magrid configuration brainstorming

[KitemanSA]

An electron will orbit from North pole to South pole, along a magnetic field line. So, you want the North poles to have much more area than south poles.

Totally false. The electrons in the WB do NOT follow field lines though they approximate it when passing thru the cusps. At most other times they are effectively reflecting off the quasi-spherical wiffleball field. And if one were to be found for some reason following a field line on the wiffleball, it would leave the field line when that line made it's ~ 90 degree turn (left?) out the cusp. These are not nice gradually curving field lines. They are nearly tangential over most of the wiffleball until they become almost instantly radial. The electrons will NOT track the field around the corner.

But, if you have a hole in your grid with some conductors around it going one way, and others going the opposite way (as viewed from outside) then there is NO pole; that is, the magnetic fields have canceled in at least part of the hole. And that is a cusp, in a nutshell.

A cusp is a void in the tangential magnetic field. Point cusps occur at the center of real or virtual coils (the toruses and triangles of the WB6) where the field is running radially along the center of rotation (symmetry) of the magnet. Line cusps are where seperated conductors of opposite current direction cause a very STRONG radial field between them with no tangential component. Funny cusps and their varient the X cusp are NOT the same. Point and Line cusps have STRONG fields that are radial. For funny and X cusps, the void in the tangential component is due to a complete lack of field due to the meeting at a single point of an even number (at least 4) of alternating fields. In the F&X cusps, there is NO net current around the cusp.

The "line cusps" in WB-6 were where the cube edges were, the "funny cusps" where the corners were.

Totally wrong. The line-like cusps in WB6 are where the funny cusps would have been if the WB6 was indeed like the patented Polywell. It was not. The corners (virtual triangles) have point cusps like the real coils; well, badly twisted point cusps since the virtual fields are concave sided rather than convex or straight.

You can squash the coils into more squarish shapes, or add more coils, in order to LIMIT these, but they cannot be removed (unless you figure out how to make a magnetic monopole).

This is true.

Does that clear things up some?

I hope not, cuz you would have gotten it all wrong!

[KitemanSA]

That, however, is not the primary problem. If you want a good "Whiffleball trapping factor" .......

What? "Placid orbits around the core"? The electrons are bouncing back and forth across the core.......

Actually, I believe that both of you are essentially describing the same thing with different words. I assume WizWom is referring to transverse scattering as opposed to only up or down scattering.

I acknowledged that possibility, we MAY be saying the same thing differently. From the rest of his statements however, I suspect he just has it all wrong. For example, his statement

An electron will orbit from North pole to South pole, along a magnetic field line. So, you want the North poles to have much more area than south poles.

makes no sense no matter HOW I try to interpret it.

[KitemanSA]

ALL the metal in the Xcusp is covered with high TS

Wrong.

Where the current-carrying cans split the magnetic fields dictate that at some point on the surface the fields strength is a null, zero, zip ... i.e unprotected.

Which makes no more difference than the fact that there is a null thru the center of EVERY conductor. There are tangential magnetic fields INSIDE the sphere of the MaGrid called a wiffleball that prevent the electrons from reaching said "null". The electrons can only reach the radial position of the null as they are transiting the X cusp and then they will be going WAY too fast to do a right-hand turn into the null. Remember the "inertia" part of "Inertial Electro-static Confinement" fusion. Also, remember Gauss's law. There would be NO force that would TRY to cause a 90 degree turn.

Your beautiful FEA analysis is bogus if it did not pick up that obvious, unavoidable topological feature of the field, i.e. the field cannot be going in two opposite directions at the same point on the surface ...

Where does this "obvious, unavoidable topological feature of the field" happen? Seems you may have a fundamental miss-understanding of the issue here.

or maybe they can in kite-boy world?

Since I can't figure out what you are talking about, I have no idea whether it can happen in my (i.e., the real) world.

Fraud or just ignorant carping?

I don't know you enough to assume you are fraudulent, but you do seem quite adept at ignorant carping!

Are you willing to have a civil conversation or do you insist on continuing these pot-shots?

[icarus]

Since I can't figure out what you are talking about,

I'm afraid I don't know how to dumb it down any more for you. If you cannot see how your configuration introduces field nulls on the surface of your MaGrid you are topologically challenged, it seems obvious so I what else can I say?

Ignorance is bliss, so I'll just leave you to it.

[ladajo]

Kite,
I re-read my post, and it appears in my mental gymastics, I goofed the current flow. See, I told you it was hurting my head...

I see what you are saying, but still have doubts about the field splits and merges in the X Cusp ( I vaguely recall that you coined that...).

I do recall all the previous discussions for this when Tombo offered up the graphics back when. I will go back and give that a look as well.

