Plasma Oscillation

[hanelyp]

I'm not sure WB-7 can drive a stake through Rider to anyone's satisfaction.

About the most it can show us is if fusion production and electron losses match theory.

With the right instruments it should tell us something about particle energy distribution, brem losses, scattering, and so forth. All of which could be of value in evaluating how well the device should work at larger scales. Of course, a steady state machine would make all measurements easier.

[TheRadicalModerate]

With the right instruments it should tell us something about particle energy distribution, brem losses, scattering, and so forth. All of which could be of value in evaluating how well the device should work at larger scales. Of course, a steady state machine would make all measurements easier.

Some naive questions:

1) What are the best technologies available for measuring:
a) ion thermalization
b) ion scattering
c) brem, and
c) electron losses?

2) Are any of those technologies appropriate for use in one-shot operation?

3) Do we expect any of the results of such measurements to be linear with the energy of the potential well?

[pstudier]

What about simply photographing the plasma so one can know its shape?

[drmike]

There are lots of things to photograph - from x-rays down to 60 Hz.

Microwave injection and looking for reflections can help with density measurement as can Langmuir probes. Looking for specific transition lines in H or B along with spatial localization can help too.

but in all the photographic cases, you are doing tomography. The light you absorb comes from all depths even if you can limit the angles. to get full 3d you need lots of photos from lots of angles.

Langmuir probes are ok at low density and energy, but tend to melt at high power levels. They also interfere with the plasma more.

So there's no free lunch, but it is possible to measure things and get clues.

[pstudier]

but in all the photographic cases, you are doing tomography.

That it true but it would tell a lot. I absolutely do not believe that the plasma will be a small sphere in the middle, like what is shown on this forum's logo. Indrek's simulations show electrons spending a lot of time "recirculating" outside the grid. So I would actually expect more plasma outside the grid than inside. I would expect the distribution to resemble the levitated dipole.

[TallDave]

I'm not sure WB-7 can drive a stake through Rider to anyone's satisfaction.

About the most it can show us is if fusion production and electron losses match theory.

Ruling out Rider will require a net power machine. IMO.

Yeah, that's my biggest fear for this tech: WB-7 does everything it was expected to, then they bring it up for review and the reaction is "so what?" followed by a litany of plausible-sounding arguments from the tokamakkers as to why it can never produce net energy.

$100M is a lot of money.

Then again, fusion funding closely tracks oil prices, and last time oil prices were this high Livermore got $300M for a magnetic mirror fusion project (which was scrapped, before it could ever be run, when oil prices later fell again).

[MSimon]

I'm not sure WB-7 can drive a stake through Rider to anyone's satisfaction.

About the most it can show us is if fusion production and electron losses match theory.

Ruling out Rider will require a net power machine. IMO.

Yeah, that's my biggest fear for this tech: WB-7 does everything it was expected to, then they bring it up for review and the reaction is "so what?" followed by a litany of plausible-sounding arguments from the tokamakkers as to why it can never produce net energy.

$100M is a lot of money.

Then again, fusion funding closely tracks oil prices, and last time oil prices were this high Livermore got $300M for a magnetic mirror fusion project (which was scrapped, before it could ever be run, when oil prices later fell again).

I think the best response to your fears is more publicity.

Right now we have hit a dry patch. We have no press releases to flack. No organized opposition to fight. Where is Paul Dietz when you need him?

In my opinion the Tokamakers are demoralized. Congress is trying to send them a message - more balance in the fusion program - and they are resisting.

BTW 100 million is not a lot of money if Congress decides it is worth spending.

In any case the Navy is committed. For $40 mil a year for 5 years. All we need Congress for is speed up money.

Thanks to Gillette Fusion Power is on a lot of lips. Every one knows it is the energy of the future. Suppose we said that with a $20 bn spend over 3 or 4 years we could have that future PDQ? Do you really think that Congress would balk?

