Which part, the hi-temp coil joints or the doing away? I think the first was in a contract. Dan covered the other.KitemanSA wrote:There is no evidence for that is there?TallDave wrote:It looks like in WB-7.1 they tried some things with the coil joints, and ultimately decided to do away with them in WB-8.
Lawrenceville plasma physics June update
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
This is mostly speculation our our parts, but seems to fit the available evidence. Also, It follows on Joel Roger's work as well, and we also know that he and Rick are/have been in contact.
I personally would like to think that the Wall Mount idea surfaced here fisrt and was used by Rick to further the project. But I would have to go back and dig up the old posts and check the timing for WB7 to 7.1 transition, as well as against Joel Roger's work.
I say this in hopes that we do actually contribute to Rick's work form time to time with our "open science" approach and discussion on the boards. Politics not-withstanding...
Edit: Clipped this from Bussard's letter, I had forgotten it, but it was an important reminder to where we are at today:
I personally would like to think that the Wall Mount idea surfaced here fisrt and was used by Rick to further the project. But I would have to go back and dig up the old posts and check the timing for WB7 to 7.1 transition, as well as against Joel Roger's work.
I say this in hopes that we do actually contribute to Rick's work form time to time with our "open science" approach and discussion on the boards. Politics not-withstanding...
Edit: Clipped this from Bussard's letter, I had forgotten it, but it was an important reminder to where we are at today:
So, as we cut down, we managed to save the lab equipment, by transfer to SpaceDev, which hired our three best lab people as well, and we are still trying to get the missing $ 2M restored and put into our existing but unfunded contract. IF this happens - which is improhable, given the politics of this election year, and the non-visionary people in Congress - we will redo WB-6 with an improved and better version (WB-7) which should give 5x more output, and run about 50 tests to quiet dissent. AND we will convene a review panel of very high-level and internationally distinguished people to spend about 6 weeks going over this to recommend for or against proceeding sith a full scale demo.
From the recovery.gov web site report for first quarter 2010
Quarterly Activities/Project Description:
on budget, on schedule for new lab test facility. Primary focus has been construction, procurement and relocation of personnel and chamber.
Based on the project update the WB-7.1 chamber was relocated for the WB-8 project. So the WB-8 chamber shown on the EMC2 web site for WB-7.1 is not a mistake as some have thought. It looks like all the instrumentation set up and the coil configuration will be identical for WB-7.1 and WB-8 except for coil size and B field. It is a good way to show scaling and minimize unpleasant surprises. With the WB-7.1 tuning already explored, WB-8 might not take so long to optimize. Also the instrumentation bugs should have already been worked out.
In other words WB-7 was part 2 of WB-6 test and WB-7.1 was part 1 of WB-8 test. Just my take on it.
Quarterly Activities/Project Description:
on budget, on schedule for new lab test facility. Primary focus has been construction, procurement and relocation of personnel and chamber.
Based on the project update the WB-7.1 chamber was relocated for the WB-8 project. So the WB-8 chamber shown on the EMC2 web site for WB-7.1 is not a mistake as some have thought. It looks like all the instrumentation set up and the coil configuration will be identical for WB-7.1 and WB-8 except for coil size and B field. It is a good way to show scaling and minimize unpleasant surprises. With the WB-7.1 tuning already explored, WB-8 might not take so long to optimize. Also the instrumentation bugs should have already been worked out.
In other words WB-7 was part 2 of WB-6 test and WB-7.1 was part 1 of WB-8 test. Just my take on it.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
mvan,
They are probably running both. That looks like it has too many holes to be the WB-7 chamber, and they might just mean they built the new chamber, then relocated it to their new facility. Maybe the inventory list would tell us for sure. Also, it would be odd to omit WB-8 from the website timeline, WB-7.1 was a 2009 project iirc, and confinement behavior was to be the WB-8 focus.
I think you're right about diagnostics though. Rick mentioned they were testing some in the "tide us over" WB 7.1 period.
When does the 2Q update happen? Is that end of July?
They are probably running both. That looks like it has too many holes to be the WB-7 chamber, and they might just mean they built the new chamber, then relocated it to their new facility. Maybe the inventory list would tell us for sure. Also, it would be odd to omit WB-8 from the website timeline, WB-7.1 was a 2009 project iirc, and confinement behavior was to be the WB-8 focus.
I think you're right about diagnostics though. Rick mentioned they were testing some in the "tide us over" WB 7.1 period.
When does the 2Q update happen? Is that end of July?
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Dave,
I would expect a new chamber to be fabricated off site in a fab shop with delivery when needed, no need to take delivery and then have to move it. The WB-7.1 looked like it was undertaken to lay the groundwork for WB-8, hence WB-7.1 with detailed diagnostics and nub changes before building WB-8. How else could scaling be cleanly demonstrated? So a new chamber was needed to provide for the diagnostics, why not just make the WB-8 chamber and use it for WB-7.1. It would also facilitate WB-8 in many ways including instrumentation. It would be nice to really know, but then I would lose my mushroom status, God forbid.
The next report will likely be published in the first week of August. Not likely to see it early, I think the last one was out Monday May 3. It will probably say, "on budget, on schedule, testing in progress," or something less meaningful. At least the last report said something about the "chamber!!"
