polywell simulation publication
Re: polywell simulation publication
Iranians??
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: polywell simulation publication
Also Turkey
Turkey’s first low pressure inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) device, constructed at the Saraykoy Nuclear Research and Training Center (SNRTC-IEC), is introduced and the first results are reported. This device was designed for neutronic fusion studies in terms of D–D reaction. The SNRTC-IEC device consists of spherical chamber 300 mm in diameter and a grid-type spherical cathode in which high negative voltage is applied at the center of chamber. The outer surface of the device held at ground potential has 10 ports to connect the vacuum pump, high voltage load, residual gas analyzer, ion sources and other peripherals. Cathode voltage is 85 kV and it is particularly emphasized that the SNRTC-IEC device is studied at low pressure (1−10 × 10−4 mbar). The maximum total neutron production rate is measured at around 2.4 × 104 neutrons per second for the medium grid cathode.
Turkey’s first low pressure inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) device, constructed at the Saraykoy Nuclear Research and Training Center (SNRTC-IEC), is introduced and the first results are reported. This device was designed for neutronic fusion studies in terms of D–D reaction. The SNRTC-IEC device consists of spherical chamber 300 mm in diameter and a grid-type spherical cathode in which high negative voltage is applied at the center of chamber. The outer surface of the device held at ground potential has 10 ports to connect the vacuum pump, high voltage load, residual gas analyzer, ion sources and other peripherals. Cathode voltage is 85 kV and it is particularly emphasized that the SNRTC-IEC device is studied at low pressure (1−10 × 10−4 mbar). The maximum total neutron production rate is measured at around 2.4 × 104 neutrons per second for the medium grid cathode.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: polywell simulation publication
For quite a while.Stubby wrote:Iranians??
Re: polywell simulation publication
Yes I knew about their efforts, but was wondering if these people are them or is this another group.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Re: polywell simulation publication
TURKEY? Really! That I did not know. I will look into it.
====
As far as this paper, it is very weak. I reviewed it in Feb 2012. They only did a couple of simulations with particle-in-cell code.
You can read the review/summary of this work here: http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/201 ... artup.html
You can download a PDF of this review here:
https://github.com/ThePolywellGuy/Posts ... -12%29.pdf
Here is an excerpt from the post:
======
Iran and The Polywell:
Many groups are not waiting. On October 12th 2011, the atomic energy organization of Iran published a basic polywell paper in the Physics of Plasma Journal. The work lays out the rudiments of the reactor and simulates it under two operating modes; using common plasma simulation software. The software is based on particle in cell (PIC) plasma software [8]. The geometry simulated in the paper is very unclear, but based on the description provided we were able to draw the diagram below.
The geometry they simulated was less like six rings and more like six truncated cones. They only simulated a two dimensional plane out of the reactor – one would assume you could extrapolate the 3D behavior from this 2D plane. They simulated the rings by creating eight “wires” flowing current into and out of the plane. The details of ion and electron guns, as well as the biasing voltage, are included in the figure above. We do not agree with this geometry. There is too much metal in the center of the reactor, causing conduction losses. The electrons need high recirculation inside the reactor; Rider, Bussard and Ligon all mention this. The rings should look more like hula hoops and less like hubcaps – with ample space to allow the electrons efficient recirculation. Plus, the rings should be insulated and held at a uniform voltage to further cut down on conduction losses. This work was very similar to work presented by Dr. Joel Roger, in 2009 at an IEC workshop. Joel simulated two vacuum chambers, one 70 centimeters, square and one 140 centimeters, square, the same size as the chamber simulated here. Joel simulated the rings at 25,000 and 50,000 volts, compared with the 150,000 volts used in this work [4, 5].
The paper simulated the ion guns inside the rings – so that all the ions are pushed into the center [5]. The ions must be injected into the well at a certain energy so that they can fuse, but not so much that they escape the well. Ligon mentioned this before; and this probably means the final reactor will have to tune its’ ion guns. As far as we know, there is not a requirement that the guns be inside the magnetic field. The paper simulates two modes of operation: one where the rings generate low magnetic field strength and one where the rings generate high (10 times) magnetic field strength. The magnetic fields are turned on and kept constant throughout the simulation - which simulates a pulse of time up to 14 microseconds. During this time, the electron and ion guns are turned on, filling the magnetic field “cup” with ions and electrons. A chart of the magnetic fields used and the results obtained for each run is included below.
