Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumPolywell update from May - sounds like things are going really well!
I posted it in the Science forum a few weeks ago,
and just realized I should have cross-posted it here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12287022
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Ive been thinking it was time for an update!
Now, heres an interesting statement, (highlighted by me.)
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3d05099b5bd004b37f880b9fe575e426&tab=core&_cview=0
8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Future Competition
Continuous market research, surveys, and conference attendance to understand potential future competitors are regularly pursued to identify new sources and technology. The anticipated timeframe of this technology going into production is another four or five years from now. If the basic research on this technology is successful it will be competed in the future.
[/font][/font]
Production in 4 or 5 years! (Wow!)
bananas
(27,509 posts)This could change everything.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)The recent anomaly near the e-guns for instance, but so far EMC2 has overcome each hurdle and frankly Polywell has advanced, even leap frogged past the ITER and any other project, Tri ALpha, Focus Fusion etc...
Crossing my damn fingers, I wanna go to Titan, well- Mars will do in a pinch... before I die......
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Personally, I place a higher priority on saving the Earth. A clean energy source would be a real help in that.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)if it happens on Earth.... will be very bad, it needs to be space based. Being able place power generation capacity in space is vital.
I know some folks disagree, thinking we need to save Earth first, but I disagree.
Yeah mass coronial ejections tend to make interplanetary space with no place to hide, problematical at best... LOL
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Our bodies seem to have problems tolerating microgravity.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-spending-prolong
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)SO we might try a structure that we can spin up.... ?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)There are a number of physiological problems related to extended time in space.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/spaceodyssey/healtheffects.shtml
[font size=4]Space travel - not such an easy journey [/font]
[font size=3]Space travel is no walk in the park. If you think being an astronaut is fun and glamorous, you might want to read up on all the side effects.
Living and working in zero gravity plays havoc on all parts of your body, including your musclar, skeletal and vestibular (balance) systems. On top of that, NASA has identified 442 medical conditions that could require emergency attention during long-term missions. Now do you still want to be an astronaut?
[/font][/font]
One of the questions that has to be asked is, If we took a trip to Mars, would we make it there alive? and if we do, would we make it back to Earth?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/can-we-make-it-to-mars.html
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)a structure, probably a space station that spins. If 12 months in a centrifuge will help, that should show us. From there- a spun up habitat-space ship would be a consideration. Unless of course Bussards Polywell leads to shorter flight times, 35 to 40 days one way might get us across quick enough, maybe not.
Think 38 days to Mars, a short stay, 1 or 2 weeks, then 38 days back to Earth. Less than 90 days total. That flight path would occur every 2 years IIRC.
The SOP flight path of 6 months with a chem rocket aint gonna cut it. then an 18 month stay and another 6 month flight back....
But yes, getting to Mars and back is quite problematic. Damn. :~ )
bananas
(27,509 posts)with two centrifuges simulating lunar and martian gravity.
The centrifuges wouldn't be large enough for people, just for small animals.
They want to have several generations of animals to see the effects on fetal development etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12285662
Space Studies Institute wants an orbiting low-gravity research station by 2017
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12285978
Moonandback Interview with Gary Hudson, part 1 SSIs Artificial Gravity Space Station
"We pretty strongly expect that you can't go more than a few years in microgravity without very severe, probably terminal, health effects."
http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/gary-hudson-tuesday-5-29-12/
Guest: Gary Hudson. Topic: Variable gravity research station as a free flyer near the ISS.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I forget where I first saw Coriolis forces mentioned in reference to microgravity centrifuges, but my reaction was, Oh Yeah I knew it couldn't be that simple.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)WB-8 is a DD machine (60cm wide magnets, 8T), WB-8.1 will use proton Boron fuel.
SO EMC2 ran about 500 test shots with DD in WB-8, diagnostics analysis showed an anomaly on the perimeter, near the E-guns.
