state. He should not be able to approach the neutron producing performance of WB6, or even WB4. But longer run times can compensate. It might take him hundreds of seconds to obtain useful neutron counts, but these could then be plugged into scaling formulas. From physics perspectives I understand the loss issues are the real issues that need to be validated, and measurement of a potential well and its depth and duration goes a long way in this regard.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
I would not put a lot of accuracy faith in the "1000" number. It would seem to be an off the cuff estimate vice a whittled prediction.happyjack27 wrote:we also know thatladajo wrote:The only thing in the public we know about WB8 is that it is x8 B field. The coil dimension is not public, and also the nubs status for wallmount or not. The argument in the forum (as you know) is that the coils are bigger (based on analysis of the graphic), and the nubs are a guess (again based on the graphic).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#F ... rk_and_outIn a recent interview when referring to WB-8, Dr Park commented that "This machine should be able to generate 1,000 times more nuclear activity than WB-7, with about eight times more magnetic field...We'll call that a good success. That means we're on track with the scaling law."
Putting the two together and the scaling law formula one could get an estimate on the coil size.
alternatively one could estimate the coil size needed to produce 8x the field strength, assuming the same parameters used for the WB-6. off the topic of my head i'd guess 2x the major radius = 4x the coil circumference and 2x the coil cross section = 4*2=8x the field strength. hence i'd guess the wb-8 coils are twice as big as the wb-6/7 coils.
There are also other factors impacting power production than just coil size.
WB 8 Neutron production potential is dependent on the predictions of B4 scaling, the single known parameter is that the coils will produce 8,000 Gauss (~ 8 times that of WB6). Even that may not be precise.
If it is precise the neutron output should increase from ~ 500,000,000 neutrons/ sec. (about 1 milliWatt) To ~ 2,000,000,000,000 neutrons / sec. An ~ 4,000 fold increase.
This assumes the machine size, and the drive voltage are unchanged.
If the machine is indeed ~ 2X increased radius, this should increase output a further 8X. If the drive voltage in increased from ~ 12, 000 V to 20 or 30,000 V the output should increase a further 5-15 X. The net output may reach as high as ~ 160,000 to ~ 400,000 X WB6. This would be as much as ~ 4*10^ 14 neutrons per second, equivalent to ~ 400 Watts of fusion power. If my understanding of the input energy costs is reasonable, this would be at the cost of up to ~ 6 MW without considering the power to run the magnets, which might be ~ 100-200 KW.
This is a lot of assumptions. They may not have this power available, they may not want to deal with the radiation shielding this would require. The may decide not to stress the equipment to this level. The WB8 may actually exceed this performance level if it improved on confinement of the electrons compared to WB6 (benefit mostly on the input power side?)
Park's comment on 1,000 fold improvement may refer to testing at 4,000 or 6,000 G magnetic field strength. They may be working up to 8,000 G. The drive voltage could be anything up to perhaps ~ 80,000 V, though they are probably starting out low. The comparison may be to WB7 instead of WB6, and WB7 may have performed better than WB6.
So, if the 1,000 number means anything at all, it is only that the scaling is going up rapidly. Whether it is short, matches, or exceeds predictions is not implied. Only a qualitative general indication can be inferred. It looks promising, but there is still a lot of range in the possible outcome. Park's etel presumably knows a lot more detail of where they are compared to predictions.
Dan Tibbets
If it is precise the neutron output should increase from ~ 500,000,000 neutrons/ sec. (about 1 milliWatt) To ~ 2,000,000,000,000 neutrons / sec. An ~ 4,000 fold increase.
This assumes the machine size, and the drive voltage are unchanged.
If the machine is indeed ~ 2X increased radius, this should increase output a further 8X. If the drive voltage in increased from ~ 12, 000 V to 20 or 30,000 V the output should increase a further 5-15 X. The net output may reach as high as ~ 160,000 to ~ 400,000 X WB6. This would be as much as ~ 4*10^ 14 neutrons per second, equivalent to ~ 400 Watts of fusion power. If my understanding of the input energy costs is reasonable, this would be at the cost of up to ~ 6 MW without considering the power to run the magnets, which might be ~ 100-200 KW.
This is a lot of assumptions. They may not have this power available, they may not want to deal with the radiation shielding this would require. The may decide not to stress the equipment to this level. The WB8 may actually exceed this performance level if it improved on confinement of the electrons compared to WB6 (benefit mostly on the input power side?)
Park's comment on 1,000 fold improvement may refer to testing at 4,000 or 6,000 G magnetic field strength. They may be working up to 8,000 G. The drive voltage could be anything up to perhaps ~ 80,000 V, though they are probably starting out low. The comparison may be to WB7 instead of WB6, and WB7 may have performed better than WB6.
So, if the 1,000 number means anything at all, it is only that the scaling is going up rapidly. Whether it is short, matches, or exceeds predictions is not implied. Only a qualitative general indication can be inferred. It looks promising, but there is still a lot of range in the possible outcome. Park's etel presumably knows a lot more detail of where they are compared to predictions.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Several improvements were supposed to happen which seems to have turned the confinement from "good" to "excellent". This suggests that the amperage on the electron guns SHOULD have gone down significantly. Perhaps your 6MW is close. I hope it is lower. Seems your coil values are a bit high.Polywell FAQ wrote:The coils (magrid). The coils require high currents but low voltages. Estimated coil voltage was 12 volts and current draw was ~1000 amps for a total of ~12 kilowatts.
The accelerating voltage on the magrid casing ~(5 amps at 12,000 volts) for a total of ~60 kilowatts
The electron guns drew ~800 amps at 12,000 volts for a total of ~10 Megawatts.
viewtopic.php?p=19443&highlight=#19443
Hmmm, most of the losses are supposed to be to cross-field diffusion to the Magrid. Also, I'm not sure I can believe cusp-plugging works without a very good reason for the electrons to stay in the cusps. Can you still get some interesting data? Sure.D Tibbets wrote:A metallic charged magrid surface is not needed for confinement analysis. The electron guns can provide the necessary accelerating voltage. It would be nice to have the surfaces neat the cusps grounded so that recirculation could occur. But, the exposed low voltage in the copper coils may serve this purpose, even though they have varnish insulation. After all the electrons are not supposed to be able to reach the surface of the coils anyway due to the magnetic shielding.
Rick says WB-6 input power was 10MW. 6MW could be right, though we should expect losses to scale at something like B^.25*r^2 so that assumes a factor of... let's see... 8^.25*2^2*10MW = 67MW so roughly a factor of 10 improvement in confinement in your scenario.
rnebel wrote:Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject: viewtopic.php?p=19443&highlight=#19443p ... te&p=19443
Mr. Simon has it right. Batteries for the coils (high current, low voltage), capacitors for the coil cases (high voltage, low current). WB-6 power input ~ 10 MW.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...