Why people are so optimistical to Polywell?

[Joseph Chikva]

The idea of "temperature" in a fusion reactor refers to how fast the ions can be expected to smash into each other. Whether you have a converging/diverging beamlike energy distribution or a wide thermal spread, the upshot is that the "temperature" in eV determines how likely fusion is. (Depending on the distribution, of course, but that's not really an operating parameter; it depends on the nature of the device.)

The (expected) more-or-less beamlike energy distribution in a Polywell serves the same purpose, qualitatively, as the nearly Maxwellian distribution in a tokamak, so it gets described by the same words. There's no need to be so inflexible about it; English doesn't work that way.

Thank you, I know about dependency of fusion cross section on collision energy.

The dispute has arisen when there was a conversation about thermalization. My opponents declared that at the edge the temperature will be lower than in center.
For the begining I did not understand - I asked: If we throw upwards a hot rock will its temperature change?
They have answered that yes.

I claimed and till now can claim that in Polywell due to mass transfer the temperature will be the same anywhere.

And sometimes the excessive flexibility leads to big mistakes.

That's all.

[Giorgio]

For the begining I did not understand - I asked: If we throw upwards a hot rock will its temperature change?
They have answered that yes.

You keep making huge mix ups. I thought we had cleared this issue a couple of pages ago......

[Joseph Chikva]

You keep making huge mix ups. I thought we had cleared this issue a couple of pages ago......

Are you sure that something is clear?
If the man mentioning scattering cross section on 10 degrees declares that I know nothing.
Yes, I am not an expert, but who knows? He?

[ladajo]

Joseph,
The real issue here as stated several times is one of terminology.
As mentioned by others, there is a customary language used here in the forum to dicuss the polywell. It is not a matter of expertness or understanding that is seperating the points right now.
There are very intelligent folks that frequent this forum, and the positions that members have taken have been developed over the course of several years having deep discussions.
Polywell, at least here in the forum, remains mostly in the theoretical realm, as there has been little released public data. This has caused some assumptions to be made. Some argue towards negative assumptions, others argue towards positive assumptions. But, they all remain assumptions.
When you speak of ion temperature around here, most everyone here directly equates that to KEV and velocity potential. From this point of view is made the basis of thermalization discussions. One side argues that the ions will undergo heat death in the classic sense, and the aggragate ion populatio will fall below energy levels needed to fuse. Others argue not so, that the polywell configuration leads to an naturally progressive unbalancing of the population, and thus allows a majority of ions to remain above the potential required to fuse long enough that they do so. And so on.

[MSimon]

As with the same success you can express eV also in kg
As 1 eV = ~17.8E-37 kg

True. Now what is the use of that in current discussions vs 11,605 deg K = 1 eV?

[Joseph Chikva]

As mentioned by others, there is a customary language used here in the forum to dicuss the polywell.

I understand that.
But till now I saw mainly the people who aren't familiar with another - standard terminology. When naturally from initial I did not understand what they meant, they began to accuse me with issue ignorance.
I repeat those are people supposing the probability of Oppenheimer-Fission reaction in conditions standard for fusion, who speaks scattering section at X degrees, beam’s cross section Y barns, etc.

[Giorgio]

As mentioned by others, there is a customary language used here in the forum to dicuss the polywell.

I understand that.
But till now I saw mainly the people who aren't familiar with another - standard terminology. When naturally from initial I did not understand what they meant, they began to accuse me with issue ignorance.
I repeat those are people supposing the probability of Oppenheimer-Fission reaction in conditions standard for fusion, who speaks scattering section at X degrees, beam’s cross section Y barns, etc.

Misunderstandings do happens, but I do not see this as a good reason to refuse to even try to understand in what way a Polywell should work.

[Joseph Chikva]

As with the same success you can express eV also in kg
As 1 eV = ~17.8E-37 kg

True. Now what is the use of that in current discussions vs 11,605 deg K = 1 eV?

Is that very difficult to say that velocities have non-zero gradient dv/dr and temperature due to mass transfer is the same anywhere dT/dr = 0?
But "you do not know anything", "we - Poluwell's enthusiast", "Jesus (pardon Dr. Bussard) says", Paul (pardon Dr.Nebel) says, etc.

[Giorgio]

But "you do not know anything", "we - Poluwell's enthusiast", "Jesus (pardon Dr. Bussard) says", Paul (pardon Dr.Nebel) says, etc.

No one here is giving for granted that Polywell will work as expected.

But at least Bussard and Nebel did build something and got some data out of it.
And that is more than you can claim.

