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?
Lawaranceville E-Newsletter
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
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.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?
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
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
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.Skipjack wrote:Which is why they have changed back from the copper knife edge to tungsten pins, if I understood that correctly.But contamination by copper would be critical.
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
Yes, toxic.MSimon wrote:Nasty stuff if it turns to dust. Even a little is not good.I think that beryllium oxide is the best.
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.
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
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.
Joeseph,
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.
Do you actually read things? Do you understand that the grease contamination was from an improperly cleaned part after machining?If they have hydrocarbon contamination problems from grease
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.
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.Joseph Chikva wrote:Call me though the hobbit.rjaypeters wrote:He's just being a troll. .
The rest of the recent conversation has been difficult.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
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.ladajo wrote:Joeseph,Do you actually read things? Do you understand that the grease contamination was from an improperly cleaned part after machining?If they have hydrocarbon contamination problems from grease
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)
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Engineers also are paid to check various approaches. Non-successful can also be considered as fail.ladajo wrote:Yes, but Engineers are not paid to fail. Scientists are.
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.