EMC2 got more money, IIRC 2 yr contract to build new e-guns and install, then run diagnostics. I assume if the new e-guns eliminate the anomaly, then EMC2 should then see another contract to configure WB-8 into the P-b11 form, which will be called WB-8.1.
That gets us to 2014, if all is good, EMC2 should get a contract to build a net power device for P-B11 (WB-9), about 3 meter wide magnets. If Wb-9 shows P-b11 net power.... some real serious engineering has to happen, the Vacume Helium scavenger systems, the electro static grids to decelerate the Alphas will be possibly the 2 biggest hurdles at that point.... AN actual prototype might take 3-5 years.
By that time (2017-2020) ITER will still be partially built (should be cancelled anyway, right now) And commercial production can begin.
3 meter magnetic cores can be mass produced at a single location and shipped by rail and truck to location, fabricating an approximately 4-5 meter cube shaped vacume chamber is another issue. But nothing the nuclear fission plant contractors havent dealt with before.
bananas
(27,509 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I'll wait patiently another year and see if that prediction holds out.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)In May 2009, Richard Nebel was interviewed in a popular science/futurism blog. He stated: "We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years. It could take longer, but this definitely won't be a 50 year development project. |...| So if the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020."[/font][/font]
Lets see, it is now 2012. So, Nebel said three years ago, they hoped to have net energy production within six years.
[/font][/font]
I believe the prototype, WB-8 was completed (am I wrong?)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It will not be working in 3 years. I am predicting it right the fuck now.
I would be happy to be wrong.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)contractually appear to be for 2 years.
So at best WB-8.1 may be in the works in 3 years,. Like I said before, at best commercial viability by 2020. @ best. ANd that means no or only minor hiccups (yeah sure).
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)Rick Nebel no longer works for EMC2. Nebels comments at the time were before the anomaly found near the E-guns in WB-8. Nebel was voicing his opinion that the intermediate step represented by Wb-8 should skipped, and EMC2 should explore the full size regime at 3 meters.
Secondly WB-8 is not a prototype, the stated goal of WB-8 was to look at scaling issues. Wb-8 is twice the size of Wb-7 (30cm to 60cm) and is run at 8T. TYheory says Net power with P-B11 would have to be 3 meters, not 60cm.
Wb-8.1 would only be a conversion from DD runs to P-B11 runs. Wb-9 might only be a net power try with P-B11. I would call that proof of net power concept.
WB-9.1 might be P-B11 Net Power with deceleration grids and He Scavenger systems, an actual prototype for commercial purposes.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)First, does they claimed include Nebel? (I assumed, in this context, that it does. i.e. Nebel was intimately involved in the effort at the time.)
Second, what is a prototype? How is the word used in the context of an invention?
http://www.startupnation.com/steps/97/9053/3/1/invention-prototype-design-development.htm
[font size=4]The value of making a prototype[/font]
[font size=3]A prototype is an original model on which something is patterned. A prototype can range from a crude mock-up developed by the inventor to professionally designed virtual prototypes and/or fully-functioning working samples.
The process of taking your idea and turning it into a tangible product is called reducing the invention to practice and the first step in this process is the development of a prototype.
When it comes to prototype development, the inventor can utilize a professional prototype company, virtual designer, model maker or construct it on his own. I have seen many prototypes from inventors ranging from cardboard and tape to professionally designed and constructed working samples.
Keep in mind that the prototype process is evolutionary, meaning that you may start with cardboard and evolve the prototype through several iterations over time as you refine your invention.
[/font][/font]
I would say that WB-8 (and WB-8.1) if they produce controlled fusion, are working prototypes, even though they are not expected to have net energy gain.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Fusion R&D Phase 2 Design, build and test full scale 100 MW Fusion System (a large pilot plant). Time: 5 years. Cost estimate: $200 million
It seems it was conditioned on having $200 million to play with. Capitalism doesn't care about cheap energy.
(Note: WB-6 was validated around 2005.)
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The Navy is taking a more conservative approach
(Start around 1:04:30)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)As I said, I was a big Polywell fan.
