Page 3 of 4
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:54 am
by Skipjack
D Tibbets wrote:5 milliseconds or more may be very significant, or not. For a Polywell operating at a density of 10^22 /M^3 it is impressive. But, I don't know at what density the Tri Alpha current efforts are working at. It is that old triple product consideration. Low Beta Tokamaks may manage 100s of seconds, but because of the lower density, the triple product is still a challenging goal.
I understand reverse field configurations may reach densities similar to Polywell goals, but I don't know how this relates to their current research, nor how confident they are of scaling projections for either density or temperature .9the other two legs of the triple product).
Dan Tibbets
From what I understand, TAE are confident in being able to achieve the densities they need. What they are working on next is achieving the temperatures they need.
I had a chance to briefly interact with Sam Cohen about PPL's Direct Fusion Drive last year and from what I understood, their current reactor achieves (or should achieve that was not 100% clear), 50 ms pulse lengths at densities of 10^13 cm^-3 and 1 keV temperatures. It is my understanding that the 300 ms pulse(s) that Stephany Thomas mentioned at NIAC was indeed at a reduced density. Reactor requirements would be 3 million ms pulse length, 30 keV temperature and and 50 times the density.
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 12:10 pm
by mvanwink5
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 1:36 pm
by mvanwink5
Here is the 2015 Princeton presentation which I think is worth viewing. I don't think I have seen this one before this. For instance McGuire comments that superconductor performance in these machines is better due to increased pinning sites from neutron radiation. Also, it seems to me that LM at this stage is unfamiliar with EMC2's proof of Grad's conjecture, so recirculation is an issue they are solving using mirror coils. So, I wonder if doing away with those coils simplifies their design and puts them back to a Polywell? If not, Polywell will beat their britches off.
http://www.pppl.gov/events/colloquium-l ... on-reactor
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 1:56 pm
by mvanwink5
The white paper linked to above:
http://fusion4freedom.us/pdfs/LManalysis.pdf
fails to understand what EMC2 proved, Grad's conjecture works, so it does not grasp what 'inflation' for start up means. LM has stalks which is an engineering issue and Polywell eliminates. LM's project still seems to still be in process based on the 2016 poster and they have money. With all their magnets, why not make a 100% cusp Polywell machine? An issue with patents? Obstinance?
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:40 am
by choff
Maybe EMC2 patent prevents them from taking advantage of Polywell research.
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 5:23 am
by paperburn1
It would be hard for them to claim virgin engineering as they helped Bussard.
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:20 am
by D Tibbets
What EMC 2 patent? The original is well over 20 years old and a newer application (in 2008?) was rejected.
Dan Tibbets
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:58 am
by crowberry
D Tibbets wrote:What EMC 2 patent? The original is well over 20 years old and a newer application (in 2008?) was rejected.
Dan Tibbets
EMC2 has a patent application from December 2015, see this post
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6072&start=90#p123726.
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:44 pm
by paperburn1
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:15 pm
by crowberry
LM has also several contributions at the 59th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics conference:
Abstract: BP11.00097 : Initial operation of the Lockheed Martin T4B experiment
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP17/Session/BP11.97
Abstract: JO4.00001 : Overview of the Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor (CFR) Project.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP17/Session/JO4.1
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:10 pm
by mvanwink5
Once again thanks to crowberry.
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default ... CGUIRE.pdf
I am becoming a believer in LM approach and team.
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:13 pm
by Skipjack
Lockheed Martin got a patent for their fusion reactor design. The Drive article seems to be a bit too optimistic about their schedule though. From all I have heard, LM is still years away from a break even prototype. They had a pretty long funding gap, from what I remember and funding did not resume at adequate levels until a couple of years ago (IIRC). So that will have pushed schedules to the right. Add that and the inevitable problems and I would not expect anything from them until 2022 earliest:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19 ... on-reactor
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:38 am
by paperburn1
I missed this but you guys may have found it. posting it just in case.
Size: The Lockheed team has now expanded to 25 people. This is a great sign. The results have likely been very promising.
http://www.thepolywellblog.com/
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 12:45 pm
by paperburn1
Has anyone any links for harmonics in plasma. Simpler would be better
Re: Lockheed Martin news
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:44 pm
by crowberry