Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Uhm... I am afraid that if they will go in hiding again we will not hear from them until the Navy will be ready to show a working device....

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I dunno that they want to hide so much as only say as little as they can. They haven't turned down interviews so far but rather said there wasn't much to report..

What is the difference now from back when Alan Boyle interviewed Dr Nebel and got a few small nuggets of info, about once a year?

mvanwink5
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

Betruger wrote:I dunno that they want to hide so much as only say as little as they can. They haven't turned down interviews so far but rather said there wasn't much to report..
EMC2 is leaving Recovery money on the table if "Final Report Submitted -Yes" means EMC2 is switching to a money source less open to tracking. I can see no other interpretation than someone wants the practical development stage to be a lot more subdued. Could a $200 million demonstration Polywell be kept quiet, even out of the political theatre? Maybe it will be moved to area 51?

Can a Polywell match the volumetric footprint of a fission reactor, could it power a sub? Crew safety would be so much greater, no reactor scrams, etc.

I can't imagine the Navy lolligagging around at this point, and Dr. Park did mention that shortening development time is of great importance...
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Even with this excellent news, Polywell is still a bit of a long shot -- especially in the eyes of all those guys at DOE who have invested their lives in tokamaks.

I wouldn't be surprised if it plays out the way Giorgio suggests, or if the program is just shut down, excellent confinement or no. ONR already had the FEL cut.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

mvanwink5 wrote:
Can a Polywell match the volumetric footprint of a fission reactor, could it power a sub?
Subs, Carriers, DD's. that is the idea for the ONR interest. and it matches other ONR projects for electric Marine drives and lasers.

Um, with a mag core of 10ft (3.1m), P-b11 fuel, 18 ft vac chamber, 30 to 35 ft room=1000Mw. IIRC MSimon thinks 35 ft, so maybe 2 can fit into the space of a fission nuke, easy, 1000Mw for the electric drive the other (1000mw) for the laser air defense unit. Might even fit into a 500 ft Frigate with a 50 ft beam.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

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

Post by Skipjack »

In addition to all that, I would want to see it as a propulsion system for RLVs...
There is some interest in the DOD to have new, cheaper LVs for defense pruposes. But that is handled by the airforce, I am affraid.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

So any news of more than 3 neutrons that Bussard reported?

Confinement is a lovely property to report but is not the final arbiter of success in this venture .... unless is it?

Emmet
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:31 am

Post by Emmet »

I just sold my last oil related stocks 8)
stone-bronze-iron-carbon-boron

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Roger wrote:
mvanwink5 wrote:
Can a Polywell match the volumetric footprint of a fission reactor, could it power a sub?
Subs, Carriers, DD's. that is the idea for the ONR interest. and it matches other ONR projects for electric Marine drives and lasers.

Um, with a mag core of 10ft (3.1m), P-b11 fuel, 18 ft vac chamber, 30 to 35 ft room=1000Mw. IIRC MSimon thinks 35 ft, so maybe 2 can fit into the space of a fission nuke, easy, 1000Mw for the electric drive the other (1000mw) for the laser air defense unit. Might even fit into a 500 ft Frigate with a 50 ft beam.
I think your # are a bit off here. Dr B always talked about a 2m (not 1.5) radius reactor for 100MW (not 1000MW) using pB&J. This also doesn't include the space for the direct converter.

Of course, 100MW is probably acceptable for a sub. 1000MW for electric drive?? Wow, that could maybe produce a super cavitating submarine! 200kt anyone? But so much for stealth!

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

And toss in diesel 10MW to start the thing. Or do they just lug around batteries and capacitors?

I hope someone over at ONR is thinking "Hmm, maybe we can leverage a successful Polywell reactor into restoring funding for FEL..."
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

TallDave wrote:And toss in diesel 10MW to start the thing. Or do they just lug around batteries and capacitors?

I hope someone over at ONR is thinking "Hmm, maybe we can leverage a successful Polywell reactor into restoring funding for FEL..."
Personally, I think they need something more like a 5MW EDG and a high power, high capacity pulse power storage system like flywheels or similar.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Yikes. FEL got canned?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Betruger wrote:Yikes. FEL got canned?
I think that when the Navy demonstrated that they can get almost everything they want from a laser thru ganging existing commercial lasers, the urge for the FEL went mostly away.

There could be other reasons too. For example:
Both of the above, the railgun and the laser have one big shortcoming. The power supply system required to power them on board the ships are still non-existent or “in development”.
per the blog
http://propulsiontech.wordpress.com/201 ... wired-com/

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

Post by ladajo »

It is not canned yet. Just on its way after the congressional committee rec to dump it. But that said, it is not over until the budget is written and signed without it. It may yet live given the leap they made this year. Or, the navy can do keep alive by redirecting funds.

I hope that they do not write it out of the budget, as FEL has so many possible uses, not just a cool blaster.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

ladajo wrote:It is not canned yet. Just on its way after the congressional committee rec to dump it. But that said, it is not over until the budget is written and signed without it. It may yet live given the leap they made this year. Or, the navy can do keep alive by redirecting funds.

I hope that they do not write it out of the budget, as FEL has so many possible uses, not just a cool blaster.
Which is the "It" you are talking about, FEL or RailGun? If FEL, what "leap" did they have this year?

Post Reply