Reply To: Proliferation?

[Joseph Chikva]

delt0r wrote: I see a lot of assertions and no math.

I see a lot of your wrong assertions and also no math

delt0r wrote: In fact i see quite a bit of misunderstanding of fundamental plasma physics. The ion “scattering” cross section is generally defined as the 90Deg angle scattering. It is many many times higher than the fusion cross section, they do not stay confined.

Please explain where I have defined only 90deg scattering, where I have showed that I do not know that scattering cross section is much higher than fusion cross section and also please explain what do you mean saying “they do not stay confined”.

delt0r wrote: No matter what you do with one beam compared to another, it physically identical to having one set of ions stationary and the other colliding with them (your reference frame just moves with one beam–the results are always the same), in this case they just scatter, and your densities are way too low for any real fusion.

It is not physically identical have you fixed cloud of charges or you have moving charges’ stream (current)! Please before discussing learn something more about magnetism. For the beginning e.g. from here: Magnetic Field of a Moving Charge http://academic.mu.edu/phys/matthysd/web004/l0220.htm FB/FE=v^2/c^2 and you are wrong saying “your reference frame just moves with one beam–the results are always the same”. Mag fields are not the same for different frames. And for your note we are talking about magnetic confinement concept.

delt0r wrote: Unless you have some uber magic accelerator. In which case light ion ICF is totally easy.

All quoted by me accelerators’ parameters are already achieved!
For example:
ATA electron accelerator producing 10’000A and 50MeV is already decommissioned by Lawrence Livermore Lab: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6333447-IdCL1y/6333447.pdf
Also,
100-200A/cm2 current density is absolutely not magic for magnetically insulated ion diodes: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/22/087/22087074.pdf

delt0r wrote: We have not solved kink and sausage instability without a theta field and hence low beta limits*

Absolutely wrong. For at least 30 years kink and sausage instabilities and methods how to fight with them are described in any plasma physics books. As well as many other types of instabilities. May be you do not know about that.
If you mean “toroidal” saying “theta field”, yes, my concept like “modified betatron” needs one from the following: alternating gradient field or stellarator field or simple toroidal field. And yes, TOKAMAK has simple toroidal field and therefore low beta.

delt0r wrote: Also the English needs work. Even the title does not make much sense.

Sorry for bad English. But as I see that is not so bad. As even with your knowledge limitations you understood what I talk about.

delt0r wrote: It should be noted that Lerner has *not* swept any known plasma instability under the carpet. He has and continues to address every possible issue in this regard. This is why he gets publications out while a lot of the IEC crowed do not.

*There is shear stabilized z pinch. However there was only a few experiments so far, and only one with high currents. Oh and the so called advanced mode Tokamak which is also shear stabilized IIRC, but then there is these pesky ELM.

And finally. I don’t compete with Dr. Lerner. Let God grant him the health and all success. I only say that my concept is very similar to ТОКАМАК, temperature on orders of magnitude lesser, mag fields have the same order. On what confinement time can we expect? Not at least on the same? Not seconds order?