Fusion quest goes forward

vernon bagwell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:45:09 GMT

please dont let some greedy party or organization get control of this. Let this be a blessing for mankind in general.

Fusion quest goes forward

Chris McCoy, Los Angeles, Ca — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:01:03 GMT

I don't think many realize how far Robert Bussard had taken this elegant design of his. There was an article in Analog a few years back that really explained the nuts and bolts. The system does fuse, the only question is how big one has to build it to get a positive energy return on energy investment (break even). This reactor model WB-7 was estimated to be on the bubble as far as break-even. If they have in fact got above the break-even point with this model of the reactor, it will literally change the world in just a few short years and make Broussard the next Tesla. It will also make a whole lot of people screwing around with Tokamak's look really foolish.

Fusion quest goes forward

Dane S. , Bothell, WA — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:26:52 GMT

I have at least 50 more years to live (under normal conditions) and I am confident that I will get to see amazing things like this take shape and change humanity forever.

Fusion quest goes forward

Tom Billings, Portland, Oregon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:09:06 GMT

In studying Dr. Bussard's articles and patents, one can get a good idea of the physical principles. From this I was able to build a Polywell model in Second Life, but without the details that would be desirable. It would be a good thing if more detail about the WB-7 and the possible WB-8 were available, beyond those beautiful pictures on Emc2's website.

So, Alan? How good are you, at wheedling physicists? If your next article had some more diagrams, it would be even better! Of course, hearing that the evaluation panel, with Dr. Hirsch onboard, has approved the engineering development, would be better in the long term, but, ...drawings??, .....sometime this summer???

Who?! Me?? Impatient????

Fusion quest goes forward

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:11:23 GMT

Alan,

Thanks for covering this. High hopes indeed.

You can go here to get some background:

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/05/worlds-simplest-fusion-reactor.html

and here for discussion:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php

Fusion quest goes forward

rj40 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:16:21 GMT

Alan thanks for the update. What is it about this project that makes you want to cover it? I don’t think you believe this is another cold fusion situation, otherwise I don’t think you would bother with it. What do you see in it?

Fusion quest goes forward

Jim Parrish, Clifton, Texas — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:18:34 GMT

Very Glad to see this. You People have a right to be proud. Now just don't let big business buy it from you and lock it way somewhere. Congratulations!

Fusion quest goes forward

Tom Ligon, Manassas, VA. — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:02:04 GMT

We've been on pins and needles waiting for news and hoping the silence the last few weeks was not due to a technical problem (I had a couple of WB machines cook their coils on me).

This is wonderful news ... "runs like a top"!

Fusion quest goes forward

Peter Quintin Pepperell Ma — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:28:29 GMT

Great.another novel energy solution.
I saw a guy on the news that's running his car on water and giving any profits from his device to his ministry. How about that free energy machine on the internet or lets get the oil companies to give back the planes for those 100MPG carburetors that they bought and suppressed. Cheep fusion Ha Ha Ha!!! I'm adding that to my funny list.

Fusion quest goes forward

Richard Blair, Tyler, TX — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:51:37 GMT

I'm not anything close to a physicist, but Dr. Bussard had the credentials to at least give it some serious consideration. Check out his video on Google.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=brusard&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#q=fusion&sitesearch=
Good to see someone's continuing on with his work.

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:56:21 GMT

Great news! Thanks to Alan Boyle for the article and Dr. Nebel for the update.

"This reactor model WB-7 was estimated to be on the bubble as far as break-even."

Sorry, no, it's not even close. Like WB-6, it produces something around .001 watts of fusion. Still very promising though, esp. for what it costs.

Fusion quest goes forward

underWhelmed, Montgomery AL — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:14:59 GMT

Gosh Peter, I bet you don't believe man-kind really went to the moon either now do you buddy?

Actually, for your information you CAN run a car by burning Hydroxy gas (OH and H mixed) which is made by electrolyzing water but not separating the gases. It burns VERY hot and very fast and there is a rust issue, but it is possible and dedicated people have in fact done it. It isn't rocket science. You might want to check your facts prior to opening your mouth or at least wash your foot since you will probably be chewing on it.

My educated opinion.

Fusion quest goes forward

Sam — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:26:51 GMT

If I won the megamillions lottery tomorrow you would have a check for $10 million by the end of the week. I can't believe you cannot get more funding for this to see how much potential there truly is. You should have access to more resources and people immediately.

Thank you for doing this.

Fusion quest goes forward

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:45:27 GMT

This fusion story has been going on for decades. We grew up with this. There is something very odd about it all. The physics of Bussard must have been known for at least the time of the tokamak. Which is a long time.

Fusion quest goes forward

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:59:20 GMT

Thanks Alan for the update. Contrary to the naysayers this is merely another machine in a series of experimental machines that have shown promising signs of good ion-control and some fusion - real fusion, the kind that makes neutron detectors sparkle. Someone will someday get it right and change the world - I'm hoping it's Nebel and colleagues, and someone in the USA is the first to benefit. But I hope that first fusion fire spreads to the whole world - because we desparately need what cheap fusion can give us.