The Polywell Guy
(25 posts)Hello All,
You guys get all excited - and then get pessimistic when we do not have fusion right away.
Remember: Ghandi worked his entire lifetime before he freed India. You gotta be in this for the long haul.
Fusion is no different.
===
On March 4th, an 8th grader in Lincolnshire England, became The Youngest Person In the World To Do Nuclear Fusion. He built a fusor, for 3,000 pounds, in his middle school. His name is Jamie Edwards. His story was reposted across the web. He got a letter of congratulations from His Royal Highness, Prince Andrew, The Duke of York.
Jamie was on the letterman show talking about Nuclear Fusion, on Wednesday. You can watch the clip here:
[IMG][/IMG]
The Polywell works the same way Jamies' fusor works. It remains to be seen if this press will spill over onto the polywell. Also, I have a new post up:
http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-argument-for-fusion.html
phantom power
(25,966 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Mostly pointless dreaming.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Thorium is an attempt to make nuclear fission more acceptable.
Polywell is an attempt to make nuclear fusion practical.
Assuming the folks a EMC2 can make it work (and currently, theres no clear indication that they cant.) Hydrogen-boron fusion in Polywell reactors could be a game changer.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)This is the second time in as many weeks you have quoted part of what I have said and misunderstood.
The category they both fit in is that they're for idealist dreamers and they will never succeed in time to stop catastrophic climate change.
I posted on Talk Polywell extensively. Many of the posters there are global warming deniers, as well as many fans of thorium fuel (with the exception of the Energy from Thorium guys and the Brave New Climate guys, Sorenson doesn't make climate a big feature of the thorium fuel cycle though and they regularly post pro-Gen III apologia on FaceBook). At one point it was proposed that I be banned on Talk Polywell for daring to question deniers' bullshit lies.
I made no statement about their technological category, I am talking solely of feasibility that they'll succeed.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Please, do say what you mean then, if not that the technology is, mostly pointless dreaming.
Honestly, I believe I understand the English language.
A fansite which is populated by knuckleheads, says little, if anything, about whether the technology is feasible or not.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)If either were remotely feasible to stem catastrophic climate change then there would be efforts to do so. There aren't. They're low budget startups with insane followers who believe conspiracy theories and deny global warming.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Somehow, EMC2 has gotten government research funding
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)A committee of distinguished scientists reviewed the progress of EMC2's work to provide a recommendation to Office of Naval Research (ONR) on the merits of the project. The committee consists of internationally recognized, independent experts in the field of magnetically confined energy producing devices. These committee members are qualified independent scientific and academic experts who were designated by ONR to evaluate and provide impartial opinions on the research done by EMC2. The committee validated the progress made by EMC2. The experimental results to date were consistent with the underlying theoretical framework of the Polywell fusion concept and, int eh opinion of the committee, merited continuation and expansion.
[/font][/font]
(A committee of distinguished scientists AKA insane followers who believe conspiracy theories and deny global warming.)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)i.e. Some people who are fans of Polywell fusion are idiots, therefore, only idiots think Polywell fusion will work.
By the same token, some people who worry about climate change are idiots, and even conspiracy theorists. Do you therefore conclude that concerns about climate change are not scientifically sound?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That's not my logic against Polywell not being able to stem catastrophic climate change.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)Yeah I remember the call out post saying you should be banned, totally hypocritical, and low class based on public call out vs messaging to admin privately. IIRC I blasted that call out. I told Joe Strout and Michael Simon early on the right wing propensity would lead to marginalization of talk polywell, and I was right. Talk Polywell is home to Birthers, crazy right wing CT and Climate deniers. Did I cover everything?
But now that horse has been let out of the barn........
I truly hope Polywell works out, I am a fan boy- but I think at best a commercial prototype, with Net power P-B11 deceleration grids and HE scavenger systems - at best- wont be seen untill 2020. We may see net power P-B11 by 2017 though. @ best.
