ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Fusion quest goes forward

Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:05 PM by Alan Boyle

Emc2 Fusion's Richard Nebel can't say yet whether his team's garage-shop plasma experiment will lead to cheap, abundant fusion power. But he can say that after months of tweaking, the WB-7 device "runs like a top" - and he's hoping to get definitive answers about a technology that has tantalized grass-roots fusion fans for years.

With $1.8 million in backing from the U.S. Navy, Nebel and a handful of other researchers have been following up on studies conducted by the late physicist Robert Bussard before his death last October - studies that Bussard said promised a breakthrough in fusion energy.

Nebel, who is on leave from Los Alamos National Laboratory, picked up Bussard's mantle at Emc2 Fusion Development Corp. in Santa Fe, N.M., and is trying to duplicate the results that were reported from the last machine Bussard built. The WB-6 device supposedly worked by setting up a high-voltage electrical field that was configured in just the right way to get ions slamming into each other, creating a fusion-fueled plasma.

Unfortunately, WB-6 was destroyed during one of its last scheduled test runs in 2005, and Bussard was never able to build another device. Fortunately, Nebel's five-person team has succeeded in building a new, improved device on a shoestring budget.


EMC2 Fusion
A test plasma using helium glows inside the WB-7.

"We're kind of a combination of high tech and Home Depot, because a lot of this stuff we make ourselves," Nebel told me today. "We're operating out of a glorified garage, but it's appropriate for what we're doing."

The Emc2 team has been ramping up its tests over the past few months, with the aim of using WB-7 to verify Bussard's WB-6 results. Today, Nebel said he's confident that the answers will be forthcoming, one way or the other.

"We're fully operational and we're getting data," Nebel said. "The machine runs like a top. You can just sit there and take data all afternoon."

So was Bussard correct? Will it be worth putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a larger-scale demonstration project, to show that Bussard's Polywell concept could be a viable route to fusion power?

No answers just yet
Nebel said it's way too early to talk about the answers to those questions. For one thing, it's up to the project's funders to assess the data. Toward that end, an independent panel of experts will be coming to Santa Fe this summer to review the WB-7 experiment, Nebel said.

"We're going to show them the whole thing, warts and all," he said.

Because of the complexity, it will take some interpretation to determine exactly how the experiment is turning out. "The answers are going to be kind of nuanced," Nebel said.

The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.

For now, Nebel doesn't want to make a big deal out of what he and his colleagues are finding. He still remembers the controversy and the embarrassments that were generated by cold-fusion claims in 1989.

"All of us went through the cold-fusion experiences, and before we say too much about this, we want to have it peer-reviewed," he said.

At the same time, he can't resist talking about how well WB-7 is operating. "I've been very pleased, frankly, with the sorts of things we've been getting out of it," Nebel said.

High hopes for low-cost fusion
Nebel may be low-key about the experiment, but he has high hopes for Bussard's Polywell fusion concept. If it works the way Nebel hopes, the system could open the way for larger-scale, commercially viable fusion reactors and even new types of space propulsion systems.

"We're looking at power generation with this machine," Nebel said. "This machine is so inexpensive going into the 100-megawatt range that there's no compelling reason for not just doing it. We're trying to take bigger steps than you would with a conventional fusion machine."

Over the next decade, billions of dollars are due to be spent on the most conventional approach to nuclear fusion, which is based on a magnetic confinement device known as a tokamak. The $13 billion ITER experimental plasma project is just starting to take shape in France, and there's already talk that bigger budgets and longer timetables will be required.

If the Polywell system's worth is proven, that could provide a cheaper, faster route to the same goal - and that's why there's a groundswell of grass-roots interest in Nebel's progress. What's more, a large-scale Polywell device could use cleaner fusion fuels - for example, lunar helium-3, or hydrogen and boron ions. Nebel eventually hopes to make use of the hydrogen-boron combination, known as pB11 fusion.

"The reason that advanced fuels are so hard for conventional fusion machines is that you have to go to high temperatures," Nebel explained. "High temperatures are difficult on a conventional fusion machine. ... If you look at electrostatics, high temperatures aren't hard. High temperatures are high voltage."

Most researchers would see conventional tokamak machines as the safer route to commercial fusion power. There's a chance that Bussard's Polywell dream will prove illusory, due to scientific or engineering bugaboos yet to be revealed. But even though Nebel can't yet talk about the data, he's proud that he and his colleagues at Emc2 have gotten so far so quickly.

"By God, we built a laboratory and an experiment in nine months," he said, "and we're getting data out of it."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

"After all that effort all he could get were only a few fusion neutrons. That was about 15 orders of magnitude short of break-even."

