magrid configuration brainstorming

Discuss how polywell fusion works; share theoretical questions and answers.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

WizWom wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:"Straight" Icosidecahedron:
This makes sense.
Yup, almost as much as the bowed one! :D

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

OMG, and bowed too! Marvelous, simply marvelous. Very Happy WOW Exclamation
Now that the critical analysis/theory has checked out for Kiteman ... shall we move onto looking for investors?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Anyone else notice that even when I compliment other folks for their posts, icarus has to find something to snipe about? Jeeze, dude, give it a rest!

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Single-coil octahedral (per Happyjack27, I think):

Image Image Image Image Without "cusp disruption on line-cusps." I'll add those later if these are okay.

P.S. Apologies but I didn't take the time to calculate or iterate to a perfect octahedral shape.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

rjaypeters wrote:Single-coil octahedral (per Happyjack27, I think):
This would be the octahedral version of the MPG coils that DrB made and tested. The story I hear is that the MPGs were the only other varient of the Polywell that made fusion. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the story.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

KitemanSA wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:Single-coil octahedral (per Happyjack27, I think):
This would be the octahedral version of the MPG coils that DrB made and tested. The story I hear is that the MPGs were the only other varient of the Polywell that made fusion. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the story.
I don't think that is accurate. I don't know if any of the closed box machines were tested with deuterium. Certainly WB5 had enough magnetic field strength and potential well to create measurable fusion . And WB4 certainly did. Also, I think the most impressive and telling results (from a production standpoint, not a loss stand point) was the single block copper machines (PZLx) that had many thousands of amps pushed through the effective single turn magnets to produce ~ 35,000 Gauss (3.5 Tesla). At only ~ 300V effective potential well depths, this machine produced ~ 1 million neutrons from D-D fusions per second, even at this ridiculously low potential well level.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Dan,

I think I have decyphered your statement to say that the STORY of "Only other machine" is inaccurate, not the statement that the MPG made fusion.

Did I decypher correctly?

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

KitemanSA, yes and no. I now realize you may have been referring to the geometry rather than the specific machines. I think all of the machines were truncated cubes except for the octahedral machine you mentioned.

D Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

rjaypeters wrote:Single-coil octahedral (per Happyjack27, I think):

Without "cusp disruption on line-cusps." I'll add those later if these are okay.

P.S. Apologies but I didn't take the time to calculate or iterate to a perfect octahedral shape.
fancy looking. yeah, that's right. cusp disruption is really just an experimental afterthought. and you could do it with 2 big-radius toroidal magnets, 1 on the tpop and 1 on the bottom, each covering 3 line cusps. though that would make the mag field less symmetric. also you could turn them so they lie flat on the sphere and thus they become "ciusp convertors" 'cause they turn line cusps into point cusps. they could be used on any design w/ x-cusps. (squeezed line cusps), not just this one.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

WB 7 circumscribed on a 3m sphere with 6mm coil close approach:

Image
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Square plan form. WB7 was circular.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

ladajo wrote:Square plan form. WB7 was circular.
Dr. B's WB7, not Dr N's! :D

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

A solution in search of a problem? I call this a cross-over. For this example I used a square planform WB 7. Imagine what you see as one-third of the needed coils:

Image

If the heat loads are low enough, two coils can be combined. I'm not sure the added [edit: cusp is] compensated by having a coil right in front of [edit: it].

Image Image

In a lighter vein, I also call them "rabbit ears."
Image
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Six circular coils circumscribed on a 3m diameter sphere with 6mm spacing:

Image
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

The crossover on a six-coil circular pair:

Image Image

Even more rabbity looking than the square coil:

Image

Note: Coil self-close approach is 32mm. I'd make it closer, but I'm not getting any feedback, so I won't put more effort in unless requested.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Post Reply