First light (bootstrapping FoFus)

[zapkitty]

vansig wrote: However, I read this spring that the plasmoid size is turning out to be smaller than expected — at least in deuterium. if that turns out to be true for boron also, then it would tend to reduce the yield per shot.

I thought the trend mentioned was toward smaller, yet hotter plasmoids?

[vansig]

zapkitty wrote:
I thought the trend mentioned was toward smaller, yet hotter plasmoids?

My reasoning is based on having to put 100 kJ energy into the plasmoid each shot. It may be hotter, but if it’s smaller, then less fuel gets burned. (unless smaller implies denser also??)
But I realize that since the machine hasn’t yet been optimized for boron, it’s a bit early to speculate.

[zapkitty]

vansig wrote:

I thought the trend mentioned was toward smaller, yet hotter plasmoids?

My reasoning is based on having to put 100 kJ energy into the plasmoid each shot. It may be hotter, but if it’s smaller, then less fuel gets burned. (unless smaller implies denser also??)
But I realize that since the machine hasn’t yet been optimized for boron, it’s a bit early to speculate.

From an update on the LPP site it seems that they believe they have a handle on that particular issue now and they hope to increase plasmoid volume and fusion yields by 8-10 fold…

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&view=entry&year=2010&month=09&day=06&id=16:switch-problem-resolved&Itemid=90

… and the primary focus of that update is that they’ve gotten the switches to working on cue.

Now if they can deal with the x-ray conversion issues so handily… 😉

[vansig]

zapkitty wrote:
From an update on the LPP site it seems that they believe they have a handle on that particular issue now and they hope to increase plasmoid volume and fusion yields by 8-10 fold…

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&view=entry&year=2010&month=09&day=06&id=16:switch-problem-resolved&Itemid=90

… and the primary focus of that update is that they’ve gotten the switches to working on cue.

Now if they can deal with the x-ray conversion issues so handily… 😉

That is tremendously good news, because the 8-10 fold increase in yield will result in smaller x-ray emissions, as well.

[zapkitty]

vansig wrote:
That is tremendously good news, because the 8-10 fold increase in yield will result in smaller x-ray emissions, as well.

… er… and if that 8-10 fold means 8-10 x the smaller plasmoids?

Haven’t checked the relevant figures on how much the smaller volumes were affecting the expected output…

[vansig]

greater yields ultimately bring things closer to break-even, sooner. if you exceed break-even on a smaller shot, then you can run more shots per second, or expect wear on equipment to be lower

zapkitty wrote:
… er… and if that 8-10 fold means 8-10 x the smaller plasmoids?

a careful read of the September 6 report suggests, to me, that the induced angular momentum is like a spinning X, whose arms can be moved to any angle. tall and narrow leads to fast collapse and smaller plasmoids; whereas short and wide leads to slow collapse, and more x-ray loss. the sweet spot optimizes across plasmoid size, rate of collapse, x-ray emission, and yield. lots, but there’s also the total size of the pulse, in kJ, the voltage, rise time, fill pressure, gas temperature, all to be tweaked.

i am, once again, optimistic.

[Author]

Posts