True, but no expects break-even from a machine of this size and budget.  The power scaling law is roughly radius ^ 7 (r^3 for the volume of ions x B^4 for the power increase from density created by the magnetic field, which scales roughly with the radius), so a machine about 1.5M in diameter would in theory be able to produce something around 100MW of net power.  That's at a cost of around $200M, whereas ITER will cost at least $10B (and likely a lot more).

Complaining that WB-6 and WB-7 aren't at breakeven is a bit like complaining the Wright Brothers' plane couldn't carry 500 people across the Atlantic.  It's a proof of concept device.  
damn, i really hope that this type of technology will make it to the mainstream, all it will take is for people who build it not to sell out. please, someone put your dreams before your checkbook. i know i will when i finish my nuclear engineering degree, and then grad work...
all i know is that ive been waiting to go to the stars since i was very young. any other star trek fan would agree!

by the way....
you all should put your energy into developlment, not always criticism. (please)
If the theory says "Yes, that idea will work," then it's worthwhile experimenting with it.  If the experiment works, even in the most minimal way, then the experiment  is worth repeating over and over, refining materials, methods, mass, whatever, until consistent results are obtained.

It took a long time to put a steam engine on wheels, including inventing steel rails for it to locomote on.   But there is a direct connection from that huff 'n' chuff "iron horse" to the Shuttle that just came back from the ISS.

The dream of fusion power will become reality, sooner rather than later, in ways we cannot even imagine now.
I've been studying this for a few days now, and the more I look the more I like the design. Obviously there are significant engineering hurdles to overcome to create a net energy positive product, specifically shielding/replacing the magnet connectors as they wear out due to electron impact. (Maybe this would work better in space, no connectors required in zero-g? Almost like God designed this for space travel).

Anyway how can I invest? Is EMC2 corporation open to investment? What's the minimum amount (it is speculative)?

I will monitor this technology for further developments.
Alex

I believe that the data show Bussard's wb-6 was only 2 orders of magnitude away from the necessary conditions for sustained positive output.
Meanwhile with a few $ billion's spent the Tokomaks Are still 10-15 orders of magnitude away. (exactly why "manhattan project" type funding does not guarantee success. If the idea is wrong no amount of money will make it right but the more money involved the harder it is to admit you are wrong)

The closest competitor to the polywell is the "Z" machine at Sandia which is essentially a specialized farnsworth-hirsch fusor. This system has reached to within a single order of magnitude of everything but temperature.

The Bussard polywell is the result of direct contemplation on the problems of a Farnsworth device. Consider this- temperature is the easiest condition for a magneto-electro confinement system.

The fusion physics have been proven with the WB-6. The questions remaining are in the engineering. These are not issues of size scaling... the full size Bussard reactor would have a core about 1.3 meters in diameter. The scaling issues are in power handling, and materials science.

Bussard was confident that a Lockheed or Raytheon and GE combination could work these issues out. But without a  $200 million contract they won't even open their eyes to the possibilities...
As far as using hydrogen as a fuel source.... keep in mind that the proposals for hydrogen as a fuel is just a storage medium.... identical if it were a Li-ion battery, a fly wheel, or compressed air or fluid (aka hydraulic energy storage).

FYI, did you know that in the process of refining and processing petroleum, that more energy in the form of electricity and/or boilers to keep the refinery going is consumed than can possibly be produced from the gasoline that you use in your automobile?  All gasoline ought to be considered as is an energy storage medium... and surprisingly a rather good one at that all things considered.  The density of energy in terms of joules/m^3 (or kWh/cu ft... units are irrelevant here) is quite high.  Gasoline is not an energy source, other than on a very local scale.

Claiming that hydrogen isn't a fuel because it takes energy to process it in order to have it as a fuel source is ignoring that you have to do the same thing with other "energy sources" as well.

BTW, in reference to the Polywell, it certainly is a remarkable and significant improvement in terms of power output over the IEC Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor.  Philo Farnsworth came up with the Fusor concept back in the 1960's, and it was a knows neutron source back then.  In fact, commercial Fusors are available as a neutron source for medical and atomic physics research right now... nor are they too expensive either considering it is a fusion device.  A college freshman actually built one from scratch using money he earned over the summer in the town I live in.  I dare somebody to show a Tokamak design that can have the same claim to fame :)

What Bussard did in the 1980's and 1990's was to refine the Fusor concept and try to take out some of the problems where energy was being lost due to the basic design of the Fusor.  I'm not going to go into details, but the fact is that Bussard and the people working with him were able to achieve many orders of magnitude better fusion in terms of approaching a break-even energy production than was ever hoped for with the Fusor concept.  In fact, there is a strong reason to believe that it may begin to be a good energy producing reactor... or at least point to designs where it could.