Think of all the people who would be for this:

1. People who hate oil wars
2. People who hate Saudi Arabia
3. People who hate oil companies
4. People who hate coal companies
5. People who fear CO2
6. Space transport buffs
7. The Bussard fan club (sci-fi esp.)
8. Futurists
9. Technology buffs

Do you think that that is enough to move Congress? I do.

Let me add that I personally know about Air Force interest, Congressional interest, venture capital interest, large industrial firm interest, the interest of The Electrical Power Institute (the R&D arm of the electric utilities), just to name some of the types of Big Guns who have contacted me.

Not to mention a thriving engineering community.

I see three paths if the experiments are successful

1. Forces kill the project - very very unlikely
2. The Navy funds its $200 million power test reactor - very likely
3. Congress Manhattanizes the project - very possible

[scareduck]

I think the best response to your fears is more publicity.

Well, that and some solid papers published in Fusion Technology, Journal of Plasma Physics, etc.Bussard pretty clearly felt he had the answers to the criticisms, but died before he had a chance to get a real response published.

Right now we have hit a dry patch. We have no press releases to flack. No organized opposition to fight. Where is Paul Dietz when you need him?

Would it make a difference? Rider and Nevins are the pair you want to address.

In my opinion the Tokamakers are demoralized. Congress is trying to send them a message - more balance in the fusion program - and they are resisting.

It certainly is interesting that ITER is sitting on the ground in the middle of $100/bbl oil prices.

In any case the Navy is committed. For $40 mil a year for 5 years. All we need Congress for is speed up money.

I thought they were only doing the $2M follow-on that they had already committed earlier...?

Thanks to Gillette Fusion Power is on a lot of lips.

No thanks, I only need two blades on my razor!

[MSimon]

Scareduck,

Let me take your points in order:

Publicity We don't have to defeat Rider. Congressmen don't read physics papers. What we need is to develop the level of political demand. BFRs don't even have to work (sadly). They just need to look like they might (think ITER). Political money is not about doing good. It is about looking like good is being done. Hopefully we can do both.

Dietz See my first point. Congressmen don't read physics papers. They might read a lively comment's section even if everything discussed is over their heads. Having confidence in our arguments means more than being right. (Sadly).

Navy They are committed to the $200 mil if the experiments show promise. What that commitment is worth is of course unknown at this time.

Fusion Power Good to have it brought before people's eyes. And I'll go you one up. I don't even shave.

What we want to do is to go over the heads of the DOE establishment the way Rickover went over the Navy. He made allies in Congress. We must do the same. Since we are not Navy Captains we will have to develop a grass roots movement (a work in progress - well under way).

[TallDave]

I think the best response to your fears is more publicity.

Well, that and some solid papers published in Fusion Technology, Journal of Plasma Physics, etc.Bussard pretty clearly felt he had the answers to the criticisms, but died before he had a chance to get a real response published.

Right now we have hit a dry patch. We have no press releases to flack. No organized opposition to fight. Where is Paul Dietz when you need him?

Would it make a difference? Rider and Nevins are the pair you want to address.

One could argue that was acomplished 10 years ago, at least in the more general sense of IEC fusion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... NwOzIwyrKA

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5375/307a

It didn't generate all that much interest/funding. Of course, oil prices were a lot lower in those days...

Interestingly, Art Carlson (I assume the same one from the Science mag article) patrols the Wikipedia IEC fusion pages arguing against the possibility of net power from IEC (quite correctly in some cases, perhaps less so in others). The tokamakkers are not going to go down without a fight.

[MSimon]

Interestingly, Art Carlson (I assume the same one from the Science mag article) patrols the Wikipedia IEC fusion pages arguing against the possibility of net power from IEC (quite correctly in some cases, perhaps less so in others). The tokamakkers are not going to go down without a fight.

They have already been beaten and don't know it. Why? They are a laughing stock. Forty years? Ha.

What we have done is to convince Congress that lots of small experiments are better than all the eggs in the French basket.

At this point the Tokies have zero credibility. Every one knows they don't know what they are talking about. Forty years and nothing has panned out. Time for a different approach.

To be sure they are not dead yet and they are dangerous for a while. But not very and not for long.

