Caveat: these ideas are coming from someone who is going to have to wait for a "Polywell for Dummies" book to fully understand what's going on.
A number of years ago, I read a story in Discover magazine (I think) about someone who was able to levitate objects by getting all of the electrons in an array to spin in the same direction. I remember thinking this was incredible because I assumed electrons had almost no mass. Therefore, I concluded they must be spinning very, very fast to exert a force great enough to levitate an object.
My first question is: could this effect somehow be harnessed to better direct the behavior of the various particles (electrons/B11/deuterium)? Maybe a "rifling" of the electron or ion guns? Or would the maelstrom in the polywell completely destroy any attempt to influence the spin?
My second question is: could permanent magnets be positioned safely outside the "wiffle ball" to redirect the escaping electrons?
I decided to submit my silly ideas because I just read an article on peak oil. Basically, if the alarmists (in the spectrum of believers) are just HALF correct, the world economy is due for an absolutely brutal shock in a few years. We SOOOOO need a home run in terms of energy...
Some Silly Ideas
Some Silly Ideas
Of all the gin joints in all the world...
Here's some interesting points on "levitation". In matter it's possible to deal with some of the electron spins. In a plasma that won't work so well.
Permanent magnets outside won't really help much. It will simply move the escape points around.
It's good to ask lots of questions! And yes, we need a good energy source. It has been obvious for a very long time, but it takes economics to get the idea across.
Permanent magnets outside won't really help much. It will simply move the escape points around.
It's good to ask lots of questions! And yes, we need a good energy source. It has been obvious for a very long time, but it takes economics to get the idea across.
Hello ccain, welcome to the forum. The peak oil people have a serious point, though whether it will come as a knife edge or a blunt instrument is not yet clear. Personally I lean to the blunt instrument idea, where oil gradually dries up and humans have a few years to develop alternate sources of energy.
However the reality is that it will dry up, and if we don't do something about alternatives then we are toasted. ITER seems to be a science project rather than a power plant, the fission nukes have some issues politically and disposal of waste requires some careful thought (though it is doable). Solar, wind, tidal power and geothermal are interesting but may never reach the prime time in every location due to local factors (not enough sun / wind / waves / hot rocks). Polywell faces some serious engineering challenges too.
And that's why we're here ...
Regards,
Tony Barry
However the reality is that it will dry up, and if we don't do something about alternatives then we are toasted. ITER seems to be a science project rather than a power plant, the fission nukes have some issues politically and disposal of waste requires some careful thought (though it is doable). Solar, wind, tidal power and geothermal are interesting but may never reach the prime time in every location due to local factors (not enough sun / wind / waves / hot rocks). Polywell faces some serious engineering challenges too.
And that's why we're here ...
Regards,
Tony Barry
ccain84,
Glad to see you made it aboard.
Magnets will not work. That has pretty well been thrashed out. Do a search on permanent magnets and see if you can find the thread.
The sidebar here:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/
has a good tutorial.
Look for Polywell Primer on the sidebar. The last item on the list is the best place to start. Then go through basics I, II, and III.
Glad to see you made it aboard.
Magnets will not work. That has pretty well been thrashed out. Do a search on permanent magnets and see if you can find the thread.
The sidebar here:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/
has a good tutorial.
Look for Polywell Primer on the sidebar. The last item on the list is the best place to start. Then go through basics I, II, and III.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It is interesting that this started out in response to the"peak oil" problem, because Dr. Hirsch, the same fellow who worked with Farnsworth on the fusor, is one of the primary people sounding the cry.
I believe Dr. Hirsch will pull together the peer review team for any WB7 results!
I also believe Dr. Hirsch will require very firm proof. He is well aware of all the false positives possible in IEC experiments. Richard Hull posted over on the fusor.net forum a story in which the Farnsworth team used false counts to secure funding, then used the funding to actually get the fusor to work. I've already relayed to the team my concern that they use backup methods such as fast-neutron specific dosimeters, which are immune from false counts from arcing, to be sure they can counter any questions in this area.
I did find out last fall that the EMC2 team not only used the setup I'd come up with that essentially killed any sensitivity of the neutron counters to arcs, they took it a couple of steps further. On that basis, I'm personally satisfied that their results of the fall of 2005 are not stray counts. But based on the experience that led me to super-shield the counters, I also anticipate a challenge.