At the very least, even if the Polywell concept doesn't work out, it may still be used in medical treatments with radiation therapy where having a powerful source of radiation that can be turned on and off with a switch would be useful.  All of this not to mention that you can service or ship the device without a radiation suit or having to worry about radioactive materials that can be mis-used or mis-handled.

But energy production is the goal and where the real money is at.
We should not count on this to provide our energy until the researchers can exceed breakeven, and do it at a reasonable cost. My suspicion is that exceeding breakeven will prove to be so big and expensive that it will not be cost competitive to other renewable energy sources. Still, the research will give useful information, even if it never works as an affordable power source.

What "underWhelmed" calls "hydroxy gas" is just 2 parts H2, 1 part O2, not "OH and H mixed". While it will burn, and it is possible to run an engine with it, it takes far more energy to produce than the engine will yield. From electricity to electrolysis to the internal combustion engine output shaft, overall efficiency is less than 7%. With over 93% of the energy being wasted, it cannot run on its own, it would quickly drain the battery of any vehicle. From electricity to output shaft of an electric motor is over 90% efficient, if you're going to run a car on a battery, that's the way to go. Now, some have claimed that adding a small amount of "electrolysis gas" can make a gasoline or diesel engine more efficient, but considering the horrible efficiency, I find those claims highly dubious.

Redd Green, you are a prime example of how awful physics education is. You've confused chemical burning H2 with O2 (produces water), with nuclear hydrogen fusion (produces helium). Burning 1 Kg of H2 with enough O2 will release 143 megajoules of energy, fusing 1 Kg of H2 into helium will release 645,000,000 megajoules of energy - about 4,510,490 times more energy. No, they are not even remotely the same, one involves the weak bonds between atoms, the other involves the much stronger bonds inside the atom holding the nucleus together. Besides, you can't electrolyse helium to get hydrogen!

Conservation of energy requires that it takes exactly as much energy to split 2 H20 into 2 H2 + O2 as is released by burning the 2 H2 with O2. Problem is, not all the energy released by burning is useful, in an internal combustion engine over 3/4 of that energy is discarded as heat. Moreover, not all the energy supplied for water electrolysis goes to split water molecules, nearly half of that energy gets wasted as well. (That's for a well designed system, an amateur design will be even less efficient)
This looks very promising as a compact energy device (in comparison to things like nuclear reactors / coal plants / ect..).  This is a VERY rudimentary model, come on they admitted they built it on the cheap, so of course its not gonna be 100% energy efficient and power all of Manhattan on the first try.  Its a proof of concept, they said so.

The reason Nebel didn't give any numbers is that he wants the people footing the bill to look over them first.  His money is from the DoD, which means they may want to continue funding his project.  Also they don't want to get everyones hopes up and thus over-hype the situation, wait till after peer-review happens and people take this and run with it.

The sheer fact that they can create fusion with such a SMALL and SIMPLE device alone is pretty impressive.  The simpler a device is, the less room for problems / energy-loss, thus keeping to the KISS concept is often the best approach.
Prometheus wrote, "Meanwhile with a few $ billion's spent the Tokomaks Are still 10-15 orders of magnitude away [from the necessary conditions for sustained positive output]."

This is a bizarr statement considering that the tokamak JET has already produced plasmas where the fusion power produced was greater than the heating power.
TallDave responded to the statement, "That was about 15 orders of magnitude short of break-even." with the comment, "True, but no [one] expects break-even from a machine of this size and budget. The power scaling law is roughly radius ^ 7 (r^3 for the volume of ions x B^4 for the power increase from density created by the magnetic field, which scales roughly with the radius), so a machine about 1.5M in diameter would in theory be able to produce something around 100MW of net power."

