[Henning]

AaronB wrote: This map of galactic magnetic fields shows the prevalence of magnetic fields in interstellar space. Magnetic fields cause the polarity of light to align with the fields. This is called the Faraday effect. The polarity of light is the axis of the angular momentum of the photon. It is my opinion that it takes energy to change that polarity, just like it takes energy to change the axis of a spinning bicycle tire. Since the speed of light is fixed in a certain medium, the only way for a photon to lose energy is in its frequency, or the speed of its spin. Since a photon is essentially massless, it would only lose a tiny bit of energy when its axis of rotation was changed, so it would only experience a tiny redshift with each change. However, a photon traveling for billions of years through many different intergalactic magnetic fields would, it seems to me, experience a significant amount of redshift that would be roughly linear with the distance traveled, depending on the number of magnetic fields it encountered along the way. If this hasn’t been proposed before, we can call it Faraday redshifting. It avoids the scattering problems of other tired light proposals. What do you think?

That’s possibly something like Ari Brynjolfsson’s Plasma Redshift Cosmology, which was mentioned in the forum.

[Henning]

Somewhere else in this forum I’ve suggested Kapton (aromatic polyimide) as a possible insulator.

German Wikipedia says aluminium oxide has a dielectric strength of 35 kV/mm.

Kapton has a much better dielectric strength (150-300 kV/mm, table 7 of PDF). Some more details are in http://www2.dupont.com/Kapton/en_US/assets/downloads/pdf/summaryofprop.pdf

But also see figure 8 “Retained Dielectric Strength at 325°C (617°F) for 25 µm (1 mil) Film” and figure 14 “AC Dielectric Strength vs. Temperature”. The temperature was applied continuously, so the aging shouldn’t be such a big problem in a pulsed environment. (Maybe it is, because of mechanical strain.)

Kapton is sold as sheets, but it’s also available as tubes, for example at http://concentrictube.com/ . Maybe they know how to manufacture them as hats.

On the other hand, if it’s such a good material, the other DPF scientists would have used it already. So maybe this suggestion isn’t that useful at all…

[Henning]

Thumb up for the Chinese.

[Henning]

asymmertic_implosion wrote:

Given that symmetry in the physical geometry of the electrodes appears to be important, is there any reason that the cathodes have to be separate rods? A solid piece, with projections to guide the plasma filaments, would mean that one never had to worry about individual cathode alignment. Is it necessary to have empty space between the individual cathode rods?

It’s not 100% clear why, but a plasma focus seems to work better with individual cathode rods. People speculate that some of the gas between the anode and the cathode needs to be pushed out while others cite debris as the reason. Groups have employed blades instead of rods that are mounted or welded to a single base piece that helps with alignment. The open area, rod diameter, etc seem to be able to cover a wide range of conditions and still achieve reasonable results. The cathode is not nearly as well studied in PF devices as the anode.

As far as I understood Eric Lerner et al, these rods help the creation of filaments. FoFu creates filaments already in the axial phase. This seems to be different to other DPFs. See also here: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/1045/#9674

[Henning]

I think it’s only applicable for D-T reactions. But I’m no expert.

[Henning]

asymmertic_implosion wrote: I have an on-going argument about the relationship of Science to Religion. He is starting to convince me they are similar. You seem to state the same thing. You cannot know; you can only believe. I will pass it along to my friend.

The difference between science and religion is that science is refined if a new insight is found. Religion is set into stone, it doesn’t change. It only splits to new sects, but mostly not because of new insights. They are results of strong words of a leader, and are not backed by reasonable evidence.

Religion may have started out from trying to understand the world, in a somewhat scientific way. But it always has been a tool of power. If you prove a religious belief is wrong, you’re proving those in power are wrong. Best example is Louis XIV who is set into position by an “omnipotent god”, which is the base of absolutism. If you chalenge a belief set in and interpreted by the church and aristicracy, you chalenge those in power and they will crush you.

Still nowadays the pope is set in position by a god (or is his representative, same thing mostly), and here’s the problem: he cannot change his position even if he would know he’s wrong, otherwise he would loose some of his power.

[Henning]

So graphene covered (highly conductive) carbon rods would be best? As the current only flows on the surface that’ll be enough…

See here: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/564/P15/#5633

[Henning]

Maybe the redshift is caused by the plasma itself, not by a Doppler effect. See https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/920/

[Henning]

Developing this data processing application wouldn’t be a “micro volunteering” task, but more of a “virtual volunteering” as Rezwan would put it. It’s a classical “open source” development.

