The State of the Art in Hadron Beam Cooling:KitemanSA wrote:What we need is an alpha receiver.
https://wiki.ornl.gov/sites/icns/HB%202 ... /Prost.ppt
The State of the Art in Hadron Beam Cooling:KitemanSA wrote:What we need is an alpha receiver.
Thanks for that link, Mike, I've not see that before. I guess this was what one of the guys from Rutherford Appleton was talking about when he mentioned beam energy recovery to me recently after he saw my poster on beam fusion concepts at a poster session at Culham.Mike Holmes wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114433.htm
I regret to say that at this moment I am not - only, and until, clear diagnostic evidence proves otherwise. The debate on Polywell theory appears to me to be completely and fully done now and what remains is pure speculation that must be settled experimentally. The realities of trying to make this thing function as intended appears to be a lesson well learned by the EMC2 team. They appear to have settled into some down-to-earth, step-by-step and suitably restrained experimentation after all the great sales talk from Robert Bussard. His vision is in as good a set of hands as it is likely to be, but this doesn't imply likely success. Living up to the claims may prove to be a stretch too far, I fear.Mike Holmes wrote:it would be great if it turned out that you could see some potential in the project. I hope you can be convinced.chrismb wrote:I thought I would run through a few baseline quantitive questions first to form my own technical assessment of where the project is at.
Good for you! I have no doubt you do indeed have plenty of knowledge that I do not. During the 1990's I, albeit briefly, held the substantive rank of Lieutenant (NATO rank OF-2) in the Royal Navy as an Engineering (Training Management) Officer, though I was never commissioned to 'Fleet Strength'. Do I outrank you? [am I getting good at this 'trump' game?]MSimon wrote: Let me give you a hint. I know a fair amount about this stuff because I was a Reactor Operator in the US Navy.
(I really hate that expression 'expert'!)93143 wrote: I posted that particular qualification so that you would know you weren't arguing with a pigheaded ignoramus. Not everyone can tell someone is an expert just from his posts.
What IS your background? Just so I know what I'm dealing with...
I looked thru the linked .ppt but I guess I just don't get it. It seems to be talking of spending hours over tens of meters to bunch up a hadron beam, but I just can't equate that to converting an alpha spray into direct current power. There has got to be an easier way.alexjrgreen wrote:The State of the Art in Hadron Beam Cooling:KitemanSA wrote:What we need is an alpha receiver.
https://wiki.ornl.gov/sites/icns/HB%202 ... /Prost.ppt
My apologies, I should have been clearer. On page 30 an RF cavity is used to recover energy from 10 MeV protons.KitemanSA wrote:I looked thru the linked .ppt but I guess I just don't get it.alexjrgreen wrote: The State of the Art in Hadron Beam Cooling:
https://wiki.ornl.gov/sites/icns/HB%202 ... /Prost.ppt
chrismb wrote:As a past Research Fellow in Computational Electro-magnetics
The guys here working to simulate a polywell would really have appreciated your help...chrismb wrote:My research was on using modelling to predict sensitivity in systems and to understand when the 'theory' and a consequent electromagnetic 'model' create an unrealistic simulation of a real system.
Okay. Does that mean Ph.D.? It usually does, and I'm still working on mine...chrismb wrote: As a past Research Fellow in Computational Electro-magnetics
(1) I didn't intend to specifically classify myself as an expert; in this field I'm not. Art Carlson (for example) is. So is rnebel. That sentence was intended to be general.(I really hate that expression 'expert'!)
Have you ever read "The Cult of the Amateur"? Not all opinions are equal. If a random guy posts his "gut feeling", we have no obligation to give it any credence at all. If said random guy posts theoretical reasoning to back up his thesis, anyone who understands the reasoning can take it as seriously as it deserves. You have done this on various issues, but what annoys people is that you haven't considered the possibility that we already thought of the issue in question and reasoned our way to "we aren't sure yet". No one here assumes the Polywell will work.of course that is only a subjective opinion though it may hold some weight on this forum as this kind of background seems to permit 'rights' to make such claims. (In reality, it's just an opinion.)
They may ignore as-yet-unknown scale-dependent confinement and/or stability effects, but the base scaling laws are pretty fundamental. The way the achievable magnetic field scales with the coil size in this device results in the 7th-power gross output scaling law regardless of the details of the plasma. The 5th-power gain scaling is a bit less obvious, but something would have to go pretty badly wrong for the estimate to be out by more than a single power, and 4th-power gain scaling is still workable.I do not believe the scaling laws generated for Polywell carry much credibility and certainly not enough that they should influence decisions over funding.
Do we have a wiseass here? (Okay, maybe I went a little off the deep end with those details...)alexjrgreen wrote:Can you do that with Quaternions?93143 wrote:I also managed to get the full Navier-Stokes/Poisson/Nernst-Planck moving boundary system working for the full electrokinetic problem, and matched the theoretical steady-state small-deformation limit result to within 0.01%
Guilty as charged93143 wrote:Do we have a wiseass here? (Okay, maybe I went a little off the deep end with those details...)alexjrgreen wrote:Can you do that with Quaternions?93143 wrote:I also managed to get the full Navier-Stokes/Poisson/Nernst-Planck moving boundary system working for the full electrokinetic problem, and matched the theoretical steady-state small-deformation limit result to within 0.01%
I've never worked with quaternions. I've never needed them. I have only the barest notion of what they are. My knowledge of the quaternion form of Maxwell's equations is purely hearsay.
Oh god, not quats.alexjrgreen wrote:Can you do that with Quaternions?93143 wrote:I also managed to get the full Navier-Stokes/Poisson/Nernst-Planck moving boundary system working for the full electrokinetic problem, and matched the theoretical steady-state small-deformation limit result to within 0.01%