How long ago could we have built polywells? (WW II ?)

[ANTIcarrot]

In the origonal google video, Dr Bussard mentioned that some of this is rather old technology. "No one is taught this anymore." If the physics are old, and this is simply a novel application no one thought of before...

How far back into history could you go and still build a polywell in a reasonably short period of time? Could it have been done in the 1940s for example? Possibly earlier if someone had handed them a set of blueprints?

[Giorgio]

If you mean a working machine I think we could have built it only since the availability of commercial Superconductors, so only from few years.
Even now there are few hurdles that will not be easy to solve to have commercial power available from a Polywell reactor.

[D Tibbets]

If you mean a working machine I think we could have built it only since the availability of commercial Superconductors, so only from few years.
Even now there are few hurdles that will not be easy to solve to have commercial power available from a Polywell reactor.

I would speculate that the deuterium powered Polywell could have been built in the 1930's from a technical and engeenering standpoint. The Polywell can work with copper wire wound electromagnets. Probably would have need for liquid nitrogen cooling. The early work on plasmas had already been done in the 1920's and accelerater research was progressing. Understanding and use of vacuum tube technology was well advanced, along with vacuum pumping technology. I suspect that the understanding of fusion crossections was primative by today's standards. By the same measure, an even more bloated Tokamac might have been doable without superconductors.
Of course, nuclear fusion theory and expectations was much more primative. But, I think scientists were thinking about it even then. In an old SF book "Doc Smith series " (?) the author talked about continueing frustration with efforts to power the spaceships with fusion reactors (he had to use some imanginative power source. I don't believe fission was even mentioned.

I believe Bussard may have had some justification (my prejudice is not supported by intimate knowledge) about the gulf between the modern trained physists with their lack of pratical vacuum tube emphasis. It seems from some comments that vacuum tube technology and what it has demonstratedly done is ignorred by some (or at least none of them have attempted to reconcile or disprove the correlations suggested on this forum).

Dan Tibbets

[kunkmiester]

The big thing he say isn't much around anymore is the dynamics of vacuum tubes and how electrons and ions play around inside. Other big part for good polywells is superconductors, which IIRC were really gone into starting in the 60s or 70s--cryogenic SC was discovered in the '30s or so IIRC, soon after someone figured out how to make liquid helium and started measuring resistance. I'm not sure how long it might have taken to get to MB or other "high temp" SCs from there. On the other hand, if Tesla had heard about it, he might have pulled something weird out of that brain of his.

I'd say 60s or so for a boron polywell, due to the need for SCs, but 30s might even have been able to do that.

[cksantos]

On the other hand, if Tesla had heard about it, he might have pulled something weird out of that brain of his.

Now that is an interesting thought experiment. Too bad JP Morgan bailed out of Wardenclyffe Tower.

[kunkmiester]

Expect a bunch more of his experiments to be tried again if polywell succeeds. Bit challenge to the garage mad scientist is the cost of power. If you can get the power for cheap enough, you can try them at closer to scales he used in the better documented experiments which ran at power well past "cheap" today.

[chrismb]

This has been asked before. I provided my own sarcastic response [of course!]. viewtopic.php?p=37760#37760

"You mean sticking six metal lollipops in a metal cage, sucking out some of the air and wiring it up to a high voltage? Yeah, that could've been done around 1660 by Guericke who invented both the first vacuum pump and the first electrostatic generator.

"He may not have had a clue what he was doing, the vacuum may have been insufficient, and the voltage may have been insufficient, but all 3 may also apply equally to Polywell. There exists no public evidence to claim otherwise at this time."

[Nik]

Uh, didn't some of the big AM transmitter 'valves' have metal rather than glass shells ? IIRC, they were water-cooled, could be disassembled for maintenance, then pumped down again. Similar tech was used for mercury-arc rectifiers, no ?

Seems unfair to mention that no documented WB or Polywell has yet approached break-even. But, after first run reaches that magic threshold, the floodgates open and viable designs can boot-strap. The radiation shielding issues may prohibit amateur designs in garden shed or cellar, but an abandoned mine or silo would do nicely...

[chrismb]

Seems unfair to mention that no documented WB or Polywell has yet approached break-even.