What The Iran Work Is Lacking:
There are many problems with this Iranian paper. For one, the simulation itself is no substitute for real data. The work did not include any comparison to analytical solutions for the magnetic field – either the field made by the rings or the field made by the electron cloud. It did not attempt to connect confinement to the underlining concept of a magnetic mirror. The work was also weak because it limited itself. By focusing on confinement alone, the work sidestepped the issues of fusion rates, thermalization, the virtual anode and x-ray cooling. Simply put, the work was very poor. We were surprised it got published in the physics of plasma – a highly respected, world renowned journal for fusion research. The University of Sydney December 2011 paper, from the same journal, is much more exciting [6].
This Iranian work piggy backs off of an earlier paper published physics of plasmas in June of 2011 [7]. That work did not get nearly as much attention, because it reported on classical inertial electrostatic fusion, technology that is decades old. But, there is an important message here. One we should pay attention too. The message is this: the Iranians are attempting to start a polywell fusion program [9]. This is no big deal, right? America does care if its sworn enemy has this technology. That is not reckless, is it?
====
As far as this paper, it is very weak. I reviewed it in Feb 2012. They only did a couple of simulations with particle-in-cell code.
You can read the review/summary of this work here: http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/201 ... artup.html
You can download a PDF of this review here:
https://github.com/ThePolywellGuy/Posts ... -12%29.pdf
Here is an excerpt from the post:
======
Iran and The Polywell:
Many groups are not waiting. On October 12th 2011, the atomic energy organization of Iran published a basic polywell paper in the Physics of Plasma Journal. The work lays out the rudiments of the reactor and simulates it under two operating modes; using common plasma simulation software. The software is based on particle in cell (PIC) plasma software [8]. The geometry simulated in the paper is very unclear, but based on the description provided we were able to draw the diagram below.
The geometry they simulated was less like six rings and more like six truncated cones. They only simulated a two dimensional plane out of the reactor – one would assume you could extrapolate the 3D behavior from this 2D plane. They simulated the rings by creating eight “wires” flowing current into and out of the plane. The details of ion and electron guns, as well as the biasing voltage, are included in the figure above. We do not agree with this geometry. There is too much metal in the center of the reactor, causing conduction losses. The electrons need high recirculation inside the reactor; Rider, Bussard and Ligon all mention this. The rings should look more like hula hoops and less like hubcaps – with ample space to allow the electrons efficient recirculation. Plus, the rings should be insulated and held at a uniform voltage to further cut down on conduction losses. This work was very similar to work presented by Dr. Joel Roger, in 2009 at an IEC workshop. Joel simulated two vacuum chambers, one 70 centimeters, square and one 140 centimeters, square, the same size as the chamber simulated here. Joel simulated the rings at 25,000 and 50,000 volts, compared with the 150,000 volts used in this work [4, 5].
The paper simulated the ion guns inside the rings – so that all the ions are pushed into the center [5]. The ions must be injected into the well at a certain energy so that they can fuse, but not so much that they escape the well. Ligon mentioned this before; and this probably means the final reactor will have to tune its’ ion guns. As far as we know, there is not a requirement that the guns be inside the magnetic field. The paper simulates two modes of operation: one where the rings generate low magnetic field strength and one where the rings generate high (10 times) magnetic field strength. The magnetic fields are turned on and kept constant throughout the simulation - which simulates a pulse of time up to 14 microseconds. During this time, the electron and ion guns are turned on, filling the magnetic field “cup” with ions and electrons. A chart of the magnetic fields used and the results obtained for each run is included below.
What The Iran Work Is Lacking:
There are many problems with this Iranian paper. For one, the simulation itself is no substitute for real data. The work did not include any comparison to analytical solutions for the magnetic field – either the field made by the rings or the field made by the electron cloud. It did not attempt to connect confinement to the underlining concept of a magnetic mirror. The work was also weak because it limited itself. By focusing on confinement alone, the work sidestepped the issues of fusion rates, thermalization, the virtual anode and x-ray cooling. Simply put, the work was very poor. We were surprised it got published in the physics of plasma – a highly respected, world renowned journal for fusion research. The University of Sydney December 2011 paper, from the same journal, is much more exciting [6].