Scaling is a tricky business. If you want to buy 14 orders of magnitude with R^7 scaling by increasing the volume a factor of (100)^3 and the field a factor of (100)^4, the ion gyroradius will shrink relative to the machine by a factor of (100)^5 = 10^10. Considering it is critical to the concept that the ions be practically unmagnetized, I'd say you have a problem (even if you think you the improvement you need is much more modest.)
Turn water into gases, burn the gases, get water back.. and heat as energy. But less water comes back. The only question is can the heat generate enough electricity to continue the cycle until the water runs out and power a vehicle?
The scaling laws quoted by TallDave and Dr. Carlson are the power output scaling laws.  The B**4*R**3 scaling is just the “constant Beta” scaling which applies to every magnetic confinement device (that I know of) and is theoretically founded in something as simple as force balance.  It works for Tokamaks, Reverse Field Pinches, Spheromaks, etc.  This one I’m not worried about.
The one you have to worry about is the input power scaling, because that one is related to the plasma losses (or transport).  This one answers the question of “How much power do I need to supply to the device to maintain constant Beta”.  Theoretical modeling of transport has a much poorer track record than plasma equilibrium has.  These scaling laws are where the major risks for the larger device reside.  The major saving grace is that for the Polywell is that the projected average densities are ~ 2 orders of magnitude higher than they are in Tokamaks so the energy confinement times don’t have to be all that good.  (It’s the product of the density and the confinement time that’s important.)
Our contention is that since our projections for a power producing device only require a machine like the one TallDave described, we might as well build the next one in that size range and accept the risk.  The machines just aren’t all that expensive.  Also, there are a multitude of things that can be done to improve confinement (such as pulse discharge cleaning, pellet injection, etc.) that have been successful in the magnetic confinement program that can be instituted if our projections fall short.  This approach will minimize the development time and lead to a lower costs for the overall program.
I really hope this technology works! In the mean time I'm going to go grill up some burgers on my saltwater/soundwave BBQ.
Mr. Carlson has gone from saying it won't work to saying that it won't scale.  Next step, autographed polywell posters on his bedroom walls.

From Redd Green:

[No, and I've heard these 'arguments' stated vehemently before.  here's a retort:  if what you were saying were true, then a fission bomb, the N bomb would take the energy of an N bomb to detonate, which is nonsense.]

Just to clarify, reactions on the energy scale of electrolysis must follow conservation of mass as well as conservation of energy, so it really wouldn't be possible to run a car on water by using electrolysis to split it, and then burning the resultant gases.  You would end up with a net loss of usable energy due to inefficiencies in both the electrolysis and the combustion, and the mass of the system would not change.
Although there is a sign difference in our end assessments, Dr. Nebel and I are otherwise on the same wavelength. With a mess of caveats that we could discuss for weeks, I also like to start by considering a B**4 * R**3 scaling for the power output, although usually energy confinement scaling is the tough one. It seems that Bussard himself suggested scaling the field at the same rate as the radius, resulting in an overall R**7 scaling of power output, but I have never seen a justification for this (maybe Dr. Nebel can provide one). My argument is that the polywell concept requires unmagnetized ions, that is, an (appropriately averaged) ion Larmor radius that is a fixed samll fraction of the machine radius, so (at constant energy) the field should actually *decrease* in proportion to the radius. This would result in output power going *down* as the machine gets bigger. (@seedload: In simple words, it falls short now, and the scaling laws say it will fall even farther short if you make it bigger.) Nebel argues that, if you're going to spend money at all, you should spend enough. This applies to many programs (from ITER to the war in Iraq), and I agree with the philosophy. But if it were my money, I would want the theoretical scaling cleared up before I made a decision.
I never had the chance to discuss the B ~ R arguments with Dr. Bussard nor have I run across it in the files, so we have stuck with the B**4*R**3 scaling.  I know where that one comes from.  I suspect that the B~R scaling is a constant hoop stress scaling for the coils.  We are doing detailed magnet designs so this isn’t really an issue with us.
As for the ion confinement, operating in the “wiffleball” mode (electron beta ~ 1) will push the magnetic field into the boundary.  This mode was achieved experimentally a long time ago, so we know this works.  Only the highest energy ions will enter this edge region.  What this effect should do is to just slightly lower the effective potential well depth for the ions.
If this is an issue, then we can operate the WB-7 in the same dimensionless parameter regime as the large device where the magnetic and electrostatic forces have the same ratio.  Since all real physics depends on dimensionless parameters, this should give some useful insight.  Plasma simulation is also a possibility.
rnebel,

I have looked into the B-R scaling a little. With constant intercept area the coil area scales as R^2. With constant I/unit area the B field increases linearly with size.

Of course with superconductors there is probably a discontinuity in the scaling law but the same I/unit area limitations hold. With added limitations due to I vs field strength.

I also note that the 100 MW size is ideal given the heat load problems. It is an ideal size for conventional solutions. Dr. Bussard was not only a good scientist. He was an excellent engineer. Nothing he did was without thought.
rnebel,

In my discussions with him, his generalization that field strength would scale with magnet radius was an outgrowth of the extensive copper magnet designs he did for that small tokamak he worked on in the '80's.  Those were cooled, so he also had a pretty good idea of how hard copper could be pushed.