It might be unfair if Polywell could evidence that it has, and/or can, generate at least some ion-on-ion fusion, but seeing as the origin of detected neutrons has not yet been evidenced, then it seems quite fair to point that out.

Don't forget the intractable tangle that Zeta got itself into when they misunderstood where their detected neutrons were coming from and spurious claims were made.

Where the 'fair' comes in, I don't know.

I thought we were promised information after the peer review.
I thought we were promised information after 18 months [isn't it 18 months yet??].
I thought it was unfair that a reasonable, and valid, FoI request was turned down on the basis of commercial confidentiality by a company that fronts its website with a 'not for profit' donation link.

We could talk a bit more about 'unfair' - if you like.....

[KitemanSA]

I thought we were promised information after the peer review.

We got information. Dr N stated that the peer review stated that the results were consistent with the theory. I don't ever recall anyone who actually had any ownership of the data stating they would release the data records. Do you? Please link to said statement.

I thought we were promised information after 18 months [isn't it 18 months yet??].

Who promised this? IIRC, what was said by Dr. N. was that "we" would know. I suspect strongly that "they" will know. This in no way states that YOU will know. Afterall, who invited "you" into Dr. N.'s "we"?

I thought it was unfair that a reasonable, and valid, FoI request was turned down on the basis of commercial confidentiality by a company that fronts its website with a 'not for profit' donation link.

Look again. The web site you are thinking about is NOT the EMC2 web site. I suspect that if EMC2FDC ever got any significant donations such that they would actually pay EMC2 to get some work done with it, the data produced WOULD be available. Until then, please learn the difference between EMC2 and EMC2FDC and stop condemning one for the inactions of the other.

We could talk a bit more about 'unfair' - if you like.....

Given the track record above, I'd kind of like to see if you have anything valid to harp about!

[chrismb]

I feel that you have mistaken "technically correct" with "fair", and "technically faulty" with my meaning of "unfair".

You might be right in your points. But does your 'correctness' make what you are talking about 'fair'?

I feel it is unfair because there was a clear impression given that the things I mention above should come to pass.

[KitemanSA]

Sorry, I thought you were using English. Basic defiunitions of "fair".

1. Pleasing (e.g., Blond, nice, light...):
2. Exposition:
3. Within bounds in a game.

All other recognized meanings are nuances of one of those. I didn't suspect you meant that they were being unblond; I have no idea if this is true but it is hardly pertainant. Nor do I suspect you are accusing them of not being an exposition; also true, also not pertainant.

So I guess you mean is they are not within the bounds of some game which to most socialists is the GAME of LIFE. To which I state that under this meaning, all statements and actions done by EMC2 are eminantly fair. They are certainly within the bounds of said game as defined in the common law of the US. Its just aren't what YOU want.

And this raises the fourth meaning, the one that the immature mean when they whine "its not ffaaiirrr!". That meaning is "it is not what I want". In which case, if this is your meaning, then you are absolutely correct. It IS unfair, and good on them for ignoring immature whinings.

[chrismb]

...and I am clearly saying that they are not playing within the bounds of the game in which they take tax payer's money, then tell those tax payer's to frik off when questions are asked over what they are doing with it.

The game of using tax payer's money is that you recognise you then become beholden unto the tax payer.

[krenshala]

...and I am clearly saying that they are not playing within the bounds of the game in which they take tax payer's money, then tell those tax payer's to frik off when questions are asked over what they are doing with it.

The game of using tax payer's money is that you recognise you then become beholden unto the tax payer.

But they aren't using tax payer's money. They (EMC2) are using the US Navy's money. A minor quibble, I admit, but the US Navy is assigned a certain amount of the tax money to do their thing. Nothing in the rules (laws) say they can't use it for R&D, and in fact, part of the laws require them to in order to help maintain our national security (just like every other country that is trying to improve the capabilities of its armed forces). For the same reasons, nothing in the rules say they must disclose what the results of that R&D funding is.

I agree, it would be nice if they would just come out and tell us, but they didn't (at this time, at least) so we will just have to wait some more.

[icarus]

Could we keep this kind of exchange off the 'Theory' threads?

The possible contortions for defending the indefensible are infinite and could easily fill up a lot of this space, as amusing as they are.