I believe Dr. Hirsch will pull together the peer review team for any WB7 results!
I also believe Dr. Hirsch will require very firm proof. He is well aware of all the false positives possible in IEC experiments. Richard Hull posted over on the fusor.net forum a story in which the Farnsworth team used false counts to secure funding, then used the funding to actually get the fusor to work. I've already relayed to the team my concern that they use backup methods such as fast-neutron specific dosimeters, which are immune from false counts from arcing, to be sure they can counter any questions in this area.
I did find out last fall that the EMC2 team not only used the setup I'd come up with that essentially killed any sensitivity of the neutron counters to arcs, they took it a couple of steps further. On that basis, I'm personally satisfied that their results of the fall of 2005 are not stray counts. But based on the experience that led me to super-shield the counters, I also anticipate a challenge.
The link you're looking for is here:
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn= ... 1188238350
He never did get his "pit" fusion device (multipactor) to work.
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn= ... 1188238350
He never did get his "pit" fusion device (multipactor) to work.
Tony,
I have no idea if or when the results will be published. I have been pleasantly surprised by how much Dr. Nebel has been willing to talk to the press, though. Maybe the veil is not so tight this time around.
So I guess my answer is, I certainly hope so!
Duck -- the very one! And I sure want them to be ready to prove it ain't so.
Once I shielded the counters, I demonstrated that they still counted neutrons just fine, but would not respond to arcs at the full power of our supplies. At all. Background counts dropped to about 3 per minute, if I recall, so I'm not concerned that the 3 counts in a fraction of a millisecond (the 2005 results) are either arcs or background. But you just know the subject will come up, especially with a story like that one lurking in the history of IEC.
I have no idea if or when the results will be published. I have been pleasantly surprised by how much Dr. Nebel has been willing to talk to the press, though. Maybe the veil is not so tight this time around.
So I guess my answer is, I certainly hope so!
Duck -- the very one! And I sure want them to be ready to prove it ain't so.
Once I shielded the counters, I demonstrated that they still counted neutrons just fine, but would not respond to arcs at the full power of our supplies. At all. Background counts dropped to about 3 per minute, if I recall, so I'm not concerned that the 3 counts in a fraction of a millisecond (the 2005 results) are either arcs or background. But you just know the subject will come up, especially with a story like that one lurking in the history of IEC.
The Hirsch design worked neatly though. If they had not used the overly complicated multipactor design, there would have no need for tomfoolery.
The neutron source I used to check out the function of the EMC2 counters was my own personal Hirsch machine I built to take to demonstrations. Worked like a charm. Pump it down, bleed in a little D2, apply about 18 kV at a few mA, and it would do 3000 fusion per second for stretches as long as 45 minutes.
The neutron source I used to check out the function of the EMC2 counters was my own personal Hirsch machine I built to take to demonstrations. Worked like a charm. Pump it down, bleed in a little D2, apply about 18 kV at a few mA, and it would do 3000 fusion per second for stretches as long as 45 minutes.
I think this is the SETI link to the page with a pic of Tom & the "device".
http://www.setileague.org/photos/pixwk99.htm
I'm assuming WB7 is more robust then WB6
Then everybody's favorite detector set up of the week could be tried. If critic "B" says you should have used my Plan "A" for the detector set up.
If.... WB7 is strong enuff to undergo repeated runs You can try plan "A".
http://www.setileague.org/photos/pixwk99.htm
I'm assuming WB7 is more robust then WB6
Then everybody's favorite detector set up of the week could be tried. If critic "B" says you should have used my Plan "A" for the detector set up.
If.... WB7 is strong enuff to undergo repeated runs You can try plan "A".
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Yup, that's "Dog and Pony II", my demo machine that I also used to prove out the performance of the EMC2 neutron detectors. I'll probably be taking it to Balticon in a few months, and do the ISDC talk again.
"Dog and Pony I" never made neutrons and only lasted a couple of weeks. I built it out of a plastic dissicator, bad choice of materials, and it eventually melted. However, it was the demo machine that started the amateur fusor movement.
"Dog and Pony I" never made neutrons and only lasted a couple of weeks. I built it out of a plastic dissicator, bad choice of materials, and it eventually melted. However, it was the demo machine that started the amateur fusor movement.