Page 3 of 5
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:43 pm
by mvanwink5
1000 bombs to orbit, NK would sell them first.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:50 pm
by Skipjack
I think they dont even have one.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:26 pm
by Betruger
Robthebob wrote:we have scattered projects on simulations (all of the ones done by folks on this website are no bueno, I've been told this in person)
Icarus' ?
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:43 pm
by Netmaker
mvanwink5 wrote:Rob,
You are just saying the same thing only with positive spin. If it works, why is it still funded at minimal levels other than bureaucratic fumbling and risk avoidance? Meanwhile, windmills, etc are being subsidized heavily, with big money, later to be abandoned due to maintenance costs. (Nice political graft to GE and other cronies.) Then there is the issue that industrialists of this age only take government subsidized risks (Musk). The only meaningful polywell test is with a much larger WB and magnet strength, which avoids the small WB size electron injection problem predicted long ago by Bussard. Geometry is an optimization effort. If it works, it will work economically without optimization. Just make the coils 20% bigger and the power difference will swamp the optimized geometry change. No, it is being run as a shoestring science project with resulting long delays. Great science though...and low bureaucratic risk.
PS There are many here that would jump in, but the capital cost is currently out of their reach, including using crowd sourcing. Simulation tells you nothing at this point. Data is needed.
A really good reason from the "power's that be" perspective to string along the Polywell development is to allow a corporation that they can control, say LM, to commercialize the technology. Can't have uncontrolled cheap energy for the masses or allow a new well funded corporate player into "the game".
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:39 pm
by mvanwink5
I like conspiracies just like the next person, but my pet theory is that it boils down to low risk taking bureaucrats and rent seeking, neutered, Ivey League trained industrialists. The Navy did however support Bussard's work right up until the Bush Iraq invasion sucked the shoestring money out of the project, right when it was time to go big, which is where polywell is now, again. I figure as soon as real money is required, like now, the bureaucrats will balk. When SC become cheap enough we'll have to get some crowd sourced money and do it (in 10 years). Or maybe someone will find a (couple of?) junked MRI machine(s). Anyone know of any being sold to third world countries for cheap?
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:52 am
by MSimon
mvanwink5 wrote:I like conspiracies just like the next person, but my pet theory is that it boils down to low risk taking bureaucrats and rent seeking, neutered, Ivey League trained industrialists. The Navy did however support Bussard's work right up until the Bush Iraq invasion sucked the shoestring money out of the project, right when it was time to go big, which is where polywell is now, again. I figure as soon as real money is required, like now, the bureaucrats will balk. When SC become cheap enough we'll have to get some crowd sourced money and do it (in 10 years). Or maybe someone will find a (couple of?) junked MRI machine(s). Anyone know of any being sold to third world countries for cheap?
10 Tesla coils are right now on the bleeding edge. Ten years after they go into series production..... And BTW they need to be constructed to support a high vacuum and high voltage. MRI coils may not do the trick. But an MRI coil mfg might help.
I once priced out 1 T coils for the job and it came in at around $1 million per. Cooling eqpt extra.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:50 am
by mvanwink5
Why not just encase an MRI coil?
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:09 pm
by KitemanSA
Indeed, used MRI machines at 3T have been surpassed by 5T & 7T machines so are quite cheap. At least the Seimans' design has a row of 6 main coils. And they come with cooling systems.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:30 pm
by mvanwink5
Anyone good at getting current prices for surplus (bargain, not refurbished yet)? Have the Chinese entered this market yet?
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:32 pm
by MSimon
mvanwink5 wrote:Why not just encase an MRI coil?
It might work. But the doughnut hole might not be right. Or any number of things might not be right.
However, if power production is not tops on your list - only proof of concept Then a used 7T machine might work.
Power just starts to be practical at 10T and really works well at 15T. And one other thing. The smaller you can make the coils for a given Super Conductor current the higher the output. The field gets stronger. Smaller IS better.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:22 pm
by hanelyp
MSimon wrote:..The smaller you can make the coils for a given Super Conductor current the higher the output. The field gets stronger. Smaller IS better.
I had to consider the numbers on this.
Power ~ B^4*R^3
At constant Amp-turns, B ~ 1/R, Power ~ 1/R
Include losses proportionate to some power of scale, yup, smaller gives more power and gain if you can keep the Amp-turns.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:32 pm
by mvanwink5
Go for power not just demo. What is the bore on an MRI magnet? ~1m?
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:33 pm
by KitemanSA
To a point, then you just melt your system.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:53 pm
by MSimon
hanelyp wrote:MSimon wrote:..The smaller you can make the coils for a given Super Conductor current the higher the output. The field gets stronger. Smaller IS better.
I had to consider the numbers on this.
Power ~ B^4*R^3
At constant Amp-turns, B ~ 1/R, Power ~ 1/R
Include losses proportionate to some power of scale, yup, smaller gives more power and gain if you can keep the Amp-turns.
I was doing magnet work on the Polywell a few years back and discovered this. (no one had mentioned it and for Bussard it was out of the question with copper coils) It surprised the heck out of me.
Of course there are other things to consider like ion density (arcing), cooling, etc.
Re: Forbes - Fusion Crash Program Required
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:45 pm
by Robthebob
I cant tell you how or why, but yall's conjectures arent right.
With regards to my comments about simulations, to do simulations right to see the important physics, you need a code that requires a license fee that basically runs about as much as building a polywell.