Reply To: Site availability is poor

[asymmetric_implosion]

zapkitty wrote: Tungsten is also less than ideal as an electrode material because of the x-ray flux. While FF theory holds that brem will be limited enough to allow net power, the x-rays will still be quite strong. (thus the “onion”)

The most-discussed alternative is beryllium.

The onion?? Are you talking about the first wall around the vacuum chamber or the anode and cathode itself? I was talking about the anode and cathode. Tungsten is a good material for thermal, mechanical and other reasons. I agree that the the brems power is less than ideal, but most of the brems from the electrodes comes from the e-beam generated by the pinch/plasmoid interacting with the electrode. There is some brems at other locations around the electrode after the pinch explodes but that energy is already lost so if it comes off as brems or heat is a fraction of the fusion gain.

If alternative materials to copper are being discussed I would seriously question beryllium. The cost and environment, health and safety issues are substantial. Moly would be be intermediate material. Science Research Lab (SRL) showed a Mo anode that fired over 5 million shots at 50 Hz with 250 kA plasma focus. Papers by Petr et al in Review of Scientific Instruments discuss the anode and how the brems was addressed.

A question for the community, is FF theory on-line somewhere? I’m curious how it differs from conventional pulse power fusion techniques like reverse field and Sandia’s newest concept, MagLif.