[Randy]

I just noticed that with an octahedron magrid featuring 8-alternating pole faces using triangular plan-form coils, one could easily attach the coil-form connection nubs at the center of each line segment. The center of each line segment is an area where no cusps exist:



There would still be eight point cusps (one at the center of each coil) and six funny cusps (one at each vertex of the octahedron) but these cusp regions would be far from the coil mounting nubs.

Does anyone think this concept worthy of consideration?

[Randy]

This is a simple planar magnetic model which shows four alternating N,S,N,S poles facing toward the core for simplicity. A somewhat similar magnetic field arrangement would be observed in the case of eight N,S,N,S,N,S,N,S poles facing toward the core in a 3-D octahedron configuration.



Notice that there are no line cusps between the individual coils. The only cusps visible are the point cusps going through the center of each coil.

[Randy]

Just for comparison, here is the same four coil model shown with all north poles facing toward the core:



Notice the line cusps between the individual coils.

[KitemanSA]

I just noticed that with an octahedron magrid featuring 8-alternating pole faces using triangular plan-form coils, one could easily attach the coil-form connection nubs at the center of each line segment. The center of each line segment is an area where no cusps exist:

If the coils were circles rather than triangles, there would be line-like cusps at those points. But with triangles, you could attach the coils along their entire length and have no cusp.

There would still be eight point cusps (one at the center of each coil) and six funny cusps (one at each vertex of the octahedron) but these cusp regions would be far from the coil mounting nubs.

Yup. But it would have metal in the middle of the funny cusps unless you made the triangles have slightly rounded corners in which case you would have X-cusps rather than funny cusps.

Does anyone think this concept worthy of consideration?

It is the octahedral version of the tombo graphic above (without the bow-sides). Simpler than other real-real designs, but less spherical. And Dr. B. seemed to think sphericity was important.

[KitemanSA]

Just for comparison, here is the same four coil model shown with all north poles facing toward the core:
{{See graphic above}}
Notice the line cusps between the individual coils.

This second graphic shows the equatorial cut thru WB6 and bretheren. The cusps in the middle of the coils are point cusps. The cusps between the coils are the line-like cusps that take the place of the funny cusps of the patented Polywell. The out facing point cusps in the virtual north OUT coils are not shown as they are on a 45 degree slant.

Nice analysis.

[Randy]

I wonder if ‘bowing’ the line segments of the octahedron would help with sphericity?
i.e., imagine drawing the octahedron line segments about the surface of a sphere.

Thanks for the ‘Nice analysis’ compliment.

[KitemanSA]

Since I can't figure out what you are talking about,

I'm afraid I don't know how to dumb it down any more for you. If you cannot see how your configuration introduces field nulls on the surface of your MaGrid you are topologically challenged, it seems obvious so I what else can I say?

Ignorance is bliss, so I'll just leave you to it.

Let us pretend for an instance that you are infinitely brilliant and I am what you think I am. Please, on the simple graphic I posted earlier, point to where this "obvious, unavoidable topological feature of the field" exists and how it shows I am trying to have "the field going in two opposite directions at the same point on the surface". Please? Be a sport.

Oh, and it seems that no, you are not willing to have a civil conversation.

[KitemanSA]

I wonder if ‘bowing’ the line segments of the octahedron would help with sphericity?
i.e., imagine drawing the octahedron line segments about the surface of a sphere.

It might, but I have seen a web site that proposed that exact condition and the magnets seemed to have AWFully big spans.
Basically, if you imagine a magnet coming down from the north pole of a sphere and then going along the equator for 90 degrees and them back up to the north pole. Do that 3 more times from the north pole and reflect it from the south, that is what you have.
Each magnet arc would seem to want to make a field 90 degrees out of sync with the other two arcs so I am not sure how well the point cusps would close. But I really don't know. If you can get hold of a 3D megneto-statics FEA code, it would be a great thing to try out!
Of course you would still have the funny cusp problem unless you eant with an X cusp.

Thanks for the ‘Nice analysis’ compliment.

No thanks needed, you were due it. I always like it when folks back up their statements with SOMETHING, and yours was a pretty nice "something"!

[KitemanSA]

I just noticed that with an octahedron magrid featuring 8-alternating pole faces using triangular plan-form coils, one could easily attach the coil-form connection nubs at the center of each line segment. The center of each line segment is an area where no cusps exist:

If the coils were circles rather than triangles, there would be line-like cusps at those points. But with triangles, you could attach the coils along their entire length and have no cusp.

Wow, did I make a bone-head statement there! All those hypothetical circular magnets would NOT have made line-like cusps since the current flows in the SAME direction thru each adjacent conductor. Oh my!

I feel like Daedelus' son!

[KitemanSA]

Randy;

You know, your first mag-field graphic is very much like that 45 degree slice thru the "In" and "Virtual Out" magnets I was mentioning before!

Neat!