Help me getting FoFu-1's simulation right.

[MTd2]

I don’t think the code is wrong. Section 3.1, table I:

http://www.plasmafocus.net/IPFS/2010 Papers/saw&leeScalingIJER-doi=10.1002_er.pdf

Check the value for 34KJ. The configuration is somewhat close to the FoFu-1 solution inputed into Lee’s code and indeed the yield is 3,46*10E9, close to what I got here:

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewreply/7567/

It seems neutron yields fits very well the actual devices presented, not only on this paper, but on other recent ones too.

So, here is what I think: FoFu-1 achieves much higher densities and ion energy than expected. My bet it is that since the discharge happens by synchrony of several and not by closing a single switch. So, when electrons are free to move from every bank, the speed of light did not send the information to the others to delay the discharge. So, it is like all of banks are firing individualy. By doing simulations, as only 1 bank were discharging individually, the value is about as only 0.25MA, all of them together going to 2MA, at around 6-7Torr.

If this is true, if all of 12 them fire together, the yield will be 50%-100% higher than using tritium-deuterium or the old formula.

[Francisl]

Thanks for the link. Now it makes sense. c=b/a. Using a ratio is handy for modeling.

[MTd2]

Not being in the lab making the experiment is quite annoying. Now that Lee’s model doesn’t work for FoFu makes me feel angst that I cannot help.

[Ivy Matt]

Is the the effect of the axial field coil relevant to these simulations? Does Lee’s model account for it? And do LPP’s simulations using Lee’s program take it into account?

[MTd2]

Not, it is not taken into consideration. But there were experiments without the axial field or without induced magnetic field and they were not 30x smaller than observed, so, I don`t think so. Well, maybe someone else can make this point clearer.

[Lerner]

No cause for angst. I got a response from Lee. The problem is simple. His model is parametric and needs some data to calibrate it. He changed the experiments that he calibrated the model with. But these experiments design was far from optimal, so now he has a calibration that runs through the middle of the historical DPF work, while our results are above the best historical ones, so way above the average ones.

[Aeronaut]

Lerner wrote: No cause for angst. I got a response from Lee. The problem is simple. His model is parametric and needs some data to calibrate it. He changed the experiments that he calibrated the model with. But these experiments design was far from optimal, so now he has a calibration that runs through the middle of the historical DPF work, while our results are above the best historical ones, so way above the average ones.

Was anything discussed about writing up one or more of LPP’s experiment series for Dr. Lee to include in his package’s documentation? Since he’s got the UN DPF audience, this could be the single most important document that we produce this calendar year. Also, did he mention anything about adding pB-11 fuel and FoFu’s characteristics to the simulator?

[MTd2]

Lerner wrote: now he has a calibration that runs through the middle of the historical DPF work, while our results are above the best historical ones, so way above the average ones.

According to the new calibration, are the values for FoFu with the new parametrization still 4.0E11? Or is it that FoFu is going to fit the new parametrization and not below the old value?

[Author]

Posts