Talk-Polywell.org

Joseph Chikva wrote: Kiteman, I see one maximum on a logarithmic axis closer to 1 MEV. And do not see any more.

See figure 1.3 of this document.

www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf

Joseph Chikva wrote:Via collisions, my friend, you can reach only uniformity of average velocities distribution. But not to convert random to coherent. My advise is to learn more from classic physics.

How broad is the energy distribution of a HOT substance? Now, how broad is it for a COLD substance? The energy spread of a cold substance is MUCH narrower than a hot. When the ions climb the well, they become much colder. Therefore, any collisionality at the edge will tend to NARROW the deviation of energies. So they start their next cycle into the well with a smaller deviation in velocity and pick up only radial motion from the well. Classic physics.

Joseph Chikva wrote:And to stop incorrect using of terms like “resonance peak” or “general peak”.

Fine. If you know a better set of terms, I'll use them. Those are the terms I heard here. Indeed, it is in one person's signature line, I think.

JohnP wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:Was there a date set as for release of information?

Beginning scince 50s of 20th certury fusion researches are not secret. But for releasing you should have positive well understood for physicists information. As any physicist will ask question similar to mine and may be much stricter.
Till 70s there was euphoria from feeling that the solution is very close. But rising closer new problems invisible from far away were found. Only by this I can explain individual share of top (not poor) countries in the ITER program. As any of them can finance the program indepedently in case of the corresponding decision. But all see that expenses are big while results aren't clear and very remote.
I contacted with office of fusion science of DOE and I can tell you that it is quite sane people - all experts in the area. The former head of office today again is an acting scientist. And the main thing that I didn't feel from them prejudice against mine and I am sure to other approaches too.
Have they ever made any statement on Polywell?

JohnP wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:And I need not belief in viability of Polywell as I see that definitely Polywell does not work and will not work.

The main thing to wait for is confirmation of scaling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the current dearth of information coming from EMC2, it's hard to tell if they've established scaling with WB8. Was there a date set as for release of information? Or are we stuck with educated guesses and tea-leaf reading for the forseeable future?

nah, he's trying to do what Art Carlson was doing back in the days, except really poorly. That means he's trying to theoretically disprove the viability of polywell, except his understanding of the system, it's features, and general understanding of IEC machines is not very good.

But I actually found out that his understanding of toroidal magnetic confinement machines isnt very good either, considering he thinks heating (and not control) was the primary problem with toks, (despite my former professors saying otherwise, one being a leader of stellerators and fusion plasma in the US and the other being a member of DOE's Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, I guess they dont know better) Despite a whole panel thinking that this may be worth taking a look at, nah, this machine obviously has very very very apparent physical flaws according to Joe.

Just stop interacting with him.

Robthebob wrote:But I actually found out that his understanding of toroidal magnetic confinement machines isnt very good either, considering he thinks heating (and not control) was the primary problem with toks,...

So, "control" or as I understand you mean "feasible confinement time" (lifetime of plasma)
So, see Wiki "Lawson criterion" if you only can ask persons, opinion of which seems for you as trustable and can not anilize yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
The product neτE
For the D-T reaction, the physical value is at least
neτE >=1.5EE20 s/m3

Now see results achived at JET TOKAMAK (Culham, UK)
ne=1.5E20 m^-3
τE=3 s
So, this product is equal to 4.5E20 s/m3

Also if you worried on "control problems" in TOKAMAKs, please see also at JET's site the "Remote Handling" section: http://www.efda.org/jet/remote-handling-2/
Would be more useful for your eduction than asking to:

Robthebob wrote:(despite my former professors saying otherwise, one being a leader of stellerators and fusion plasma in the US and the other being a member of DOE's Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, I guess they dont know better)

- the person who stuck in 70s and thinking that nothing was made after 70s.
as today TOKAMAK has overcome required value of double product but did not achive to required value of triple neτET
Or in the other words - could not achived required temperature.

By the way, that professor is the same person who said

the plasma current is induced by the changing magnetic field.

?
Have you seen the link I have provided to you from which you can see another way for driving current. Certainly if you have eyes to see.

Oh, I understan now: Polywell's selfless lover

Robthebob wrote:Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

KitemanSA wrote: Indeed, it is in one person's signature line, I think.

Might that be my sig? I think I stole it from something MSimon posted concerning a chart that was being discussed at one point... ages ago.