MSimon and the Talk-Polywell bunch have been having fun researching superconductors, and have come up with one that tolerates neutrons fairly well, and another that may be capable of 45 T.  These open up some interesting possibilities for scaling up.
Although HHO is being proposed as a possible 'total' fuel, the descriptions and the experiments that I have found are described as 'supplemental' sources of fuel.  For example, you would add HHO to reduce your use of gasoline during normal operation - not to completely replace the gasoline but to supplement.  Fuel vapor is still being burned to run the engine, but the HHO gas is burning as well as the gasoline.  The modern engine's computers reduce the gasoline delivery to the intake because of the presence of the HHO gas - as combustible as gasoline vapor.  The engine RPMs and power remain the same, but gasoline consumption is reduced.  This is not a perpetual motion machine or a producer of excess energy - just another way to reduce consumption of gasoline/oil by alternate 'fuel'.
Let us remember American inventor P.T. Farnsworth, inventor of the television and this reactor. Bussard has made some *very nice* improvements to the basic design.

<p>
You can build a Farnsworth fusor yourself at home. You will get a glowing plasma, but no neutrons.
<p>
The Farnsworth-Bussard Polywell Fusor is much more likely to work for us in our lifetimes than the tokomak design which is always 20 years in the future and eats tens of billions of dollars.
<p> The Polywell Fusor is not a tokomak. It is a rather special vaccuum tube.
Steve Schaper,

My home-built fusor is quite capable of making around 1500 neutrons per second (3000 fusions/second) running deuterium at 18 kV and around 5-20 mA.  The crazy plasmapunk amateur fusioneers at fusor.net crank out a lot more than that.  The reaction is quite straightforward and easy to do.
I'm given to understand that the technology to produce oil and/or gasoline synthetically exists (actually pulling the carbon from the air), and is relatively scalable.  

The only problem is that the energy inputs needed would make the process cost the equivalent of about $7 a gallon for gas.  

With a source of cheap, renewable energy (such as Dr. Bussard's fusion generator holds out the hope for) "Big Oil" would have reason to fear for parts of its business (exploration, exploitation, transport), but not the entirety of it... we have enough infrastructure devoted to it that gas-powered cars would still be around for a long time to come.  
Mr Carlson, thank you for dumbing it down for me.  I appreciate that.  But I am still a bit confused.  

I think you are saying that as you make the machine bigger, the ratio of the machine size to the gyroradius of the 'ions' increases.  But the ions don't interact with the 'machine' at all.  They aren't contained by the coils.  So, what is the significance of the machine size to the ion gyroradius have to do with anything?  Or are you arguing that ion density goes down with bigger machines?

Also, I don't think that people agree with you that electrons will be lost at the cusps because of areas of zero field.  Are you also arguing that these supposed zero field holes are going to grow when the machine grows?  

Finally, you said, "But if it were my money, I would want the theoretical scaling cleared up before I made a decision. ".  Just wanted to note that I tend to agree.  However, if it takes a half sized reactor to demonstrate scaling before going to a full sized one, and the half sized one costs almost as much as the full sized one, I would spend my money on the latter.  

Regards

Thanks, Art.

It's pleasing when someone lines up all the major objections in one place so Dr. Nebel can top-rope them.
rnebel,
While I really enjoy reading your commentary on this, I can't help but think that you should be fusing right now and not blogging!  We needed this done yesterday!  The future of mankind is on your shoulders!  Now get in the lab and start making neutrons. sheesh.  Good Luck, I'm pulling for you.
B~R scaling: It looks like Bussard really was thinking about a fixed current density and a fixed ratio of conductor size to machine size. The statements I found were too brief to judge whether they are correct, but it could well be that the engineering constraints work that way, at least up to some maximum field on the order of 10-20 T. That notwithstanding, I am still worried about the physics of the scaling. There are statements from Bussard that the ions must be unmagnetized, and a calculation by Krall about how big the field can be before the ions get knocked off center. On the other hand, maybe that is not really so important. (Dr. Nebel has suggested that the convergence of the ions is not as important as previously assumed.) Can someone supply some numbers? Above all, what is the (maximum) field strength envisaged for a polywell power reactor? From that we can calculate the ion Larmor radius, the electron larmor radius, and the Debye length.

Zero-field cusps: Apparently my assumptions about the coil geometry were those used in the first machines. Bussard eventually discovered the problem himself. If I understand correctly, the current designs have coils which do not touch each other. I'm still chewing on the implications of this. For example, do the point cusps at the corners start to trun into line cusps that wind around the machine? Bussard himself seemed to think that it is essential that the cusps be points.

I think that Bussard himself admitted that he treated this machine according to theory early and the theory was based on coils with no dimensions.  This was a mistake that he admitted.  Earlier versions of his machine were losing electrons to collisions with metal because his coils touched.  In WB6, he separated the coils (by some gyroradius based figure), allowing electrons that do make it through the line cusps to recirculate without hitting metal.  This was his breakthrough and created outstanding electron containment.  

