Question for Dr. Nebel

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:00 pm

If he happens to be reading, and able to answer a question this specific...

I believe last we heard some plasma diagnostics were being installed. Just curious if we have already gotten neutron counts from WB-7, and if so whether they comport to the results Bussard reported, and if we haven't gotten any neutron counts, then in what time frame they might be expected, if at all.

OneWayTraffic · Post by **OneWayTraffic** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:10 am

I'm guessing that this might fall under "classified." But you never know.

With WB6 it took some time after they did the experiment to actually have a look at the data. I understand that they only had very limited detection apparatus, so although the counts seemed to be high, it's too difficult to state with certainty. I'd like to know how good the detection hardware is this time, as pretty much everything hinges on good data.

cuddihy · Post by **cuddihy** » Fri May 23, 2008 4:13 pm

The most up-to-date posts that I have seen seem to indicate they are not trying D-D yet, just still using inert gas for plasma characterization and trying out the potential well.

I would think fusion would be the last thing they would attempt.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat May 24, 2008 6:33 pm

Yeah, I'm not sure how the schedule works on these things, besides that they can only fire it twice a day.

I was hoping the installation of plasma diagnostics meant they had already done the neutron detection and were moving on to gathering more detailed data about the plasma's properties, but I haven't seen anything that says they're necessarily even using deuterium yet.

We might have to wait till Boyle's next MSNBC Cosmic Blog update, which should be coming soon.

drmike · Post by **drmike** » Sun May 25, 2008 2:52 am

Plasma diagnostics are probably more important than fusion results, at least to start with. A lot of that is just "light detectors", from DC to gigahertz (or even terahertz these days). Physical probes at the outer edges will work, but previous comments here seemed to indicate they will melt if you get near the hot regions. That's a hell of a lot of equipment to have working all the time. Not so easy to do, and practice helps ensure the data collected is real. Cross talk, noise and local weirdness can all make high tech equipment do weird things. Better to let them collect a lot of data, cross check it all and make sure it is all consistent, then go for the fusion stuff when it all is solid.

Good luck EMC2! I'm hoping you can prove Bussard had a great idea.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Mon May 26, 2008 12:28 am

In a WB6/7 scale device I see fusion neutron production as a plasma diagnostic method. But the more other independent diagnostics you have data from, the better you can validate and calibrate the working theory. Running a plasma that doesn't produce neutrons can give a baseline for validating the neutron detectors and being sure they don't give false counts.

I can wait for results if it means we can have confidence in them. Perhaps the worst thing for polywell development is if positive results are published that turn out on review to be from careless methods.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon May 26, 2008 5:22 pm

Yes, I agree with all the above.

I guess I'm just especially curious about this particular test because I've been arguing with the "only three neutrons!" skeptics for a couple years now.