This Iranian work piggy backs off of an earlier paper published physics of plasmas in June of 2011 [7]. That work did not get nearly as much attention, because it reported on classical inertial electrostatic fusion, technology that is decades old. But, there is an important message here. One we should pay attention too. The message is this: the Iranians are attempting to start a polywell fusion program [9]. This is no big deal, right? America does care if its sworn enemy has this technology. That is not reckless, is it?
Re: polywell simulation publication
unless you think they want the Polywell to power railguns and lasers, it shows that maybe they are really more interested into nuclear energy for PACIFIC purposes than to create atomic weapons.
Re: polywell simulation publication
More power to those Iranian researchers. The Polywell hornet's nest needs kicking. Correct me if I'm wrong..
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
Re: polywell simulation publication
It's my understanding that the Iranians focus on simulations and analyzing data because deuterium is embargoed. Not that Iran can't produce its own, but I imagine other uses for deuterium would have a higher priority....
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: polywell simulation publication
neutron enrichment ?
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: polywell simulation publication
A polywell running on deuterium would be a source of fusion neutrons, enough energy to fission U238. Some sort of moderator, possibly neutron multiplier, would be needed to transmute uranium to plutonium.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: polywell simulation publication
From my outside perspective the Iranian effort can be assumed as just that. An effort. Weather thay have persued theoretical or experimental efforts to a large or small extent is the question. That they are aware of it and have at least some interest in it are not.
The abstract is confusing. It suggests (and the subsequent post) that they are working with low Beta conditions (current much less than what was required in WB6) so comments about potential well width (vs depth) are perhaps misleading. With Wiffleball formation the internal volume increases considerably and the potential wello width is dependant on this. The potential well depth may be only loosly associated with this measure.
As for peaceful verses war uses, just like any other nation, they are not exclusive.
The use of a D-D burning Polywell for a neutron source is a proliferation concern, but only if the concept is also at least close to an electricity producing functional reactor. Otherwise the rate of plutonium production (neutron flux) is just too feeble.
Even though deuterium may be embargoed, it is easy (not necessarily cheap) to produce via well known enrichment methods. Making enough to bathe a heavy water fission reactor (like the Canadians do) is far different than making a few gallons of heavy water, which would supply a Polywell fusion research effort for years.
Dan Tibbets
The abstract is confusing. It suggests (and the subsequent post) that they are working with low Beta conditions (current much less than what was required in WB6) so comments about potential well width (vs depth) are perhaps misleading. With Wiffleball formation the internal volume increases considerably and the potential wello width is dependant on this. The potential well depth may be only loosly associated with this measure.
As for peaceful verses war uses, just like any other nation, they are not exclusive.
The use of a D-D burning Polywell for a neutron source is a proliferation concern, but only if the concept is also at least close to an electricity producing functional reactor. Otherwise the rate of plutonium production (neutron flux) is just too feeble.
Even though deuterium may be embargoed, it is easy (not necessarily cheap) to produce via well known enrichment methods. Making enough to bathe a heavy water fission reactor (like the Canadians do) is far different than making a few gallons of heavy water, which would supply a Polywell fusion research effort for years.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Re: polywell simulation publication
Deuterium? Embargoed? Since when? You can get pure D2O on eBay fer Christ's sake.Ivy Matt wrote:It's my understanding that the Iranians focus on simulations and analyzing data because deuterium is embargoed. Not that Iran can't produce its own, but I imagine other uses for deuterium would have a higher priority....
Look up "deuterium oxide". 100g for $140 (from Canada, so maybe the US is being silly again).
Re: polywell simulation publication
Just because the US embargoes the sale or transport of an item or resource to certain countries doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees. Graphics chipsets and cryptography are two examples that quickly come to mind.KitemanSA wrote:Deuterium? Embargoed? Since when? You can get pure D2O on eBay fer Christ's sake.Ivy Matt wrote:It's my understanding that the Iranians focus on simulations and analyzing data because deuterium is embargoed. Not that Iran can't produce its own, but I imagine other uses for deuterium would have a higher priority....
Look up "deuterium oxide". 100g for $140 (from Canada, so maybe the US is being silly again).
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: polywell simulation publication
has anybody read this paper
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v2 ... horized=no
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v2 ... horized=no
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.