I think the idea of only point cusps is only important from a conceptual view.  Reality is more like mostly point cusps.  Reality says, reduce the likelihood of an electron escaping containment in the first place by 'flattening' all of the cusps and if some do get out make sure that they will recirculate back in.

Outstanding containment, as I understand it, happens because of three factors.  

First, as the well gets deeper and electrons build up, the machine begins to enter wiffleball mode.  Basically, the electrons begin to exert a pressure on the field lines causing them to flatten and pinch them at the cusps.  As this happens, it gets harder for electrons to escape because they are more frequently hitting the field at a harsher angle causing them to reflect back into the well.  As it gets harder to escape, the well gets deeper, the pressure on the fields gets stronger, and the containment gets even better still.  Eventually, the well becomes almost spherical in nature making escape very hard.  

Second, an unforunately well directed electron can escape containment because it is aimed directly at the cusp which never really disappeared but just got harder to enter.  These well directed electrons need to be redirected back into the well.  This is done by letting them ride the field lines out of the grid and then back in through the middle of the coils.  It is essential that these electrons not hit anything that can capture them - like metal.  Thus the spacing of the coils.  The cusps, both point and line never really vanish.  They just get harder to hit at the correct angle.  When they are hit, the electrons ride around and back in.  

Finally, the machine is containing electrons - not ions.  This is much much easier because electrons have far less mass.

The ions aren't contained by the machine at all, they are electrically attracted to the cloud of electrons in the well.  

In theory it is briliant and I believe strongly that this thing will contain electrons very very well.  

I wish I understood more to know what the heck is going to happen when ions are injected.  Rider says it can't work.  Bussard says it will because of mysterious "edge annealing".  I suspect that plasma has never really behaved the way we expect it to do in the past.  I can't imagine it will this time either.  Rider may be wrong.  Bussard may be wrong.  We shall see.  
Dr. Carlson:

The peak fields for the reactor designs (at least for our reactor designs) are in the 5-10 T range.  however, these are work in progress.
I was planning to take this up with Dr. Nebel directly, but since there seems to be so much interest at a reasonable technical level, I'll give it a go here.
About that whiffle ball. It seems the picture is a spherical region with a fairly sharp transition from being field-free inside to being plasma-free outside. Clearly, the field must be parallel to the spherical surface nearly everywhere and, equally clearly, it can't be parallel absolutely everywhere. That's why the whiffle ball needs holes (cusps), although they may be very small.
Two cusps would be fine with me. Then it would be a sort of mirror machine (presumably axially symmetric). But the polywell is supposed to have 14 holes (6 faces plus 8 corners). I believe there is topologically no way to do this (with some exceptions that don't seem relevant) without having points on the surface where the field vanishes. In addition to the cusps, where the field converges and then takes a dive, there must be points where the field lines in the neighborhood are hyperbolic.
If you think I'm wrong, just try to draw a picture of the field lines around 4 or 5 of those whiffle ball holes.
Dr. Carlson;

I don't know exactly what to say, but we have run Gauss meters all over the face of the cubes and through the corners and we don't see any low field regions. The fields peak near the conductors and fall off near the coil centers, as you would expect.  If you can identify where you think the field will vanish, we can measure it and see next time we break vacuum.
How are they proposing to use the energy generated once they get past the break-even point?  Steam or liquid metal turbines?  Some MHD-coupled system?  Enriching uranium and using it in a fission power plant?

(And, speaking of neutrons, any progress on avoiding neutron damage to the vessel?  Maybe you just have to make the inmost parts cheaply enough and find a decent place to dump their radioactive bad selves when they're shot.)
"How are they proposing to use the energy generated once they get past the break-even point?"

Hopefully, it will be possible to fuse boron-11 with hydrogen in a nearly aneutronic reaction (electrostatic fusion schemes conveniently avoid much of the unwanted reactions that thermal fusion schemes would run into in trying to do aneutronic fusion).  That would allow for a nice clean direct conversion of alphas into DC current with much lower losses than steam turbines or other heat-driven cycles, and avoids the neutron problems.  OTOH, it also introduces new problems like alpha sputtering, brem, and of course the issues involved with getting to much the higher p-b11 fusion energies in the first place.  

The first net power Polywell reactor would most likely fuse d-d and have a thermal generation cycle using turbines or whatnot, because d-d is much lower energy and therefore easier to do.  

There's been a good bit of discussion on the mechanics of how alpha conversion might be accomplished over at Talk-Polywell, as well as some back-of-envelope calculations on neutron shielding for a d-d Polywell (iirc, they were thinking a relatively thin layer of boron would work).