There are several levels of open-source developers:
* bug reporter / tester
* code contributor
* code maintainer
A code maintainer is a long-time volunteer who has deep understanding of the code. We need at least one maintainer who coordinates patches and coaches new code contributors. Most likely it’s just one person anyway, but he/she needs to understand the code globally.

The problem is, that the user base is very narrowed. Only the LPP Lab uses it. So they are the only ones that qualify for “bug reporter”, because they have the data and can assess the results. Other open source programs like Firefox need multiple layers of volunteers, but LPP would need someone more focused, at least one person.

As for the skill-set of the developer, LPP most likely not only needs a Java programmer, but maybe someone with a statistics or mathematical background. We’ll see, when the code is published.

Just my experience with developing the DPF filament simulation for LPP: As I am a “Java Enterprise Developer”, I’m mainly used to do data processing based on strings. Haven’t done any real calculation or mathematical algorithms in my professional career at all. That’s how I underestimated the task on developing the DPF filament simulation. I’ve done a particle-in-cell simulation for my master’s thesis, but LPP needed a fluid simulation. Luckily the programming of the simulation was mainly done by Jeff Schoen (in Java), and is now done by Warwick Dumas (in C++), physics by John Guillory. I was able to coach Warwick, but only because I’ve worked with Jeff’s solution before. Warwick’s doing all the magic now.

I reckon there about 10% percent computer programmers lurking here and half of them do Java. But it’s not like “I do some Java, I can do it for five minutes”. Maybe the task at hand is easier, just some image manipulation. Stuff you’ve learned in your computer science classes. So go ahead and do it, if you’re willing to put in more than five minutes.

Rezwan: Java is something completely different to JavaScript, which is more like Lisp. Don’t mix those two.

[Henning]

Brian H wrote:

…
Once all switches are firing regularly and any remaining bugs are worked out, we’ll start moving up in voltage. Of course, we’ll announce our results in the monthly update, which should be out in a few days. Keep your fingers crossed.

30 days. Quite a few few! Are the switches failing to fire regularly, and/or are the bugs biting back?

Aaron’s report is out already for weeks. FFS members (those who are donating) already have the PDF in their e-mail inbox.

You can read it here:

Switch success times twelve signals new era for reliability

Experiments underway! Fusion device upgrade complete

[Henning]

jamesr wrote: There are plenty of PIC codes that can handle the modest densities of a DPF plasmoid (ie around solid density) Inertial confinement simulations have to cope with 1000 times higher.

I meant here, simulations specifically for DPFs. Sure, the big guys have supercomputers where they can handle this, but the science of DPF is much too small for this currently.

[Henning]

Simulation isn’t as advanced as you may think. There are particle-in-cell simulations but with a density much too low for our purposes. Then there is a parametric calculation that tells you what you might expect with different diameters and pressures and so on.

As third solution there is the LPP simulation, which simulates the plasma as a fluid (with extra quirks), because you cannot handle individual particles anymore at this density. It only simulates a single plasma filament. And it isn’t finished yet.

None of them include the shape of the DPF, except being a cylinder, or a sub-part of it.

[Henning]

It now runs with initial specifications. The previous was probably 0.9. So I would vote “no”.

[Henning]

Rezwan wrote: What’s so great about being immortal? Seems possessive. Corrupt. Non-generative. Mechanistic. Definitively self centered. Consumer oriented.

Methuselah foundation, Christians who want to get resurrected, Reincarnation folks who want to keep coming back. Just can’t let go. Want themselves preserved, pickled, kept the same for eternity while they consume the changing world around them. Well, OK, the reincarnation folks are more diverse, but they’re still possessive and mechanistic, looking at new bodies as a vehicle for them to ride through time. I say those new bodies get their own experience, without our baggage, our soul/consciousness parasite. What an imposition. Let the new entities have their own experience.

With mortality, you have your chance, let’s see what you can do. And then clear the space for something new. Fresh. Innocent. Let your Dorian portrait burn. Let it go. What more are you going to do in an immortal span that you aren’t doing now? Just do it now. “Hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour”. And respect the physical, contextual entity you are – respect the physical finitude. Unique. Ephemeral. Extinguished in a blaze of glory.

Well, to each his own.

Exactly my take.

[Henning]

For cleaning the glass from copper, Joseph Chikva proposes to use circuit board etching technique (of course without protecting any surface for the conductive path):
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=388

Here it’s described how you do it step by step (without Google translation):
http://www.wikihow.com/Etch-a-Circuit-Board

BTW, he also worries about hydrocarbon contamination induced by the Mylar insulators. I just want to mention this, so in case you get more unwanted hydrocarbons, these might be the source.

[Author]

Posts