But we cant count on Polywell, we have to deploy renewables and move to drop Co2 emissions, and its taking fore ever....
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Most of those people are "engineers." I work with these types on a daily basis. Engineering is not science though there are overlaps. When I would read what physicists had to say about the technology and the various issues with it it became apparent at least to me that there's a lot of obfuscation going on there, particularly using methods that denialists use.
At that point I decided it wasn't worth it to keep "following" Polywell because even if it worked, even if they got a prototype working, there are too many mechanisms in place as it is to prevent it from going widespread and becoming viable (to stem catastrophic climate change).
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The Justification and Approval document seems to have a more optimistic timeline.
(highlighted by me.)
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3d05099b5bd004b37f880b9fe575e426&tab=core&_cview=0
8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Future Competition
Continuous market research, surveys, and conference attendance to understand potential future competitors are regularly pursued to identify new sources and technology. The anticipated timeframe of this technology going into production is another four or five years from now. If the basic research on this technology is successful it will be competed in the future.
[/font][/font]
However, I completely agree, we cannot pin all of our hopes and dreams on Polywell fusion or any other single technology still under development.
Even if Polywell fusion is successful beyond our wildest dreams, there will still be applications for rooftop solar for example. (A isolated African village is not liable to have a fusion reactor in the square.) Even if we had a working prototype today, how long would it take us to roll out new fusion reactors to replace just our coal plants?
And, we really need to start improving things 30+ years ago.
So, as I pretty consistently say, I see Wind at least partially as a bridge technology to solar and solar (at least partially) as a bridge technology to fusion.
Today, wind turbines work, and are economical. Thats why they are being installed at the rate they are.
PV works, and is becoming more economical, thats why the rate of installations is climbing at the rate it is.
By all means, lets keep rolling out today the stuff which works today (Working for a better tomorrow, tomorrow.)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I'll start believing in the almighty wind when it starts to slow emissions.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 06:51 PM - Edit history (2)
Expecting our technological society to (voluntarily) shut down isnt a realistic scenario.
I also feel that your demands of wind are not realistic. I sincerely doubt that wind turbines will replace all of our coal plants, and so long as net energy usage keeps increasing globally, we can expect carbon emissions to keep increasing as well (but not as fast as they would have, were it not for the use of wind and solar.)
Youve fallen into the same trap as our friend Mr. Jevons, who concluded that since energy use did not go down as a response to more efficient steam engines, that somehow the steam engines were not successful in saving energy. (He neglected to take into account the fact that increasing energy usage was a long-standing trend, which more efficient engines could not reverse on their own, although they might lessen the rate of increase.)
To understand the impact of wind power, you shouldnt look at whether total emissions have gone up or down, but look at emissions as a function of energy use. (i.e. How much CO[font size="1"]2[/font] is being released per watt used?)
We need to do some work on our grid to take better advantage of wind:
http://www.anl.gov/articles/grid-realities-cancel-out-some-wind-power-s-carbon-savings
By Louise Lerner May 29, 2012
[font size=3]ARGONNE, Ill. Wind energy lowers carbon emissions, but adding turbines to the current grid system does not eliminate emissions proportionally, according to a report by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory.
To test how wind energy affects carbon dioxide (CO[font size="1"]2[/font]) emissions, Argonne scientists modeled the Illinois electric gridpower plants, production and demandand tested how more wind power would affect the system. They found that adjusting for wind power adds inefficiencies that cancel out some of the CO[font size="1"]2[/font] reduction.
Its actually the older technology in the background that hampers wind. Because the wind doesnt blow all the time, operators occasionally have to turn on extra fossil-burning plants to keep up with demand.
The study, Systems-Wide Emissions Implications of Increased Wind Power Penetration, a collaboration between researchers at Argonne and summer interns Valentino (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and Viviana Valenzuela (Georgia Institute of Technology), was published in Environmental Science & Technology. Other Argonne co-authors are Zhi Zhou and Guenter Conzelmann.
