Aero wrote:Obviously I'm missing something, but I'm sure R^7 - R^2 /= R^5.
I wondered about that too, a couple years back, then I realized gain is negative for small machines, so obviously you can't just multiply it by r^5.
It's probably most accurate to say we expect power scales as B^4 * r^3, and we don't really know how losses scale, but we hope they look something like B^.25 * r^2. Gain is power minus loss at whatever values of B and R we plug in. r^5 may sort of describe gain over a certain range.
MSimon wrote:I can let the cat out of the bag now. Procurement difficulties rather than experiment gone bad.
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
Betruger wrote:So when can we consider Polywell doesn't behave as Doc Carlson expected according to conventional conjecture? After 8.1 gets the green? IIRC, his and Chrismb's prognostics were for a Polywell to fail at some very fundamental level.
We knew that a long time ago -- Rick stated they were not seeing the ion currents to the walls Art predicted. This was also not seen in most simulations. Art had this strange belief he could just model tiny pieces of the device with an equation here and there and tell whether it would work, which was amusing and sometimes even interesting but never anything like definitive. I wouldn't even trust the simulations all that far; there are probably going to be surprises (and they probably won't be good surprises).
KitemanSA wrote:Just as a reminder, WB-D is EMC2FDC speak for a 100MW demo machine. WB9 is EMC2/Navy funds speak for... whatever is next in line that is currently written as a 100mW machine. This could allow for at least one more intermediate scale machine. WB-D and WB9 are different machines that may or MAY NOT be similar.
Indeed, I remember when some of us here were calling the 100MW machine "WB-8."
ladajo wrote:Well, I guess you will all have to revise your opinions of why and how Rick Nebel is no longer associated with EMC2.
The 1Q/2011 recovery.gov report states:
"As of 1Q/2011, the WB-8 device operates as designed and it is generating positive results. EMC2 is planning to conduct comprehensive experiments on WB-8 in the next 9-12 months based on the current contract funding schedule."
I make of this that they ARE behind schedule, and have NOT received all funding from the Recovery Act, and that we WILL see another report.
I also am failing to supress an uncontrolled expression of glee.
Yes, that sounds about right to me. It's hard to say what "positive results" mean -- that could be "favorable loss scaling confirmed" or neutron counts or just "we're finally getting some data now." We may not know anything more even by implication until WB-8.1/D are approved or denied, but we can hope for an interview I suppose.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...