Talk-Polywell.org

DeltaV wrote:If this is a two-coil cylindrical machine, maybe Lockheed is using a circular array of their "magnetic beam" devices to block the ring cusp between the coils.

paperburn1 wrote:Here is something I dug up.

Glen Wurden’s Extemporaneous Public Comment FESAC Feb 2012
Ok, what can I add to that? Let me start by saying it is all about the plan. We do not have a
viable plan to fund our proposed programs…that includes ITER…and especially it is driven by
ITER’s (funding needs). We have seen this coming for years, this is not a new thing. In a sense
this (the FY13 budget) is exactly a disruption, without a precursor…..because when you call up
the provost at 8:30AM on the same morning, and tell them at their university that their main
project is going to be shut down. ….this is exactly a disruption. And in fact, there is no
mitigation system for this disruption. And we don’t have a way out of it, without other
consequences. So, …a…people talk about ITER being the “capstone of the American fusion
program”. I do not want ITER to become the “tombstone” of the American fusion program. And
if we go down this pathway, where we can look at the out-year numbers that we need for ITER,
the obvious conclusion is that there is another machine down the road (DIII-D) that will have the
same problem that C-Mod is now experiencing.
I’ve been through the disruption of a program, back when alternates were killed in Los Alamos
in 1990. We lost our machine, ….actually multiple machines, our groups and our entire division.
It took ten years to recover from that, and even then we probably haven’t recovered. We can’t
do this to our human capital. It is our human teams that are the most important thing here. I don’t
care about the $200M investment in hardware (at C-Mod)…that is not the issue. Because you
know, every person has a career plan, every person has an education plan, they have an
investment plan, and they even have a retirement plan if they are lucky. (In the same way) we
should think about our programs too. I mean, every machine will turn off. I have no doubt. I have
worked on many machines. The will turn off (at some point). But you need to do it in a way
where it is not a disruption. You need to do it in a way that you have a plan. And whether it is a
5-year plan, or a 10-year plan mandated by our friends in Congress…..and we must deliver that
plan…..if we don’t deliver that plan there are even bigger consequences to our program.
But it is actually a good thing to have a plan. It is not a bad thing. You can see where you are
going (with a plan). And if you see where you are going, and you have talked about it with the
community….then you can, you can tell your students what the future is. When there are
disruptions, you have no future. And we can’t let our premier tokamak team in this country, with
a premier education mission, disappear overnight. And even when they are told that their
research money is ok for next year at some reduced level …..what about FY14? If their number
is zero, how can they plan? They can’t plan. By the way, my budget at Los Alamos is down
48%, or even more, from $5.3M in FY11 to $1.88M in this god-awful plan for FY13. We can not
go down this course…….(silence)……by the way, a vision without a plan, is a nightmare.
Dr. Glen A. Wurden
LANL Fusion Energy Sciences Program Manager
P-24 Plasma Physics Group

ladajo wrote:That does not seem to look anything like what was shown in the TED talk.

paperburn1 wrote:

ladajo wrote:That does not seem to look anything like what was shown in the TED talk.

Its not, that's plan two.
they drop little cans of aluminum, full fusion-able material and crush them in a controlled way to make a pulse of energy. I will see if I can find the references.

paperburn1 wrote:

paperburn1 wrote:

ladajo wrote:That does not seem to look anything like what was shown in the TED talk.

Its not, that's plan two.
they drop little cans of aluminum, full fusion-able material and crush them in a controlled way to make a pulse of energy. I will see if I can find the references.

or as they put it ,known as “magnetized liner inertialfusion,” or MagLIF. MagLIF crushes a fuel pellet to achieve fusion energy, as withinertial confnement fusion. However, instead of using lasers, it uses a magneticpulse, as with magnetic confnement fusion. The hybrid approach, researchers believe, will allow them to achieve net energy gain by the end of 2013