Ivy Matt
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Ivy Matt
ParticipantI’d say it is. I don’t know too much about the history of the PF, and I’ve often wondered where it came from. My assumption is that it developed from earlier Z-pinch devices. For a while I also wondered what the difference was between the Mather and Filippov PF devices. FF-1 (with the anode and cathode forming concentric cylinders) is a Mather-type device, right?
ParticipantJoeviocoe wrote: They want a working powerplant using D-T first.
D-D, but I don’t think the U.S. Navy would have much of a problem obtaining tritium.
ParticipantWell, I’d consider Navy people a fairly good source of rumors, but now that it’s official, we don’t have to rely on rumors, informed or not:
In sum, on May 3 EMC2 was awarded a $5.3 million contract (N6893609C0125) for work over the next two years. The scaling seems to be holding up, but it seems they need a better power supply for the electron guns. I assume EMC2’s work over the next two years will include further experimentation on WB 8.0 (D+D) and the construction and operation of WB 8.1 (p+B11). If all goes well, I imagine they’ll be awarded a much larger contract for a demonstration reactor (possibly D+D to begin with), to be completed after another three years or so. At least, that’s my understanding from reading the thread on Talk Polywell. Unfortunately I can’t access .mil domains from the Middle Kingdom. For those who are having trouble with the NECO link, there’s also a Google Doc here:
But I can’t access Google Docs, either. *shrug*
Participantzapkitty wrote: Did you know that NASA’s JPL was funding Lerner-hakase’s DPF work for exactly that purpose — a high-energy, high efficiency space drive — until the Halliburton administration banned NASA from any and all fusion research after 2001?
Well, I was aware that the JPL had previously funded Lerner’s work. I’ve been trying to find if that work fell under the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, because if they completed a Phase I study under that program, they would now be eligible to submit a Phase II proposal under the new NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts program, but I haven’t found Lerner on the list of studies funded by the first NIAC.
ParticipantIn fact, one of the other presentations, by Tarditi, Miley, and Scott, reminded me of the DPF. It’s titled “Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture”, and advocates a fusion thruster design that uses the fusion products directly for the production of thrust. With such a design, the efficient production of electricity (and therefore net energy gain) is unnecessary. For this application, the main thing you need is a beam of fusion products. Of course, the concept favored by Tarditi, Miley, and Scott uses an inertial electrostatic confinement device in “jet mode”, but it occurred to me that a DPF could be used for the same purpose. Note that the presentation uses the phrase “direct conversion” in the sense of converting fusion energy directly to thrust, rather than to electricity.
ParticipantI am both doubtful and hopeful—especially when it comes to Polywell and Focus Fusion. 😉
Unfortunately, it seems we’ve already seen the last of the quarterly updates from EMC2. April 30th has come and gone, and there is no new report from EMC2. Hopefully we will find out soon if the Navy has signed a new contract to fund the project. Of course, a new contract would probably not be funded through the Recovery Act and, therefore, would not have the quarterly reporting requirements that EMC2’s previous contract did, so we wouldn’t hear any news unless and until either EMC2 or the Navy felt like reporting it. (Apart, of course, from how much money the new contract is for, and what, in general terms, is its purpose.)
ParticipantFor what it’s worth, taken in context I thought your comment was hilarious, whether intentionally so or not. Thanks. :cheese:
ParticipantI’m guessing the reference is to this:
we hear – some ‘unexpected’ results during scaling experiments – posher e/i-guns required, etc.
From the latest quarterly update we know EMC2 modified the electron guns. Here is the full quote from EMC2’s 4Q 2011 Recovery.gov update for context:
During 4Q of 2011, EMC2 has modified the electron injectors to increase the plasma heating. The higher plasma density in WB-8 prompted the need for higher heating power. We plan to operate WB-8 in high beta regime with the modified electron injectors during 1Q of 2012.
I suppose the “unexpected results” refer to the “higher plasma density”. I think ordinarily that would be considered a good thing, even if it required upgrading one’s equipment. Nevertheless, I don’t have enough of a background in Polywell theory and/or plasma physics to understand exactly what is implied by the latest quarterly update. A new update should be posted on April 30, which [em]may[/em] shed more light on EMC2’s progress.
More to the point, the Navy has prepared a contract extension for EMC2. According to my interpretation of the contract schedule, testing of the WB 8.0 (D+D) device is due to be completed by September 30 of this year, and testing of the WB 8.1 (p+B11) device is due to be completed by March 31, 2014. If, as is rumored, the contract extension will be signed by the end of this month, then I would take that as a sign that the Navy feels the current experiment is at least performing well enough to merit continued funding; otherwise they would not feel obliged to extend the contract.
ParticipantI’m guessing zapkitty said what ikanreed and I were thinking. Honi soit qui mal y pense, but….
Anyway, I tend to be a sucker for anything stelliform, so I’m afraid zapkitty’s boron nucleus caught my fancy more. I do like the colors and typography, though. I think green and purple go well together.
I believe this thread is a perfect example of bikeshedding? ;-P
ParticipantI noticed they looked a little more silver than before, but the significance didn’t really dawn on me.
ParticipantSo, if I understand that last design correctly, the radius of the plasmoid is roughly 1.5 times the diameter of a boron-11 nucleus? 🙂 Still, I think I like it best. I’m not sure if that’s despite its resemblance to the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom or because of it.
ParticipantBrian H wrote:
Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
I note that he didn’t mention history as one of the subjects he wished he had included in the special issue of Scientific American.
March 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm in reply to: US National Academies panel recommends expanding alternative nuclear fusion experiments #11589ParticipantMore context:
March 9, 2012 at 10:34 am in reply to: US National Academies panel recommends expanding alternative nuclear fusion experiments #11588Participanthttp://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-national-academies-panel-alternative-nuclear.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13371
I’m guessing imploding fuel in the plasmoid created by a DPF is not quite what they have in mind.
March 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm in reply to: Publication of 1.8 billion degree confinement set to confirm LPP's fusion lead #11569ParticipantI see the March issue has been posted. Is that the one?
-
AuthorPosts