Lawaranceville E-Newsletter

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Why do you not think that the progress they have made and the fact that they are doing open science is not something to be proud about?

Considering where they started with the project (an idea), and the advances and learning they have accomplished, I think they have every right to be proud and happy. Whetjer or not they succeed is irrelevant in this discussion, the key point is that they are giving it an honest go, and making progress.

What is your issue with that?

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

He's just being a troll. I suggest we ignore him.

The only thing missing so far is a suggestion the Lawrenceville group properly learn about electromagnetic theory.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:Why do you not think that the progress they have made and the fact that they are doing open science is not something to be proud about?

Considering where they started with the project (an idea), and the advances and learning they have accomplished, I think they have every right to be proud and happy. Whetjer or not they succeed is irrelevant in this discussion, the key point is that they are giving it an honest go, and making progress.

What is your issue with that?
Yes, everyone has right to be proud. Someone satisfied only with way and someone not satisfied even with positive results. As any results may be considered only as intermediate steps.

And actually I do not see any their significant progress.
On contrary, the recent question of Dr. Lerner how to clean internal surface of cathode from grease (hydrocarbons) and also how to restore window’s transparency suggests me that they have significant problem with critical contamination of plasma. And I think that they can get rid of hydrocarbons after number of shots.
But contamination by copper would be critical.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

rjaypeters wrote:He's just being a troll. I suggest we ignore him.

The only thing missing so far is a suggestion the Lawrenceville group properly learn about electromagnetic theory.
Call me though the hobbit.
But you can not change reality and laws of nature.

Skipjack
Posts: 6823
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

But contamination by copper would be critical.
Which is why they have changed back from the copper knife edge to tungsten pins, if I understood that correctly.
The hydrocarbon vapour was caused by some grease left over from machining some parts. That was easily resolved.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Skipjack wrote:
But contamination by copper would be critical.
Which is why they have changed back from the copper knife edge to tungsten pins, if I understood that correctly.
The hydrocarbon vapour was caused by some grease left over from machining some parts. That was easily resolved.
In any case they have not any promising results yet. And, yes, grease can be removed but insulator made of Mylar also would not be the best solution. Only ceramic. I think that beryllium oxide is the best.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

gahhh!!!

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I think that beryllium oxide is the best.
Nasty stuff if it turns to dust. Even a little is not good.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

MSimon wrote:
I think that beryllium oxide is the best.
Nasty stuff if it turns to dust. Even a little is not good.
Yes, toxic.
But look at this scheme: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Ffig1_.jpg
Will there insulator not degrade, dissociate and then contaminate plasma under the influence of not low voltage of 45кВ and ionized gas? And will the breakdown not occur after several shots?
If do not like beryllium oxide, aluminum oxide has not bad properties too. Or any other ceramic insulation material - more suitable for ionized gas environment. Not plastic. If they have hydrocarbon contamination problems from grease, so, they will have similar problems from insulator also made from hydrocarbons.

http://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Belgium-2009 ... masini.pdf
In a gas and non uniform electric fields, when the breakdown field is exceeded we can have local ionization and discharges.
The compounds formed during the discharges and the bombardment of ions can degrade nearby insulating materials.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

DPF may or may not work. There has been some evidence presented that the fusion output is scaling up to several orders of magnitude higher than standard theory. If the scaling holds and high efficiency Bremsstrulung X-ray energy recovery is possible, then positive Q's may be achieved. Whether the gain can exceed other losses associated with conversion to useful electricity is uncertain.
From my understanding from M. Simon and other sources, even if the physics work, the durability of the electrodes, etc. may prevent economic electricity because of the short lifetimes of the machines/ parts.
This may preclude use as a power generating system unless challenging engineering issues can be solved, but that does not prevent the machine from being a useful intense X-ray source, or neutron producer. From a fairly naive perspective I see no reason why the DPF could not substitute for research devices such as the National Ignition Facility (laser inertial confinement) at a cost at least several orders of magnitude less. The same might be said for pulsed or steady state FRC approaches (from predicted low positive Q capabilities).

The Polywell has an advantage here as optimistic predictions of P-11B Q's of 5-20 are possible, versus ~ 3-5 for the above machines. For D-D fusion the Polywell may have an even larger advantage as it becomes less challenging from a engineering standpoint as the size is increased and thermal power extraction , heat loads , etc becomes less challenging. My impression is that the the DPF and FRC approaches max out fusion efficiencies at smaller, more challenging sizes.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Joeseph,
If they have hydrocarbon contamination problems from grease
Do you actually read things? Do you understand that the grease contamination was from an improperly cleaned part after machining?

Really, I think sometimes you add great insight and depth to conversations, but other times you persist with a demonstrated lack of actual participation in an attempt to possibly hear yourself talk.

If you actually went thorugh the Focus Fusion website, you may learn that they started with an idea and theory, and have been diligently working it forward and adapting as they learn.

Are they successful yet? No.
Are they making progress? Yes.
Will they be successful? That remains to be seen and is not the point.

It appears in your world that the only good science to be proud of is that which you build once and it works acording to plan. In my world, that is not science.

"If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research."

"Failed experiments provide more learning opportunities than successful ones."

"If you know what is going to happen, what is the point of trying it?"

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome."

Joeseph, think science, not engineering.

bennmann
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Post by bennmann »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:He's just being a troll. .
Call me though the hobbit.
That is adorable - the Lord of the Rings references are very cross cultural. Forgive the Tolkien in me though, but you should have said "Call me an Ent though," as treebeard reveals to Merry and Pippin that Trolls were made in mockery of the Ents. Love the reference though.

The rest of the recent conversation has been difficult.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:Joeseph,
If they have hydrocarbon contamination problems from grease
Do you actually read things? Do you understand that the grease contamination was from an improperly cleaned part after machining?
Yes, I know that. But also know that grease as contamination source will end after a number of shots. If hydrocarbons contamination is problem there is one more hydrocarbon source - namely plastic insulator being bombarded by charged particles.
So, first will end, while the second is the one of main parts of device.

And I like the thought that "engineering is an applied science" (c)

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Yes, but Engineers are not paid to fail. Scientists are.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:Yes, but Engineers are not paid to fail. Scientists are.
Engineers also are paid to check various approaches. Non-successful can also be considered as fail.
Like you me too is a little bit interested in military. One example: how many kinds of weapon systems have been developed and then how many from them have been accepted by Army?

Returning to focus fusion I see one novelty (difference) in comparison with quoted by me old scheme: they use multiple rods instead of a single rod (anode). And only experiment will show how successful is this solution.

But borderline between science and engineering is not well defined.

Post Reply