[hanelyp]

Publicity We don't have to defeat Rider. Congressmen don't read physics papers.

In my opinion we do need to address the objections of Rider et all. Congress critters, and other investors, may not read physics papers, but they should be talking to people who do on matters like this. If it becomes 'well known' that the Buzzard fusion device can't work that's a killer for funding. As I hear the objections have been addressed. Perhaps nothing short of a net power machine can remove the last shred of doubt, but a well founded and believable model is needed to get there.

[scareduck]

In my opinion we do need to address the objections of Rider et all. Congress critters, and other investors, may not read physics papers, but they should be talking to people who do on matters like this. If it becomes 'well known' that the Buzzard fusion device can't work that's a killer for funding. As I hear the objections have been addressed. Perhaps nothing short of a net power machine can remove the last shred of doubt, but a well founded and believable model is needed to get there.

Obviously, I agree completely. Even Bussard wanted to have some high-level design reviews, though it is troubling that he wanted to cherry-pick the panelists.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Let's try to frame this another way:

We've got a fairly large science and engineering project with numerous R&D milestones that have to be met along the way. There is significant risk associated with being able to meet those milestones. The risks fall into two categories:

1) Technical risks, i.e. something that we think is true may turn out to be false, jeopardizing the enterprise in whole or part.

2) Political risks, i.e. a disinclination on the part of the funders to continue funding if too many setbacks pile up.

Clearly, the technical risks feed into the political risks. If the funders see too many "ifs" in the schedule (and I certainly view the Rider objections as at least 3 big "ifs" that need to be overcome), they're less likely to fund at all, to say nothing of funding fully.

I think I'm with hanelyp: Congresspeople sure ain't plasma physicists but the very nature of being a legislator requires an expert nose for spotting controversies and assessing whether engaging in them is good for your career or not. My guess is that the Rider objections will evoke all sorts of Proxmire-style "golden fleece" anxiety, which will reduce or eliminate funding unless you can show them a path for how they're doing "responsible science."

Hence, addressing the Rider objections as much as possible, as soon as possible, seems to be an important near-term goal--almost as important as replicating the WB-6 results.

So: you have funded platform--WB-7. Presumably it has more carefully wound cans than WB-6 and you can get a nearly unlimited number of shots out of it over the lifetime of the platform. The question then is, What kind of data can you get out of this platform, given its current design constraints? Some thoughts:

a) You can get spectral measurements that ought to shed some light on brem output.

b) You should be able to get some langmuir-style data that should show electron temperature distribution.

c) You should be able to get enough current flow information to completely characterize electron loss.

That leaves characterizing the ion energy distribution over time and a more complete answer on brem. I have no idea how to get this data.

Could these more advanced goals be accomplished with a continuous power supply?

Will the design of the device withstand continuous power application?

My knowledge of the kind of instrumentation you can apply to non-equilibrium plasmas is woefully deficient, to say the least. Some of you can probably think up some interesting experiments that could help with this characterization, however. I submit that this is an area where this group could make a real contribution, since the folks that are actually running the early results replications are probably in alligators up to their ass right now and unable to spend many cycles on anything else.

Would this be a decent topic for a separate thread?

[MSimon]

Publicity We don't have to defeat Rider. Congressmen don't read physics papers.

In my opinion we do need to address the objections of Rider et all. Congress critters, and other investors, may not read physics papers, but they should be talking to people who do on matters like this. If it becomes 'well known' that the Buzzard fusion device can't work that's a killer for funding. As I hear the objections have been addressed. Perhaps nothing short of a net power machine can remove the last shred of doubt, but a well founded and believable model is needed to get there.

The beauty of the current situation is that we don't have to defeat Rider.

If the current experiments show enough promise further effort will be funded.

BTW if Rider is so smart why is the ITER line 40 years away from useful results? Heck - they are estimating 10 to 15 years of experiments before taking 10 more years to build a power producer.

In any case Rider says if you can solve problems X, Y, and Z BFRs could work. Dr. B said he had those problems solved.

Plasma physics is so darn difficult - there are at this point no universal solutions.