[JimmyT]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Just for clarity; are we talking a fusion confidence monitor or a FF confidence monitor? 8-/

Breakables Polywell link is very helpful.
(Having said that and just to be pedantic; if the theory is wrong it will not work however many times you try. So the probability does not approach 1 just by doing it over and over. If the theory is right it will work the first time you get the engineering right too
– but I digress) 🙄

I think the questions ought to include two things.

Firstly a step by step approach similar to that suggested by chrismb in the Polywell link with a probability at each stage.

Step / Probability

Will it get built? / 100%
If built will it achieve pinch? / 100%
If pinch will it fuse “low temperature” fuels / 99%
If so will it fuse p11B / 98%
If so will it overcome x-ray cooling / ?
If so – and so on

The second factor is time (back to the markets?)

How confident are you that proof of concept will be achieved in 10 yrs, 5 yrs, 1 yr
How confident are you that commercial FF generators will be available in …
How confident are you that they will be widely adopted in…

etc.

Of course a short education in progress to-date would have to be included prior to the question as most people haven’t even heard of it. :down:

Just as a relevant aside; I was chatting to a physicist in his lab at the UK National Physical Laboratory on Monday and Focus Fusion came up (well… y’know… I might have slipped it into the conversation). His specialty is fine measurement of temperature using sound so FF was a bit outside his brief. None the less his view was “it is thirty years away in the laboratory.” His big idea at the moment is to make energy so expensive that market forces drive emissions down to an acceptable level.
Much to do. :-S

I am confident that once we check off a couple of more items in Phil’s Dad’s list that funding for the next step will become available. Money will follow experimental results.

[JimmyT]

These may require cooling along with the center electrode. May not also.

[JimmyT]

The rods are preferred because about 40% of the energy generated by the plasmoid becomes x-rays. A surrounding cylinder would absorb some of this even if it were made of beryllium.
Some of these x-rays need to be converted to electricity in order to make this work.

[JimmyT]

So the switches are dependent upon suddenly creating a ion bridge (plasma bridge) between the capacitors and the electrode? And this ionization is dependent on the potential between the two plates? And when the first switch or two is triggered this potential difference becomes less, so subsequent switches don’t fire? Is it possibly that simple?

It would be a cast iron B**ch to trouble shoot if you are assuming that there is something wrong with an individual capacitor or switch.

[JimmyT]

Ding dong Cap & Trade seems dead. For now anyway. At least the Copenhagen rendition of it.

[JimmyT]

Brian H wrote:

They were going to use diamond switches, but it turns out that diamond switches that big had never been made before. Probably could be, but never had been. Plus this would be introducing yet another unknown, untested variable into the mix. So Eric opted for an off the shelf comercially available switch instead. Not sure of the type used though.

Rather like the ones on the wall I gather. Up is on, down is off. he, he. Did you know that the opposite convention is used for wall switches in Europe?

That’s because they’re lazy and want it to be easier to turn the lights on. :cheese:

Some people say “open the light” and “close the light”. But of course, an open switch is off, and closed is on. They never appreciate it when I explain their language is electrically illiterate … :-S

I hate to admit it, but I wasn’t sure which convention you-all used in Canada. No offense intended. I like your currancy (coins particularly) .

[JimmyT]

They were going to use diamond switches, but it turns out that diamond switches that big had never been made before. Probably could be, but never had been. Plus this would be introducing yet another unknown, untested variable into the mix. So Eric opted for an off the shelf comercially available switch instead. Not sure of the type used though.

Rather like the ones on the wall I gather. Up is on, down is off. he, he. Did you know that the opposite convention is used for wall switches in Europe?

[JimmyT]

Breakable,

No argument there. It was only meant to apply to this case. It was just too good of a quote to pass up.

[JimmyT]

Aeronaut wrote:

I easily see the US’s environmental laws making us the last country to adopt the desalination plants. And that’s along the coasts.