"The peak fields for the reactor designs (at least for our reactor designs) are in the 5-10 T range"

Taking a magnetic field of 8 T and a (perpendicular) deuteron energy of 100 keV, I get a gyroradius of 8 mm. In a machine of radius 1.5 to 2 m, the ions will be highly magnetized. Is this now considered unimportant? What about Krall's calculation of the deflection of an ion falling in to the center?

Taking again 8 T and adding the assumption of a high beta plasma with T = 100 keV (perhaps being sloppy with factors on the order of unity), I get a density of 1.6e23 m^-3, and a Debye length of 6 nm. That suggests to me that the plasma strongly fulfills quasi-neutrality, so that it is a dangerous proposition to consider electron and ion transport separately. An MHD picture would be more appropriate, like in a tokamak.

---

"The fields peak near the conductors and fall off near the coil centers, as you would expect."

I am making two claims.

(1) The field must be radial at the midpoints of the sides of the cube. I assume you either see this or haven't checked yet. I believe that the field will be smaller there than at the corners, in which case these points will be more important for electrons losses than the corners. What relative field strengths are actually observed?

(2) The picture of a wiffle ball cannot be accurate. "Whiffle ball" suggests a spherical, high-beta plasma, surrounded by a low beta magnetic field, with the exception of a small number of "holes" where the field lines converge and become radial. But what happens at the midpoints of the sides of the cubes? The tangential field must vanish by symmetry, so they can be neither part of the solid ball, nor can they be holes.
It's good to see some heterogeny in approach to the fusion problem. Putting all of our eggs in one basket--even if it's particularly well built, like ITER--seems to be a route that has greater risks in the long run than the risk of expending a comparative drop in the bucket in money to test an innovative approach that's scientifically possible--if not probable--and has captured a lot of relative interest from the public. And it isn't based on the sort of pathological, unfalsifiable, fuzzy science like the "cold fusion" hype was.

Besides, if the Polywell never reaches Q >= 1, the neutron flux from a D-T or D-D Polywell will surely be enough to speed up the work of IFMIF. And, if the Polywell performs well, the MFE scientists have a body of knowledge and techniques that will help make it into a commercial success--heck, if the Polywell works, we could probably still afford to pursue ITER, even as a pure science experiment.
Did you take into account the electrons pushing back the magnetic field, as described by rnebel above, in terms of the ions being impinged by the magnetic field?

I think those midpoints of the sides are just more cusps.  Bussard mentions that prior to building WB-6, he tried putting repeller plates at all the cusps.  He did this with two machines, PXL-1 and WB-5.  In the pictures of those machiens, you can see there are repellers at the midpoints of the sides.
Ah, here we go:

"In any realistic device, the effective overall trapping factor is reduced from the pure WB mode by circulation through the semi-line-cusps at the spaced corners, which allow much greater throughflow per unit area than through the point cusps of the polyhedral faces."

http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf
Art Carlson:

The push back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmp1cg3-WDY
Thank you, TallDave, for finding the reference on "semi-line-cusps". I take that as confirmation of my contention that "The picture of a wiffle ball cannot be accurate." On the other hand, Bussard was clearly aware of the issue, even though he continued to talk in terms of whiffle balls and draw pictures of them. The more accurate picture seems to be a point cusp on each face of the cube and line cusps along all the edges. (These are really lines, not just additional points.) Whether Bussard's estimates of losses through the line cusps is reasonable is beyond my ken.
Dr. Carlson:

The 8 mm gyroradius isn't a big deal since few of the ions will ever access that region of the device.In the middle the gyroradius is infinite which is where the ions spend their time.
The plasma is quasi-neutral (but not neutral) and the particle losses are ambipolar.  MHD is not a good idea (just like it isn't for a Field Reversed Configuration) becasue there is a field null at r=0 and the wuiffle-ball effect (expansion of the plasma against the field) makes this low field region fill almos the entire plasma.  Besides, the field line curvature is good everywhere so MHD stability isn't an issue.
I don't have the field magnitudes from the edge vs. the center of the coils at my fingertips, but the ratio of the field at the cusps in the corners vs. the cusps in the faces is about a factor of 2.
As for the midpoints on the faces of the cubes, since the adjacent conductors have currents in opposite directions they add between the conductors.  Between the conductors should be the strongest fields in the entire system.
Art,

Always glad to be of some use.

"The more accurate picture seems to be a point cusp on each face of the cube and line cusps along all the edges"

Bussard seemed to think the semi-line cusps lines were very small.  Here's his estimate, and case for calling it a "Wiffle-Ball."

