magrid configuration brainstorming

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:19 am

MSimon wrote: Well sure. Once it is proven work on improvements. Once it is working it will also be easier to determine if improvements are worth the effort.

I guess that is the distinction. I think he thought it WAS proven (in a less than perfect sort of way) and wanted to check out the improvements before going big.

I almost see this WB8 as marketing. Folks aren't as convinced as he was so they need a bit more convincing. So be it. Sigh.

Meanwhile, I think it would be MARVELOUS if some university types were to start studying the alternatives, like a tomboctahedron (my name for that nifty fractal octahedral MPG he drew up way back when) or the bow-legged cuboctahedron, or the icosedodecahedron.

Some of them should be VERY easy to build and may provide great data.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:37 am

KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote: Well sure. Once it is proven work on improvements. Once it is working it will also be easier to determine if improvements are worth the effort.
I guess that is the distinction. I think he thought it WAS proven (in a less than perfect sort of way) and wanted to check out the improvements before going big.

I almost see this WB8 as marketing. Folks aren't as convinced as he was so they need a bit more convincing. So be it. Sigh.

Meanwhile, I think it would be MARVELOUS if some university types were to start studying the alternatives, like a tomboctahedron (my name for that nifty fractal octahedral MPG he drew up way back when) or the bow-legged cuboctahedron, or the icosedodecahedron.

Some of them should be VERY easy to build and may provide great data.

The problem is that you need something to compare it to. Thus a WB-7 would need to be built to get baseline data and then you go to a different geometry.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:30 pm

MSimon wrote: [The problem is that you need something to compare it to. Thus a WB-7 would need to be built to get baseline data and then you go to a different geometry.

Dr. B's proposed project was:

Rebuild WB6 to verify, submit to Review
Build WB7 (square planform cuboctahedron)
Build WB8 (higher order polygon)
Build big.

They called his rebuilt WB6, WB7. Oh well.
But rather than going on to his WB7, they are building a bigger (I think) WB6. Oh well again! :sigh:

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:38 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote: [The problem is that you need something to compare it to. Thus a WB-7 would need to be built to get baseline data and then you go to a different geometry.
Dr. B's proposed project was:
Rebuild WB6 to verify, submit to Review
Build WB7 (square planform cuboctahedron)
Build WB8 (higher order polygon)
Build big.

They called his rebuilt WB6, WB7. Oh well.
But rather than going on to his WB7, they are building a bigger (I think) WB6. Oh well again! :sigh:

I'm assuming the current plan is driven by data.

What I was referring to is doing an open (University) experiment to prove the usefulness of higher order geometry as part of a thesis.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:47 pm

MSimon wrote:What I was referring to is doing an open (University) experiment to prove the usefulness of higher order geometry as part of a thesis.

Hmm, are we arguing or agreeing in different words. I would truly love to see a university (or college) get into testing variations on a Polywell, especially different geometries.

Start simple (tombo's octagon), then his fractal octagon, then maybe my Bow legged 4xMPG. Each of these are simple machines with easy to work with materials. They are great for university type work.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:56 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote:What I was referring to is doing an open (University) experiment to prove the usefulness of higher order geometry as part of a thesis.
Hmm, are we arguing or agreeing in different words. I would truly love to see a university (or college) get into testing variations on a Polywell, especially different geometries.

Start simple (tombo's octagon), then his fractal octagon, then maybe my Bow legged 4xMPG. Each of these are simple machines with easy to work with materials. They are great for university type work.

Yes. But first an open baseline.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:22 pm

agree with all of this.

thanks for the links and the excellent synopsis KitemanSA. i'll follow the threads you suggested.

re: theoretical academic studies into goemetry vs (power?) - bludy marvelous idea - wouldnt have thought it too hard to serious Phd, even BSc for that matter. just needs to catch the eye of a phys-math lecturer who sets it ofr homework, then publishes the result.

re. point about, worth it, improve on it:: i agree fundemantals of 'containement' have been demonstrated - adequately. more coherent and better understood data is theoretically all we require for rational decisions.

but i believe we are after 'order of magnitude' improvements X 3 - if we are to entertain Art's worst-best-case numerical models predictions/approximations.

orders of magnitude of tat kind only come from steep curves, or 'radical' changes in geometry - rather like trying to squeeze the last mips out of code, there comes a point when you can only rethink (or turn inside-out), the entire algorithm, or formula.

anyway, glad it kicked off a bit of debate again

I'm going back to the Tetrahedron, i prefer its simplicity and its symetries to ugly cube

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:52 pm

rcain wrote: I'm going back to the Tetrahedron, i prefer its simplicity and its symetries to ugly cube

The tet doesn't work unless rectified, in which case it is an octahedron. Round and round we go...