[/font][/font]
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Kinda like belatedly updating people about technology that isn't going anywhere any time soon.
bananas
(27,509 posts)was to clarify what Roger meant here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=18062
I've consistently said the most reality-based analysis of what needs to be done about global warming is by Joe Romm, and he doesn't include fusion: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/10/207320/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/
But if they can get it working, great!
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The best way to deal with those waste products is ... fission.
Not all fission is bad just as not all fusion is good.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)I had to laugh at that line. I just had a mental image of a Mayan scholar sitting around the temple one day saying the same thing to his students.
Given the projected fallout of 6C of warming by 2100, I'd say it's very realistic to expect our technological society to shut down in the next century or two, whether we want it to or not.
If you said "Expecting our technological society to VOLUNTARILY shut down isnt a realistic scenario", I'd fully agree with you though. We're gonna drive this train 'till she comes off the rails, of that I'm certain.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...which was just about as relevant, is it would be bashed, ridiculed, and mocked.
And rightly fucking so.
And let's be clear here, both Polywell and thorium have the same nuclear weapon proliferation profile (while one can breed nuclear weapon grade material the other can be used as a neutron device to achieve the same results). They both have the same "abundance of elements" profile. They both have the same denialist, anti-AGW, conservative fanbase.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Producing fuel for a Thorium reactor is not as easy a task as it is made out to be by its supporters, nor is its product as clean:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
- Thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium.
- It is fertile rather than fissile, and can be used in conjunction with fissile material as nuclear fuel.
- Thorium fuels can breed fissile uranium-233.
...
[font size=2]* The high cost of fuel fabrication is due partly to the high level of radioactivity that builds up in U-233 chemically separated from the irradiated thorium fuel. Separated U-233 is always contaminated with traces of U-232 which decays (with a 69-year half-life) to daughter nuclides such as thallium-208 that are high-energy gamma emitters. Although this confers proliferation resistance to the fuel cycle by making U-233 hard to handle and easy to detect, it results in increased costs. There are similar problems in recycling thorium itself due to highly radioactive Th-228 (an alpha emitter with two-year half life) present.[/font]
...[/font][/font]
Meanwhile hydrogen-boron fusion may be even better than we thought.
http://research.duke.edu/blog/2011/03/extra-alphas-fusion-energy
[font size=5]Overturned scientific explanation may be good news for nuclear fusion[/font]
[font size=3]Flat out wrong.
Thats what a team of Duke researchers has discovered, much to its surprise, about a long-accepted explanation of how nuclei collide to produce charged particles for electricity a process receiving intense interest lately from scientists, entrepreneurs and policy makers in the wake of Japans nuclear crisis.
Plasma physicists have been trying for 25 years to create electricity from the fusion of boron and hydrogen atoms.
The new study says their efforts have been based on a misunderstanding of the underlying physics although the error could end up actually helping those looking to fusion energy as an alternative energy source.
...[/font][/font]
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...it still has a similar proliferation profile of, eg, LFTR. It may even be higher given that it can produce MWs of neutrons in the right configuration. Both technologies would need regulation to maintain a non-proliferation profile.
Meanwhile, both technologies require as of now non-existent technologies for them to be effective. LFTR at least in theory already has a basic idea of how to go about it, with Polywell you have no clue of how to make an alpha absorber, and particularly how to remove the alphas before they go on to create the neutrons to begin with. (B11 + alpha = 14N)
And before you go on to say "you said thorium," I clearly, unambiguously, meant the most popular thorium approach. The other approaches are even less realistic given the problems associated with thorium production. If I said pB11 instead of Polywell most people would understand that to mean Polywell even though we have Focus Fusion and other exotic designs.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Perhaps Im just too gullible.
It is difficult for me to believe that the people doing the research would say Hey! we can produce high energy alpha particles, which we can get an electric charge from
(uh
somehow)
well, lets not worry about that now! we have atoms to fuse!
