[Aeronaut]

vansig wrote:

Yes, excellent stuff! Actually, it’s on the LPP site, too.

Interesting excerpt:
“The electron beam carried about 0.5 kJ of energy and the plasmoid held about 1 kJ of energy, nearly half that stored in the magnetic field of the device. So, this is evidence that a substantial part of the total energy available is being concentrated in the plasmoids and transferred to the beams.”
The electron (beta) beam is not the one to be exploited to extract energy, of course; it’s the alpha (helium) beam, which is not mentioned. I’ve been wondering how that beam is being handled in this experimental rig. It seems not to be used or measured in any way as far as I can tell.

Yes, the “missing” ion beam sticks out. I think he was thinking that we all know it’s balanced by the electron beam’s energy. The drift tube has a Rogowski coil at each end, last I heard. I doubt LPP’s ignoring that output, since it can provide electrical unity in one of Eric’s break-even scenarios.

this opens some questions..
is any actual fusion occurring at this early stage?
are the direction of the beams consistent?

Yes, we have been getting deuterium fusion. It’s nowhere near as difficult as profitable fusion, especially when crippled on the drawing board and planning phases by a steam cycle. Goal #7 is a fresh start, though, using the intended pB-11 fuel.

I’ve always assumed the fields’ polarities were the same in all shots, thus the beams should shoot in the same direction every time. Eric or Aaron?

[Aeronaut]

Firefox. 🙂

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: I don’t think informal evidence can be convincing and it would take time away from actual progress. What you probably would want is peer reviewed papers in prestigious journal, with other experiments/papers that are confirming the results.

Informal evidence can help get a lot of balls rolling. Universities don’t move at the speed of business, so a much longer lead time must be planned for formal proof to assemble it’s funding and resources.

But that need not stop us from lighting a NJ subdivision while peer-review experiments are building a head of steam. 😆

[Aeronaut]

jamesr wrote:

Cool deal. What would the outlook look like if you were to begin with each core thinking it was measuring and projecting the weather for 960 towns, villages, crossroads, etc? Iow, we have a much smaller plasma, so we can map it more precisely.

The smaller plasma does not make it simpler. The small scale, and high density just mean the grid size & time-step for the simulation are smaller – although not quite as bad as the situation in inertial confinement fusion.

Our little cluster is tiny really – I can only model 3D grids of a few hundred points on each side, maybe a billion gridpoints for a few tens of thousands of timesteps. To model the focus of a DPF device would take much more.

My code, as do most parallel codes of this sort, works by domain-decomposition – each processor handles a small local region, say 64x64x64 grid points then exchanges the field values, densities, velocities etc at the each edge with the relevant neighbouring processor each timestep. This should in theory scale well, that is it efficiently makes use of all the processors as you run it across more & more of them.
Then I may be able to run it on the UK’s larger academic supercomputer called Hector which has 22656 cpu cores, and is currently No.20 in the top500
The Met Office’s weather modeling computer is down at No.89 in the list. All these are still small in comparison to the DOE/NNSA/LANL or Oak Ridge’s computing facilities.

If FF-1 achieves its goals then it is this scale of computer that we will want to run detailed simulations on. However well the experiments go, these days in order to manufacture any nuclear device they must be simulated to prove the physics is well understood, and dosage/shielding calculations need to be done to design the required containment (however small the dose may be).

Wow. Didn’t realize the how many processors would be needed, or how big the arrays could be. Are you assuming a combination of top-down and bottom-up prediction as the variables are developed? How long do you guesstimate a simushot would take on the Met Office’s size array? and for comparison, on the ORNL’s array? Dang I’m full of questions today!

Excellent point about the simulations and experimental confirmations of them being required for manufacturing. I should have seen that coming. And that’s just for straight pB-11 fill gasses. But I imagine it’s going to need simulations for almost any gas if it’s going to be widely distributed.

[Aeronaut]

Cool deal. What would the outlook look like if you were to begin with each core thinking it was measuring and projecting the weather for 960 towns, villages, crossroads, etc? Iow, we have a much smaller plasma, so we can map it more precisely.

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: The key here is “developed” world. Would somebody have the same problems in Peru for example?

Be expecting a political dogfight (understatement) to be more challenging than the scientific challenges. And the faster you want to move, the more vicious its likely to be. The best way to head that off is to educate everybody in the developed and developing worlds that there’s more money to be made by aggressively embracing FF than opposing it. Even the undeveloped nations, since they run the UN in terms of numbers and sob stories.

The biggest challenge I see, therefore, is finding new uses for coal, given that they can be one of the first industries with virtually free energy if they desire, and an adoption gradient of at least a decade, no matter how many FFs are cranked out every year. (The various supply, tooling, training, and regulatory chains will impose a limit below what can actually be produced in the early years.)