I would expect a new chamber to be fabricated off site in a fab shop with delivery when needed, no need to take delivery and then have to move it. The WB-7.1 looked like it was undertaken to lay the groundwork for WB-8, hence WB-7.1 with detailed diagnostics and nub changes before building WB-8. How else could scaling be cleanly demonstrated? So a new chamber was needed to provide for the diagnostics, why not just make the WB-8 chamber and use it for WB-7.1. It would also facilitate WB-8 in many ways including instrumentation. It would be nice to really know, but then I would lose my mushroom status, God forbid.
The next report will likely be published in the first week of August. Not likely to see it early, I think the last one was out Monday May 3. It will probably say, "on budget, on schedule, testing in progress," or something less meaningful. At least the last report said something about the "chamber!!"
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Ok, so there is a recognized need to, and a contract to do something about the nubs, but NO real data about what was done. I note that in the WB 8 graphic there are NO details about how it is supported. I suspect that is one of the things that they hope may be patentable.TallDave wrote:Which part, the hi-temp coil joints or the doing away? I think the first was in a contract. Dan covered the other.KitemanSA wrote:There is no evidence for that is there?TallDave wrote:It looks like in WB-7.1 they tried some things with the coil joints, and ultimately decided to do away with them in WB-8.
The openings in the chamber may also be there to allow preliminary tests of a direct power conversion system.
Personally, I think WB8 was one of those "oh boy, we just been promised a huge hunk of money if we can do something with it, what should we do? $2M? Wow, lets do a clean WB7.1... what you mean $8M OMG!!! Hey, lets... Holy cow; $14M??? Ok, lets really go to town...mvanwink5 wrote:The WB-7.1 looked like it was undertaken to lay the groundwork for WB-8, hence WB-7.1 with detailed diagnostics and nub changes before building WB-8.
But all this happened well AFTER the WB7.1 funding which was a direct attempt to minimally answer the questions raised by the review panel. If the Recovery Act hadn't happened, we might have been lobbying for $200M for WB Demo right now. Or maybe just $30M for MSimon's MRI SC magnet machine.
TMHO.
mvan,
It's possible, but that would mean they knew they needed a WB-8 chamber and everything in it long before the WB-8 decision was officially made. That chamber looks awfully specialized. It looks like the WB-8 e-gun ports are built right into it. Maybe Tom can tell us something, if he stops by.
Nebel did say at one point that the WB-7 chamber was a 1 meter cube. Not sure if there's any way to tell how much bigger this is or isn't.
Kite,
There was a discussion of the drawing a ways back where someone (I think ladajo) noticed it appears by the placement of the flanges that they are intended to support the WB-8 frame. I wouldn't call it a certainty, but it appears very likely.
That's a good point on the p-B11 conversion, hadn't thought of that. I suspect they're only looking at alpha detection for now, but you never know.
I'm moving that pic to my desktop, the better to fitfully contemplate it at various odd moments.
It's possible, but that would mean they knew they needed a WB-8 chamber and everything in it long before the WB-8 decision was officially made. That chamber looks awfully specialized. It looks like the WB-8 e-gun ports are built right into it. Maybe Tom can tell us something, if he stops by.
Nebel did say at one point that the WB-7 chamber was a 1 meter cube. Not sure if there's any way to tell how much bigger this is or isn't.
Kite,
There was a discussion of the drawing a ways back where someone (I think ladajo) noticed it appears by the placement of the flanges that they are intended to support the WB-8 frame. I wouldn't call it a certainty, but it appears very likely.
That's a good point on the p-B11 conversion, hadn't thought of that. I suspect they're only looking at alpha detection for now, but you never know.
I'm moving that pic to my desktop, the better to fitfully contemplate it at various odd moments.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
It is one interpretation. "Likelihood" must of course remain a matter of opinion. My opinion is that they are there to permit maximum flexibility in access for whatever purpose.TallDave wrote: There was a discussion of the drawing a ways back where someone (I think ladajo) noticed it appears by the placement of the flanges that they are intended to support the WB-8 frame. I wouldn't call it a certainty, but it appears very likely.
I'm not sure what the cantelevered weight of each of those magnets, PLUS the variable field forces, would do to the effectiveness of those seals. At those vacuum levels, they are pretty cantankerous already, if my sources are to be believed.
First detection, then theoretically consistant manipulation, then generation. Seems plausible.TallDave wrote:That's a good point on the p-B11 conversion, hadn't thought of that. I suspect they're only looking at alpha detection for now, but you never know.
Oooommmm!TallDave wrote:I'm moving that pic to my desktop, the better to fitfully contemplate it at various odd moments.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The report will likely be published on July 30. I believe the last one was out April 30. It just took some people a few days to find it because somebody changed the award number from "N68936-09C-0125" to "N6893609C0125", creating a new page for the 2010 1st quarter results. Simply camping out on the page for the 2009 results became an exercise in futility.mvanwink5 wrote:The next report will likely be published in the first week of August. Not likely to see it early, I think the last one was out Monday May 3.
If you search back in my posts (sorry, quite a few of them) you will find where I used a statement by Tom Ligon related to the type of vacuum flanges used and a reference to a flange catelog which provided me with flange SIZE which became a baseline measurement to scale from. Using that baseline, I scaled the graphic to ~60cm. SO, assuming TL is right and the graphic is accurate, the item is ~60 cm. Dr. N also stated WB8 would be a "larger scale" machine and 2X scaling makes sense. This also results in a 60cm machine.TallDave wrote:Did we ever come up any real basis for that 60cm though?
IMHO it is a 60cm machine. This opinion has changed markedly since WB8 was first mentioned.