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...all they'd have to do is remove the alpha absorber. Yeah, the machine would likely burn up from neutron contamination, but it'd produce a few MW of neutrons before it broke down, enough to make kg's of Pu-239.
As far as how hard it would be to make the alpha absorber, I would say it could be as difficult as making a chemical factory for an LFTR...
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)Last Tuesday I wrote about the LCO price points of Wind and how capital is starting see/recognize this and move to large scale HVDC projects to support offshore wind.
I made the front page of DK for about 5 hours that afternoon
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/19/1101316/-Berkeley-National-Laboratory-Wind-is-cheap-less-than-7-cents-Kwh
kristopher
(29,798 posts)By Mark Halper | May 30, 2012, 1:54 AM PDT
...Eric Lerner, LPPs president, and Mahmood Ghorannevis, who is head of Azads Plasma Physics Research Center (PPRC), signed the papers over the weekend of May 19th.
Some experts have for decades regarded fusion as the Holy Grail of energy sources that does not produce the dangerous waste associated with todays fission nuclear power, and that augers a limitless supply of energy. Fusion puts atoms together rather than splitting them apart.
The problem so far has been that the elusive fusion process requires more energy than it returns.
To get around that obstacle, LPP is working on a form of fusion thats different from standard fusion. Its called aneutronic, and it does not rely on hot neutrons that escape during fusion and provide heat that drives a turbine.
Instead, it generates electricity directly cutting out the turbine by creating charged ions....
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/new-jersey-nuclear-fusion-firm-ratchets-up-iranian-collaboration/16400?tag=search-river
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)Strange cat.
The Polywell Guy
(25 posts)Greetings,
I got some traffic from your forum to my site: The Polywell Blog. I thought I would introduce myself to the DU community. I have been writing about the Polywell for five years, under the name: The Polywell Guy. I write about the polywell, nuclear fusion, fusion energy, fusion research and plasma physics. My goal is to explain fusion research in plain English. I have also made several movies explaining the polywell and the history of fusion research.
My other goal is to build interest in Robert Bussard's polywell idea, so we can find out if it could be a viable source of clean, green energy. It may not be. There are still many technical challenges we need to solve. Remember: NIFs' recent its abysmal failure, tells us that even the experts can get it wrong.
==
I believe we are at the beginning of a new phase in fusion research: Fusion 2.0. When a 14 year old kid can fuse atoms in his home - it screams revolution. It tells us that a new generation of fusion machines, smaller, simpler and more straightforward are on the way. The old quote that fusion is 20 years away may have applied to giant machines like ITER and NIF. But new ideas, like Tri Alpha Energy, Focus Fusion, Lithium compression, Beam fusion, ect... They represent a new wave of ideas which are much farther along. Sure, most will fail - but if one succeeds it will have a big impact.
I focus mainly on the Polywell. The Polywell is a re-imagined fusor. Over 50 amateurs done nuclear fusion with these machines. These are people like Matthew Honickman, a 17 year old high school senior from upstate new york. The fusor cannot make net power because the metal cages conduct away the plasma. It saps away so much energy, we can never hope to reach break even. The Polywell eliminates the cage, driving down conduction losses.
I have laid out a detailed plan for polywell research. First we use computers to simulate plasma inside the machine. We use dimensionless number to explore a wide range of operating conditions. The fusor has 3 modes of operation, the polywell probably has the same. Modes where the machine works well, and modes that suck. We publish these results. Next, we build a small machine and run it in this mode. We attach a direct converter to one end of the machine. These have shown an energy capture rate of 48%. We run the thing constantly and look for break even.
We know from the Lawson Criterion that any hot cloud machine will be subject to the following equation:
Power Out = (Fusion - Radiation - Conduction)*Efficiency
This tells us that finding net power is again a game of rates. We want to lower conduction losses. This can be done by designing a reactor where the B-Field never runs into a metal surface. Tokamaks do this. But curved fields are not perfect. Radiation losses are when energy leaves the cloud as light: UV, IR, Visible and X-Ray. Radiation rises with plasma temperature. Hence, devices where electrons and ions can be different temperatures would allow for optimization. Finally, if direct conversion can get 48% than that will change the efficiency. The goal is to explore what is experimentally possible.