What about the ecological effects of the brine concentrate that you have to dump back into the ocean?

Do I believe that this is a major concern? Emphatically no! But there is always some issue that can be used to block new technology.

Water extraction from the atmosphere? What about the decreased rainfall in the water-diminished-plume downwind? Shouldn’t the adopters of this technology have to pay the rest of the world some sort of “environmental sin tax” for the horrors of ecological disruption this causes?

It never ends folks.

No need to dump it back into the ocean, Jimmy. We use it on roads all year around- and that’s just part of the salt industry.

http://en.wiki.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride%5B/quote

Brine, or no brine. It depends on what method you use. I think reverse osmosis is the best current technology, and It makes brine. I really don’t think it is a significant problem.

Nature makes brine too. Its just not as localized as a big reverse osmosis plant would be. As one of my professors put it: “The solution to the problem of pollution is dilution”.

“Give me an equation with five variables and I’ll draw you an elephant” – Dr Skidmore professor of chemical engineering at The Ohio State University.

[JimmyT]

Aeronaut wrote: I easily see the US’s environmental laws making us the last country to adopt the desalination plants. And that’s along the coasts.

What about the ecological effects of the brine concentrate that you have to dump back into the ocean?

Do I believe that this is a major concern? Emphatically no! But there is always some issue that can be used to block new technology.

Water extraction from the atmosphere? What about the decreased rainfall in the water-diminished-plume downwind? Shouldn’t the adopters of this technology have to pay the rest of the world some sort of “environmental sin tax” for the horrors of ecological disruption this causes?

It never ends folks.

[JimmyT]

Eric, when in the sequence of the eight steps do you anticipate taking pretty pictures of your plasmoids? Also, would you consider those pictures to be material to be released at a conference? Or would you post them immediately on the web?

I understand they are an important part of confirmation of your theoretical understanding of what is happening. But I don’t know if that means you won’t post them immediately.

They will also be great PR of course!

[JimmyT]

There is another aspect to distributed power which I don’t think has been adequately discussed:

The reliability of distributed power should be much better than centralized plants in the event of calamities. Floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and yes terrorist attacks. Just when power is most needed in the areas which are hit, to aid in recovery efforts. It won’t be available. Outages would still occur with distributed power but they wouldn’t be universal. Often this impacts the availability of water too. Where water must be pumped to users. This makes fire control difficult.

Of course it’s not the generators themselves which are usually taken out by these calamities, but part of the distribution network. At least distributed power would eliminate the long distance power line portion of this venerability.

I know It’s impossible to put a precise dollar value on this sort of thing. But It’s got to be worth something.

[JimmyT]

I certainly don’t have the specs. But you can see the hardware in the picture gallerys from focus fusion’s homepage. The wiring is displayed pretty plainly.

[JimmyT]

I’m sure that it has not escaped your notice that this is the exact same problem that the Manhattan project faced when building their first plutonium weapon. (And all plutonium weapons built since then). The currents involved were a bit less, but the problem was exactly the same. How to send multiple electrical impulses to hexagons surrounding a sphere of plutonium.
And have them all arrive at exactly the same time.

Same thing with the Z-machine and all the inertial confinement machines which use lasers from multiple directions to crush a lithium deuterium pellet. All rely on precisely timed electrical pulses from multiple capacitors.

So this problem is not unique to this project, or even unique to DPF projects.

I’m sure that Mr Lerner is garnering what knowlege he can from these other projects.

[JimmyT]

The neutrons really are the main concern.

The water is important. It turns out that particles transfer their momentum most effectively to other particles of similar mass. Hence the hydrogen in the water molecules is more efficient at slowing down neutrons than a similar mass of concrete. Or even lead. And once the neutrons are slowed down (Thermalized) boron atoms have a very large capture cross section.

The point being that the x-ray conversion system may not be that good at slowing down neutrons as it will be made of heavier (Higher z) materials.

[Author]

Posts