[rcain]

Hi Joseph,

Forgive me wading in to the discussion at this late hour.

re. thermalisation (vis: 'Maxwellianisation') - have you read Bussards paper here -
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Some ... ations.pdf

it gives a reasonable description of why it is not 'expected' to be a problem, providing well depth is >20kV

the Valencia paper is also a good read - all are available from MSimons blog here - http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ (rhs panel)

the 'supposed' annealing process is something else however.

[Joseph Chikva]

Hi Joseph,

Forgive me wading in to the discussion at this late hour.

re. thermalisation (vis: 'Maxwellianisation') - have you read Bussards paper here -
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Some ... ations.pdf

it gives a reasonable description of why it is not 'expected' to be a problem, providing well depth is >20kV

the Valencia paper is also a good read - all are available from MSimons blog here - http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ (rhs panel)

the 'supposed' annealing process is something else however.

Hi, I'll read. Thanks.

[chrismb]

Try reading this, as well;

http://www.fusor.net/board/download_thr ... 1227208869

I still do not think you have yet come to understand the difference between a thermal plasma and a 'generally cold, locally hot' one.

[Incidentally, you aksed where someone had ever suggested your beam-idea before, and this thread is but one example of someone discussing it.]

[Joseph Chikva]

Try reading this, as well;

http://www.fusor.net/board/download_thr ... 1227208869

I still do not think you have yet come to understand the difference between a thermal plasma and a 'generally cold, locally hot' one.

[Incidentally, you aksed where someone had ever suggested your beam-idea before, and this thread is but one example of someone discussing it.]

I does not a big matter what you think.

And I advise you too to make some readings and to reduce arrogance. Even if you know more. But it not so.

[chrismb]

I does not a big matter what you think.

And I advise you too to make some readings and to reduce arrogance. Even if you know more. But it not so.

Nice!

No good turn deserves to go unpunished, eh?

...

..bye bye....

[D Tibbets]

Hi Joseph,

Forgive me wading in to the discussion at this late hour.

re. thermalisation (vis: 'Maxwellianisation') - have you read Bussards paper here -
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Some ... ations.pdf

it gives a reasonable description of why it is not 'expected' to be a problem, providing well depth is >20kV

the Valencia paper is also a good read - all are available from MSimons blog here - http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ (rhs panel)

the 'supposed' annealing process is something else however.

Both of those papers has been recommended earlier in this thread, and Joseph said he would read them...

As far as throwing a rock up in the air (he still has things reversed for the ions - they are not thrown up in the air, they are dropped from a height, as the initiating event), I'm not sure how to describe the mass change. It all depends on your frame of reference and the measurement method (?). The energy associated with the particle certainly goes up, and as E=MC^2 the resultant mass goes up. Does that mean a cloud/ jet of gas from a supernova traveling at 99.9.. percent the speed of light has more mass than it would at rest? I don't know, but by most, if not all measures it would. So, to answer the question 'if a rock is accelerated to higher speeds does it have more mass?' within that frame of reference, of course it does, due to the mass- energy equivalence. Do products of a chemical reaction gain mass, or lose mass depending on whether they are exothermic reactions or endothermic reactions? Yes, of course they do, unless you throw out Einsteins theories. The saving grace in all of this is that for most situations these effects are so small that Newton's laws serve and general relativity can be ignored.

As far as criticizing comments made by experts in this field (Bussard, Nebel) that is of course appropriate if you give pertinent counter arguments. Joseph says he is an engineer, so he has read many texts and papers. Does he ignore arguments put forth by Newton, Einstein, Ruthorford, Maxwell, Boltzman, Volta, Faraday, etc... The whole field of science is built on the shoulders of others.
That does not mean any of these individuals are right, but it does mean that they are accepted as authorities in the area, and unless disproven they often serve as good references/ shortcuts.
Just because I have not (or cannot) derive Maxwell's or Newton's equations does not mean they are meaningless. Even if they are subsequently proven to be less than absolutely accurate in all situations (Newton) does not mean that they should be discarded as worthless.

IE: If you disagree with some viewpoint, argue the facts, not the label.
And keep in mind that those with narrow views in science are sometimes proven wrong, by further research. Think of plate tectonics, celestial spheres, flat Earth, ether, field reversed configuration plasma containment, Heisenberg and the atomic bomb, Einstein and the cosmological constant (wrong twice, both times due to assumptions), etc...

This does not mean that you should believe every con artist (or politician) out there, but if you wish to debate an item in depth, you need to exam the data, and failing that examine the expectations- assumptions based on other accepted facts and theories. In this latter case you must be prepared for surprises, and keep an open, if skeptical mind set.

Dan Tibbets