Forum Replies Created

Viewing 11 posts - 181 through 191 (of 191 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Milestone 6 ignored? #8060
    MTd2
    Participant

    I didn’t mean minimum rate of attaining milestones, but of getting the minimal funding. By the way, I also mean the contrary, of trying to do things out of its natural schedule to rush things and so making the group look bad to who is investing. Too fast, and not accomplish nothing, jumping milestones. But I guess this fear of mine is gone, because there will be updates soon.

    in reply to: Milestone 6 ignored? #8056
    MTd2
    Participant

    Well, the point here is not falling bellow minimum…

    in reply to: Milestone 6 ignored? #8046
    MTd2
    Participant

    Well, with a short funding, shouldn’t all steps be followed closely? It would increase the change of getting more funding to show progress rather than doing everything at the same time and risking losing all…

    in reply to: Why a 0D plasmoid simulation is enough to model a real plamoid? #8043
    MTd2
    Participant

    Alright:

    http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/Lerner_Transparencies.pdf

    It is 1.3GG for boron. A mere 3.6 for the actual record. You guys should had told me that before…

    in reply to: Milestone 6 ignored? #8041
    MTd2
    Participant

    Also, no mention of milestone 4 and 5, and things seems to get confusing, because generally either projects follow linearly or in parallel. It seems these 2 steps were also ignored and preparations for milestone 6 and 7 is just everything that is being done right now.

    MTd2
    Participant

    Where are these other simulations? The end of the paper mentions a mathematical method to 3D, but no concrete simulation is mentioned.

    EDIT.: Hmm. I had to update this post because you provided links to your claims. But where are the graphs of the simulations?

    But why shots made at 2 orders of magnitude lower than 10GG is enough to prove any points at this scale?

    in reply to: Field-Reversed Configuration Plasma publication in PRL #7926
    MTd2
    Participant

    Read the full preprint here:

    http://w3.pppl.gov/ppst/docs/welch2010prl.pdf

    in reply to: Problems with yield in July/August? #7747
    MTd2
    Participant

    “On the other hand, the value of n^2V—the density squared times the volume—was about ten times less than predicted. So these plasmoids are hotter and either less dense or smaller than predicted.”

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/lpp_presents_at_icops/

    This is quite bad news. Very bad news. One less order of magnitude sounds too bad, even if instruments are not precise, it shows that scaling is not so good, and attaining positive net positive output will be much harder, if possible ever.

    in reply to: Problems with yield in July/August? #7695
    MTd2
    Participant

    So you really have a delay now. What is your output power now?

    in reply to: Problems with yield in July/August? #7690
    MTd2
    Participant

    So, the dev. Time vs. Energy was just a propanda and not a road map?

    in reply to: Problems with yield in July/August? #7684
    MTd2
    Participant

    But it’s just 0.1J to 10J out of a target of 300KJ, shouldn’t things like calibration be trivial at such relatively small levels?

    Besides, it seems that the target to test Boron fusion would be 30KJ of H-H fusion. But only 0.03% fo that was achieved. Isn’t it a bit too early to start worring about boron? I mean, wouldn’t it be more sensible to wait until 1KJ-5KJ?

Viewing 11 posts - 181 through 191 (of 191 total)