===
I think looking across the energy mix today, there will be interest in these machines. With 7 billion people on planet earth, declining oil supplies and energy hungry emerging economies, someone will eventually come looking for this idea. Will it change the world? We will see...
bananas
(27,509 posts)Unfortunately, you replied to an old thread, so it wasn't kicked to the front of the forum.
edit to add: I started a new thread for you linking to your post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112752253
madokie
(51,076 posts)The Polywell Guy
(25 posts)Hello,
Polywell Blogger here. I do not post on DU often. So far, your community has been very accepting. I hope you are also skeptical.
The Polywell has not worked or failed - yet. We do not know. We have to try and see. It may fail. There have been several events surrounding the polywell, since August. Here is a quick list:
- In July, "NBC Rock Center" with Brian Williams, interviewed Taylor Wilson about his homemade fusion reactor. His fusor is similar to a polywell.
- In July, the first Polywell PhD Thesis was published
- On October first, the Physics of Plasmas journal published a new polywell paper. This work simulated electron motion inside the machine.
- On October 8th, the 14th annual IEC conference wrapped up in Japan. Several polywell presentations were made available.
- On October 22nd, a Polywell start up in Washington state did its first investor call. I have reviewed/explained some of their work, in detail, on the polywell blog.
- On November 1rst, MIT Colab featured the polywell in it's: "solutions to the climate crisis" conference. Though, people who attended, were not terribly enthusiastic.
- On November 12th, the University of Wisconsin presented its' first Polywell work at the 2013 American Physical Society conference. A young grad student named Jeff, presented some limited simulation work. Hopefully we get a paper out of this.
- On December 27th, The first IEC textbook was published by springier, from the University of Illinois.
===
There are also a few new Polywell/fusor groups. The first is the Northwest nuclear consortium. Carl Greinger, a manager at Microsoft, built a fusor in his home in Washington state. 18 high school physics students - Learn & Do Real Nuclear Fusion - on a weekly basis. The group has won several science fairs, and has 4 instructors. The other is Radiant Matter Research - a pair of dutch college students have built a fusor and are on path to building a polywell in the Netherlands. These are small machines with low power but the pair has been at it for a couple of years. Finally, a new amateur (John Dudmesh) has started a project in Brighton, England. He only just started though - very early stages. Lastly, I have two new posts up, check them out:
http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-serious-need-for-data.html
http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/we-have-to-try.html
So far, there is no serious money behind this. I work for free. CSI is working on nothing. The Sydney group has no funding. Carl's organization is small, donations only. Radiant matter is just college students, out of pocket work. John is funding work himself. Despite the hubbub, there is no machinery of government or corporations (aside from the quiet Navy/Iranian effort) behind it. It is grassroots fusion effort, born of the internet.
The Polywell Guy
(25 posts)Hello All,
You guys get all excited - and then get pessimistic when we do not have fusion right away.
Remember: Ghandi worked his entire lifetime before he freed India. You gotta be in this for the long haul.
Fusion is no different.
===
On March 4th, an 8th grader in Lincolnshire England, became The Youngest Person In the World To Do Nuclear Fusion. He built a fusor, for 3,000 pounds, in his middle school. His name is Jamie Edwards. His story was reposted across the web. He got a letter of congratulations from His Royal Highness, Prince Andrew, The Duke of York.
Jamie was on the letterman show talking about Nuclear Fusion, on Wednesday. You can watch the clip here:
[IMG][/IMG]
The Polywell works the same way Jamies' fusor works. It remains to be seen if this press will spill over onto the polywell. Also, I have a new post up:
http://thepolywellblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-argument-for-fusion.html