The first thing that comes to mind is coal gasification, along with reduced mining and transportation costs protecting the profitability of their dwindling traditional market. Another is the PR windfall of cleaning up their safety record by seeding new industries based on virtually free energy. Say desalination and the ability to mine the sea, so to speak.

[Aeronaut]

I agree, James. Cool graphics can sell all sorts of things. I take it Sing Lee’s DPF simulator is 1D? Any kind of guesstimates how many people months it might take to upgrade it to 2D, and then on to 3D?

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: NCR is not a problem if you do the same Hyperion did – just sell it outside US. I would be more concerned with IRS. The only workaround in this case would be if someone worked on FF outside of US in a parallel manner.

If you’re subject to IRS, you’re subject to NRC. But NRC has cousins in all over the developed world. This is just one more of Hyperion’s challenges, btw.

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: PD license does not require image source citing. If source citing is important Attribution license should be chosen.
Aeronaut do you know who has the right to grant a license? Do I need to contact Rezwan?

I know Eric and Aaron do, and am pretty sure Rezwan can. The reasons I mention citing the source are for common decency as well as a chance to link using anchor text in the caption. But given that you’re publishing to wiki, you’re absolutely right to nail down the primo license. Why not just call LPP and ask? Might still be lunch time over there.

[Aeronaut]

There are all sorts of ways to win. Just no easy ways. The system works that way for any non-mainstream idea. But the IRS can be challenged in court. And you can lessen the chances of taking the government to court by gaining powerful political allies in all states. This especially includes business leaders with a vested interest in cheap clean energy.

I’m a lot more concerned with the politics of getting the NRC to even begin looking into creating a licensing category for DPF-based Aneutronic Fusion. I’ve already looked into several ways that it’s in Big Oil’s best interests to be an early mover, but I expect the mining lobby to provide the most resistance. Maybe the 2 can balance each other?

[Aeronaut]

Yep, those are the pix. The one where you’ve just walked into the test chamber, turned left, and are seeing everything but the vacuum system gets used the most, and that’s the one I recommend because it emphasizes just how small a FF really is. That also implies the relatively low cost.

Public Domain licensing encourages it to go ever closer to viral, as long as the image source is properly cited.

[Aeronaut]

Great job, Breakable. I agree with Benf that the aneutronic link should also be used much closer to the beginning. Perhaps used as an adjective. That way we’re citing existing wiki content, with no risk of sounding spammy.

The gallery images are licensed for this type of use. I used one in my press release ( you’ll have to google Edison’s Idea Factory to find it, but the top 2 results will give you some good source material ), and the same image was used the other day at http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/04/13/better-than-expected-results-from-focus-fusion/comment-page-1/#comment-53996

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: Tnx Aeronaut.
Im not the original author.
I think I can cite the references for preliminary angular momentum in our website, I wonder if there are any experimental evidence outside of LPP.

Pleased to help, Breakable. Far as I know, we’re the only group working with these ideas. The other groups I’ve encountered are using DPFs to teach plasma physics at a reasonable price. Their experiments tend to cluster around making precision X-rays for chip making, or neutrons for cargo inspection or proving electronics can survive a nuclear burst.

[Aeronaut]

Another base to cover is the pair of scaling experiments funded by NASA’s JPL , both of which were successfully completed for a total cost of $300k. The third, and current scaling experiment is designed to produce at least energy break-even. Entire program price to date is slightly above $1M.

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_fusion
Seems the article is not offline ATM,
but it must be improved, or the notability nazis will take it down sooner or later.
I would suggest adding the information about how focus fusion differs from generic DPF.
I am no expert, but i think these are the key differences:
Adding angular momentum using external coils,
Use of shorter electrodes might transfer more energy to heavier gases.
I will need references for these.

Also it would be a good idea to link to some press releases and/or papers that cite “Focus Fusion” name. Any good ones?

Yes, that needs to be upgraded to at least stub status. Are you the originator of the article? Here’s a few ideas to mix and match for a more complete wiki article:

The single biggest difference between a generic Mather style DPF and the FF approach is the patented theory of operation (cite patent #) which predicted, and which preliminary experiments seem to confirm, that adding an Angular Momentum Coil increases performance (neutron yield when operated in Deuterium) by controlling the plasma’s spin during the axial phase and well into the radial phases, including magnetic compression.

The FF test program is scheduled for energy break-even in calendar 2010. [end content ideas]

This may be enough to take it beyond the stub phase and I believe is well-suited to Wiki’s spirit- not necessarily the political bias in their editing wars.

[Author]

Posts