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:05 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
rcain wrote: I'm going back to the Tetrahedron, i prefer its simplicity and its symetries to ugly cube
The tet doesn't work unless rectified, in which case it is an octahedron. Round and round we go...

Thats why I'm hoping a dodecahedron is in the cards for the current round of work being done. Its not much more complicated (though I'm not saying it would be easy

and it is doubling the number of coils being used.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:10 pm

rcain wrote: but i believe we are after 'order of magnitude' improvements X 3 - if we are to entertain Art's worst-best-case numerical models predictions/approximations.

Dr.B mentioned a 3-5x improvement in one document that SEEMED to be due to improved sphericity and in another document mentions a 2-5x improvement from reduced line-like cusp lengths. These two may actually be the same, but then maybe it is actually a 6-25x improvement from shorter cusps and more spherical WBs.

What say we ask our esteemed administrator Joe to set up a user group to start identifying a plan of action and milestones for university work on Polywells. Anyone interested? Heck, we may be able to get LOTS of work done with all sorts of money in a university setting. Some folk just love to give to universities! With a POA&M we may attract many interested students and faculty advisors.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:57 am

KitemanSA wrote:
rcain wrote: but i believe we are after 'order of magnitude' improvements X 3 - if we are to entertain Art's worst-best-case numerical models predictions/approximations.
Dr.B mentioned a 3-5x improvement in one document that SEEMED to be due to improved sphericity and in another document mentions a 2-5x improvement from reduced line-like cusp lengths. These to may actually be the same, but then maybe it is actually a 6-25x improvement from shorter cusps and more spherical WBs.

What say we ask our esteemed administrator Joe to set up a user group to start identifying a plan of action and milestones for university work on Polywells. Anyone interested? Heck, we may be able to get LOTS of work done with all sorts of money in a university setting. Some folk just love to give to universities! With a POA&M we may attract many interested students and faculty advisors.

I have been pursuing that approach in various ways for over a year. I have found negligible interest.

You can get $10,000 fusors built. A $1 million Polywell is not near as interesting (funding wise).

Art Carlson · Post by **Art Carlson** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:52 am

Right. Universities are not going to have millions of dollars of discretionary funds lying around to play with polywell. We know you can't do much with less money or else Bussard's results would have been more convincing. If you insist on spending money on the polywell, whether tax dollars or venture capital, the best place to put it at this time is in EMC2 to help Rick get more reliable results faster.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:09 pm

Art Carlson wrote:Right. Universities are not going to have millions of dollars of discretionary funds lying around to play with polywell. We know you can't do much with less money or else Bussard's results would have been more convincing. If you insist on spending money on the polywell, whether tax dollars or venture capital, the best place to put it at this time is in EMC2 to help Rick get more reliable results faster.

Yes.

tombo · Post by **tombo** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:55 pm

You can get $10,000 fusors built. A $1 million Polywell is not near as interesting (funding wise).

It would be very difficult to chop the project up into $10k chunks.
But, $50k chunks might be feasible except for a couple of the "long sticks in the tent".
(By chunks I mean not temporally but functionally.)

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:23 pm

Art Carlson wrote:Right. Universities are not going to have millions of dollars of discretionary funds lying around to play with polywell. We know you can't do much with less money or else Bussard's results would have been more convincing. If you insist on spending money on the polywell, whether tax dollars or venture capital, the best place to put it at this time is in EMC2 to help Rick get more reliable results faster.

But if he refuses to part with the data, perhaps we should explore other options. I am still not convinced that viable Polywells can't be built at University type funding if there is a place to test the product. For that, I hope we can convince EMC2 to make their system available when not directly in use. Then again, if hobbyists can make functional fusors in functioning chambers...