This seems new, and has some unfamiliar names (Mathew Travis).
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/HSblog.php?itemid=25560
So far they mostly seem to be raising money.
Did I beat MSimon to this?
Florida lab to pursue Bussard Polywell and IEC fusion resear
Florida lab to pursue Bussard Polywell and IEC fusion resear
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
He introduced himself on fusor.net recently, and got a very muted response.
His current proposal is for outreach and educational prospects in plasma, which is a very good start, and why not! But the website then goes on to cover his hope for a net energy fusor.....
...and so it begins [indeed!].....
His current proposal is for outreach and educational prospects in plasma, which is a very good start, and why not! But the website then goes on to cover his hope for a net energy fusor.....
...and so it begins [indeed!].....
IECs are far and away the most promising from a purely mechanical perspective, at least if the goal is net energy production.
I'm holding my breath to see the results of WB-8, simply because a Q>1 (at least net output into the power lines
) would lead to a huge shortage of qualified people and an influx of money not seen since gaseous diffusion plants in the 1940s.
You can't employ a PH.D in mechanical engineering to work on plasma control or a nuclear physicist. You need nuclear engineers (not just any nuc engineer though), which are currently in a very short supply.
MIT is one of the few places that has a "Plasma Physics and Fusion Technology." specialty for their PH.D, which is the kind of education necessary to even work the kinks out of these novel reactors.
Cheers.
I'm holding my breath to see the results of WB-8, simply because a Q>1 (at least net output into the power lines
) would lead to a huge shortage of qualified people and an influx of money not seen since gaseous diffusion plants in the 1940s.You can't employ a PH.D in mechanical engineering to work on plasma control or a nuclear physicist. You need nuclear engineers (not just any nuc engineer though), which are currently in a very short supply.
MIT is one of the few places that has a "Plasma Physics and Fusion Technology." specialty for their PH.D, which is the kind of education necessary to even work the kinks out of these novel reactors.
Cheers.
Gotta admire the enthusiasm/positivism of www.aresinstitute.org - very American.
Their site only seems to lack some 'concrete' endorsements and ideally a few well known names saying nice things about them. If it can get some traction, i can see such an establishment fulfiling a real need over the next 10years or so, particularly on tightened budgets.
Also, a little bit more about the founder(s) might help establish cred(?).
Wish them the best.
Their site only seems to lack some 'concrete' endorsements and ideally a few well known names saying nice things about them. If it can get some traction, i can see such an establishment fulfiling a real need over the next 10years or so, particularly on tightened budgets.
Also, a little bit more about the founder(s) might help establish cred(?).
Wish them the best.
Not intimately familiar at present with the physics behind some of the other novel approaches being tried, but the tokamaks and the like require too much input energy, not to mention, unless something has changed since I last read about it, ignition has not yet even been achieved (even in JET).chrismb wrote:What is the basis for this claim?MITlurker wrote:IECs are far and away the most promising from a purely mechanical perspective, at least if the goal is net energy production.
The theory thus far guiding IECs appears to provide a far better ignition frontier (and, supposedly, a self-sustaining one).
Like most, however, I'm simply waiting for the research to be released from these test reactors.
Definitely not, it's too small. (There are some differing opinions about the WB-8s size, 100W or 800W have been tossed around, but neither being close to sufficient for a Q>1)TallDave wrote:Well, we won't get Q>1 out of WB-8, of course, but we might get some favorable scaling data, and the contract does ask for a reactor design that might get Q>1 if built...
So far, 16MJ of neutrons has come out of JET for a total input of 22MJ, whereas the best IEC in the world has only ever got back microwatts for hundreds of watts input. What do you mean by 'require too much energy'?MITlurker wrote:Not intimately familiar at present with the physics behind some of the other novel approaches being tried, but the tokamaks and the like require too much input energy, not to mention, unless something has changed since I last read about it, ignition has not yet even been achieved (even in JET).
IEC's can never reach 'ignition'. This is a term applied to thermonuclear plasmas. IEC operate, by definition, with a constant input of ion-accelerating electrical power and will have to re-convert energy output back into electrical input energy to keep it going.MITlurker wrote:The theory thus far guiding IECs appears to provide a far better ignition frontier (and, supposedly, a self-sustaining one).
Ignition is not required for net power. ITER is designed to reach a 'burning' regime but is not big enough for ignition. The burning regime planned for in ITER will release Q=10.
No IEC device has yet demonstrated a fix to the thermalisation of fast ions. This makes them non-viable and still a concept, just as the first magnetic machines proposed by Spitzer.
Good luck with your background reading.
Indeed. It's funny how often people just assume ignition is part of the deal, presumably because it's been the fusion holy grail for decades now. The concept of a driven system is very different from the usual fusion paradigm people are accustomed to thinking in.IEC's can never reach 'ignition'. This is a term applied to thermonuclear plasmas.
Well, Chacon's paper, which is currently the definitive treatment, seems to argue that doesn't matter a whole lot since you can get good Q values with partially relaxed distributions. Rider's treatment was just too simplistic.No IEC device has yet demonstrated a fix to the thermalisation of fast ions.
It's not really a showstopper anyway -- as Rick pointed out in his ITER comparison, the benefit to power density from high beta operation alone is several orders of magnitude at ITER conditions, even without any ion focus.
The biggest question mark for Polywells right now is most likely transport.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
)Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to fusion, and a total lack of any actual information.rcain wrote:...that and a total lack of any new information.TallDave wrote: The biggest question mark for Polywells right now is most likely transport.
IEC methods are characterised by the process of whamming fast ions together (or fast ion with a neutral). Essentially all of the time the ions won't fuse. Fusing is like the ion winning a national lottery, except that winning a national lottery is easier.TallDave wrote:Well, Chacon's paper, which is currently the definitive treatment, seems to argue that doesn't matter a whole lot since you can get good Q values with partially relaxed distributions. Rider's treatment was just too simplistic.No IEC device has yet demonstrated a fix to the thermalisation of fast ions.
Each time ions don't fuse when they meet (which is 3-sigma statistically all the time!), they loose energy. I simply won't [can't] buy any theoretical treatment that thinks it can get by without recycling ion energy after 'unsuccessful' collision and that is so complicated that it doesn't boil down to a neat explanation that I can comprehend. I would advocate that others do likewise and not accept what someone else has written on this unless they fully understand the mathematical analyses and agree with it.
Rick can point out anything he likes in comparison with ITER, but to little effect because Polywell will NOT function as a thermalised machine. Magnetic bottles with cusps has been tried and tried again and it has not been made to work with two cusps, so how will it work with a dozen or more! Polywell has a point to make to prove out, one way or the other, electrostatic confinement of ions by magnetically confined electrons, and we wait [and wait and wait] to see some outcome on that. But to talk of it as a thermal-plasma confining machine is just a bit silly.