Talk-Polywell.org

There are 2 related advances in superconductors that have the potential to affect the progress of Polywell Fusion.

One is the confirmation of a new ceramic superconductor with a critical temperature of 254 degrees Kelvin.

http://www.superconductors.org/254K.htm

and the confirmation at:

http://www.superconductors.org/SDARTICL.pdf

Obviously, such superconductors must be developed for bulk production in continuous windings, not the current heterogenous random appearance in the samples sintered in flowing Oxygen. At the extreme limit of difficulty, this might require nano-assembly directly in the shape of the windings themselves, but that tech is coming in the next 15 years anyway.

The other superconductor tech is the initial reports of using "flux pumping" to get superconducting magnets up to high strength in small packages. This is announced at:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/magnif ... tesla.html

and explained at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pumping

What caught my eye about the second development is the last sentence of the wikipedia article:

"Given the B^4 scaling of most fusion devices, this technology also could allow much smaller devices like Polywell reactors."

What do contributors here think of the potential of these 2 developments? The new HTS developments have obvious effects on the size and complexity of arrangements to cool magnets for a Polywell machine. That is good in and of itself. In combination with the "flux pumping", if it has the effects claimed, we might see radically smaller and cheaper Polywell fusion systems in the near future, or so it seems.

In addition to these 2 technologies we see that graphene tech continues to advance, so that graphene substrates for the brittle ceramic superconductors seem to be a winning proposition in the future. Graphene's physical strength and stiffness would allow more compact magnets with less risk of cracks in the superconductor from flexing, while graphene electrical and heat conductivity would help mightily in draining away surges in current and heat during local quenching events that would otherwise disrupt the magnet physically. Again, at the extreme limit of difficulty in assembling a graphene/HTS magnet, we might need nanotech.

Just how small might we make a power-producing Polywell device with these technologies added to the current mix? Is there any way to tell, yet?

Just how much cheaper/megawatt would development be for later machines if these technologies were useable?

*Are* these technologies applicable?

Regards,

Tom Billings

The HTS story is hard to evaluate. (BTW, the confirmation paper is for a different superconductor, and a different transition temperature, than the 254K claim (and as a side nit, it's 254 Kelvins, not 254 degrees Kelvin; the Kelvin scale doesn't use degrees).) The owner of that web site has a history of a series of similar breakthroughs, each ratchetting the temperature upwards. No one seems interested in duplicating his work, and I haven't seen any 3rd-party evaluations by folks who should know that take his work seriously.

If it is real, and it is possible to make it in bulk with the critical temp of 254K, then it might have a viable impact on Polywell development. Without a good confirmation that his superconductors actually work, it's no good to us now.

As for the flux pumping breakthrough, that's been discussed elsewhere in this forum. While it sounds promising, the major issue is whether or not the super-high field magnets made available by this process can be put into field-conformal casings. My initial impression is that the magnets work like permanent magnets and the field lines penetrate the bulk of the material. There seems to be some indication that the process works via vortex pinning, which would require the field lines to penetrate the material. If the field lines penetrate the material, it's no good for a polywell.

MSimon has stated that he is asking Magnifye for more information about that.

blaisepascal wrote:The HTS story is hard to evaluate. (BTW, the confirmation paper is for a different superconductor, and a different transition temperature, than the 254K claim (and as a side nit, it's 254 Kelvins, not 254 degrees Kelvin; the Kelvin scale doesn't use degrees).) The owner of that web site has a history of a series of similar breakthroughs, each ratchetting the temperature upwards. No one seems interested in duplicating his work, and I haven't seen any 3rd-party evaluations by folks who should know that take his work seriously.

If it is real, and it is possible to make it in bulk with the critical temp of 254K, then it might have a viable impact on Polywell development. Without a good confirmation that his superconductors actually work, it's no good to us now.

As for the flux pumping breakthrough, that's been discussed elsewhere in this forum. While it sounds promising, the major issue is whether or not the super-high field magnets made available by this process can be put into field-conformal casings. My initial impression is that the magnets work like permanent magnets and the field lines penetrate the bulk of the material. There seems to be some indication that the process works via vortex pinning, which would require the field lines to penetrate the material. If the field lines penetrate the material, it's no good for a polywell.

MSimon has stated that he is asking Magnifye for more information about that.

When I explained what I wanted they stopped communications. Evidently they do bulk solid magnets. Which are no good for us.

I'm not sure how much graphene will ultimately help the polywell, but it's properties are extremely remarkable, and their discovery is akin to the discovery of superconductivity IMO. It's as if the electrons are forced to tunnel all the way through the graphene.

MSimon wrote:When I explained what I wanted they stopped communications. Evidently they do bulk solid magnets. Which are no good for us.

Thanks for the follow-up; it's about what I expected.