"The highest value that can be reached by electron density is when this ratio equals unity; further density increases simply “blow out“ the escape hole in each cusp. And, low values of this parameter prevent the attainment of cusp confinement, leaving only Gmr, mirror trapping. When beta = unity is achieved, it is possible to greatly increase trapped electron density by modest increase in B field strength, for given current drive. At this condition, the electrons inside the quasi-sphere “see“ small exit holes on the B cusp axes, whose size is 1.5-2 times their gyro radius at that energy and field strength. Thus they will bounce back and forth within the sphere, until such a —hole“ is encountered on some bounce. This is like a ball bearing bouncing around within a perforated spherical shell, similar to the toy called the “Wiffle Ball“. Thus, this has been called Wiffle Ball (WB) confinement, with a trapping factor Gwb (ratio of electron lifetime with trapping to that with no trapping)."
The term wiffleball comes from theory and from the original invention.  WB6 (or WB7 for that matter) are not exact incarnations of the invention.  You have to look at Bussard's Patent to understand this.  Rather than individual coils, he envisioned an interconnected "MaGrid" wound in a particular way such that the fields run in opposite directions around adjacent holes in the grid.  It is fundamental to his invention that only certain shapes work for this because of the NEED to have fields acting addatively and no zero fields.

BTW... Bussard did mock up the "patent configuration of the coils" in two devices : MPG-1 and MPG-2.  They worked too and did DD.  Check the bottom of page 10 here http://www.emc2fusion.org/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf

I haven't seen why this configuration is not the one being tested at larger sizes.  My assumption is that it is because of difficulty or cost in construction but there may be some other technical reason.  The difference between WB6/7 and MPG-1/2 to me is the presence of line cusps in the former and the absence of them in the latter.

But, as long as you get adequate recirculation of electrons lost to the cusps either should work.  
Art Carlson,
Has rnebel convinced you that it is OK to daydream about polywell fusion, or do you still know too much?

As Willy Wonka once said, "you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about."
Nebel's answers have not changed my mind, but they are interesting enough to keep me talking. I think, however, that http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=3 is a more appropriate and more convenient forum. Anyone who wants to follow this discussion should move over there.
We have been spending about $1 Billion/year since the 1950 on hot fusion.  Even with the New Reactor being built in France (price tag $13 Billion), and the effort of 10,000 physicists, they don't expect anything useful until 2040 their numbers not mine. What is frustrating is that their is a solution today, and it has been used in some utility companies for over 50 years to supply electricity to millions of homes. It has been calculated that there is enough of this energy to supply the entire world for the next 10,000 years. The energy I am talking about is geo-thermal.  It is also a 100% green technology.  I believe it is not aggressively pursued because it is not cool or sexy you won't win a Novel prize, you can't make weapons from it, and you can't fly to the moon with it.

!!!!! BUT YOU CAN SAVE OUR PLANET AND YOUR LIFE!!!!!

Just my humble opinion.

Respectfully,

Mino
"geez I hate to see these kinds of arguments, it really shows how awful physics and math education is in the US today!

No, and I've heard these 'arguments' stated vehemently before.  here's a retort:  if what you were saying were true, then a fission bomb, the N bomb would take the energy of an N bomb to detonate, which is nonsense."

Talking about electrolysis and combustion not fusion/fission. The concept of separating a compound into its component elements or bonding elements is not an e=mc2 concept.

"So, the same goes for hydrogen released from water.  Nowhere does the law of conservation state that the amount of energy you can get from burning hydrogen must be less than the energy it took to break the chemical bonds."

You are wrong. In the closed system. The work needed to separate the water into its component elements is  equivalent to the work that is returned by bringing those elements back together (creating pressure), either in separate components or all together as water again.

Against the kinetic gain there is loss of energy to heat from the explosion and friction of the piston. So the energy gained from the piston is always less.

Just because the process is explosive doesn't mean its greater in magnitude. It just means the work being done happens in a shorter amount of time. Which creates the illusion that drives the assumption.

Btw polywell for the win- Bussard was a Tesla of our age!
Thanks for having the discussion, Art.  I always learn something from your comments, and it's good to get these issues out in a public forum.

I hope I speak for everyone at Talk-Polywell when I say your criticisms and skepticism would be welcome there as well.
This looks very promising.  We NEED to find some viable alternative and quickly.  I wish more people knew about this technology.
Dr. Dautartas,

It may interest you to know Dr. Bussard would have agreed with you.  Geothermal is one energy source he felt we should be exploiting more.  The closer the energy is to the surface, the stronger the argument.

There are some limits to the rate at which we can pull energy from hot rocks.  Like many other resources, you can't be greedy.  But otherwise, it is hard to see a downside to geothermal considering present alternatives.
I have heard the argument for using Geo-Thermal based energy before but would tapping Geo-Thermal not lead to cooling of earths core in some way?  You would be tapping vast amounts of heat and eventually one might consider what the impact would be by taking this approach.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1136887

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google