Robthebob wrote:nah, he's trying to do what Art Carlson was doing back in the days, except really poorly.
Just stop interacting with him.

Thats my impression, and I'm weak in the theory dept. I've been following this thread for a while and have come to the conclusion its gone nowhere, for no gain....

Yup.

Roger wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: Indeed, it is in one person's signature line, I think.

Might that be my sig? I think I stole it from something MSimon posted concerning a chart that was being discussed at one point... ages ago.

Yup! That's the one.

KitemanSA wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote: Kiteman, I see one maximum on a logarithmic axis closer to 1 MEV. And do not see any more.

See figure 1.3 of this document.

www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf

Joseph Chikva wrote:Via collisions, my friend, you can reach only uniformity of average velocities distribution. But not to convert random to coherent. My advise is to learn more from classic physics.

How broad is the energy distribution of a HOT substance? Now, how broad is it for a COLD substance? The energy spread of a cold substance is MUCH narrower than a hot. When the ions climb the well, they become much colder. Therefore, any collisionality at the edge will tend to NARROW the deviation of energies. So they start their next cycle into the well with a smaller deviation in velocity and pick up only radial motion from the well. Classic physics.

Joseph Chikva wrote:And to stop incorrect using of terms like “resonance peak” or “general peak”.

Fine. If you know a better set of terms, I'll use them. Those are the terms I heard here. Indeed, it is in one person's signature line, I think.

I have followed to your advise and do not visit this site frequently. But now I have half an hour. And I missed this your post (quoted above)
And this:

The energy spread of a cold substance is MUCH narrower than a hot. When the ions climb the well, they become much colder. Therefore, any collisionality at the edge will tend to NARROW the deviation of energies. So they start their next cycle into the well with a smaller deviation in velocity and pick up only radial motion from the well. Classic physics.

is incorrect.
You can have a stream with a low coherent component and wide spread of velocities and you can have a stream with a high coherent component with narrow spread of velocities. And the spread of velocities increases as a result of collisions. And term "temperature" (high temperature - "hot", low temperature - "cold") in classical physics is used only for assessment of intensity of chaotic movement and not coherent.
I know only two ways of reduction of temperature in the stream:
- its mixing with other stream with lower temperature
- radiation
You speak about a way of reduction of temperature at the expense of action of a potential field. Such way doesn't work.
The classical example is the Sun in which gravitational potential well confines plasma. Yes, temperature at the edge there is lower than in the core. But in case of so intense mass transferring in the Sun as this is desired in Polywell (periodically oscillated plasma sphere POPS) there also will be the uniform temperature anywhere.

Then we shall agree to disagree. From my reading of Dr. B.'s works, I learn that such a process is real. From my reading of your posts, I see that you don't agree with him.

I will accept his word more than yours as HE has actually done this and you have just run off at the mouth.

Ta.

KitemanSA wrote:From my reading of Dr. B.'s works, I learn that such a process is real.

That’s only your understanding of his words. As he could say such things: "stopping stream’s coherent motion by potential field we can narrow the spread of velocities". As regardless to viability of his approach he was a plasma physicist. Unlike you.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:From my reading of Dr. B.'s works, I learn that such a process is real.

That’s only your understanding of his words. As he could say such things: "stopping stream’s coherent motion by potential field we can narrow the spread of velocities". As regardless to viability of his approach he was a plasma physicist. Unlike you.

On what do you base your statement that the ions are in a stream? Or, to phrase it another way, "You keep using tha' word. I do-no think it means wha' you think it means."

krenshala wrote:On what do you base your statement that the ions are in a stream?

Stream, beam, organized coherent motion e.g. oscillation around the center vs. chaotic, random. And every motion can be considered of combination of mentioned two.

By the way, on what do you base your statement that all ions pass through the center?

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:From my reading of Dr. B.'s works, I learn that such a process is real.

That’s only your understanding of his words. As he could say such things: "stopping stream’s coherent motion by potential field we can narrow the spread of velocities". As regardless to viability of his approach he was a plasma physicist. Unlike you.

Have YOU read his Valencia paper? Find that part and READ it. See what it says. Quote it and dispute it. You are an IDIOT if you are arguing with ME. Argue with HIM.

I've read his work. I believe I understand it.
Have you? I don't believe YOU understand it.
I don't care whether you are a plasma physicist or not.