Fusion quest goes forward

TBlakely — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:47:47 GMT

Lol, if this doesn't pan out I'm sure some will blame Big Oil.

Fusion quest goes forward

Mike Rosing, Madision Wi — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:25:33 GMT

Thanks Alan! I definitely want to hear more updates on this experiment.

Fusion quest goes forward

eddie, Portland, Oregon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:39:02 GMT

I can't tell you how excited I am that something new might be developed and implemented during my lifetime that doesn't involve phones, playing virtual solitaire, or television. Workable, affordable fusion might even make up for the glaring absence of robot butlers and flying cars.

Fusion quest goes forward

Matt Musson, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:12:16 GMT

Dr Bussard's data suggested that commercial fusion was within reach. But, if his readings were off just a little it would have a huge impact on the size the scaled up model would need to be.

If this model validates his research, aneutronic fusion would appear to be practical. It would mean an almost limitless supply of energy at a fraction of current costs with no radioactive byproducts.

Fusion quest goes forward

JPS — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:25:27 GMT

underWhelmed,

Hydroxy gas? How long do you suppose OH and H, mixed, would remain as such before recombining? What concentrations of OH and H can be generated in the gas phase, and what are their half-lives at those concentrations? Why don't the H radicals combine to make H2? What experimental evidence is there that "hydroxy gas" is actually a mixture of radicals, and not just the standard mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that you get when you electrolyze water? Has its magnetic susceptibility been measured? Should be paramagnetic as hell, if it's what the inventors claim.

Wait...never mind. Don't bother answering those questions. Just answer me this:

Start with water. Turn it into something else--doesn't matter, could be anything else in the world. Now turn that back into water. How are you getting energy out?

They're running the car off the battery, in a very indirect, Rube Goldberg sort of way.

Incidentally, if I believed that electrolysis could turn water into "hydroxy gas" on the basis of no evidence but combustibility, I'd be a little more careful before getting all condescending toward others.

Fusion quest goes forward

Jeff Peachman, Ann Arbor, MI — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:30:41 GMT

I've been keeping track of this for years (Starting with Tom Ligon's article in Analog, and it looks like he commented just above!)

It is my every hope that WB-7 pleases the DOD enough for funding, and that WB-8 reaches breakeven. Good luck, Dr. Nebel!

Fusion quest goes forward

Jason, IA — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:32:37 GMT

To Underwelmed, sorry but no.

Conservation of energy says that it will always take at least as much energy to split the water as you will get out of the hydrogen when you burn it. In reality, you will get much much less, since the efficency of an internal combustion engine is somewhere around 25%.

You would be much better off just to run an electric engine directly off the battery that you're using to split the water in the first place. If it worked like you say, I could set up a generator and an engine and get free power forever.

Fusion quest goes forward

Rod B--- Elkton MD. — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:34:05 GMT

Please stay on top of this and give us regular updates. I believe our reliance on oil and the mideast security problems that this generates for us, constitutes every bit as much of a national security concern, as existed when the Fission Manhattan Project was organized. I believe there is a reason for the government to sponsor a Manhattan Project 2, which would focus as much attention and resources as the original project did. I believe that if that were done, the needed breakthrough could occur, and the entire middle east could become largely irrelevant again. With a plummeting price of oil, wealth would shift OUT of that region, as it becomes a group of consumer states, without the ability to sustain themselves above the level of "normal" second world countries... with this loss in wealth... their ability to threaten the west would be significantly reduced. We NEED to focus national attention on the near-term attainment of cold fusion. Please support that national interest.

Fusion quest goes forward

Rob Cain, England — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:40:31 GMT

Cant wait to see results of review later in the Summer - Roll-On Dr Nebel & Co - please don't blow up this one! :)

Fusion quest goes forward

willis — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:30:53 GMT

"please dont let some greedy party or organization get control of this. Let this be a blessing for mankind in general."

Hey Vernon, you were born too late. You missed out on the people's paradise that was the Soviet Union.

Fusion quest goes forward

Stephane Vienneau — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:41:31 GMT

Well, underwhelm, anybody living on this planet knows that, with these honest governments of ours, they will be looking at their and their friends' pockets first (oil companies). We all know we wont be allowed cheap energy as long as they can prevent it. And they still can for quite some time.....

They would rather use taxpayers' money to buy these inventions and then discredit them after it's theirs or simply lock it away, but the technology exists.

It's so much better for them with the easily controlled oil prices where they can dig really deep into our pockets.

Fusion quest goes forward

Bob — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:47:04 GMT

If this is possible I feel that the United States of America should keep this as a top secert source of power for ourself and our country. Let the oil rich nations blow to dust, for they NEVER did us any favories. Oil trading at $130 a barrel is draining all our wealth and man power and will most likely lead us to more wars in the near future. Russia, China, and the hatefilled neihbors in the near east can all choke on their high price oil.

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:17:44 GMT

It's fun to daydream, isn't it? And it's easy, too, as long as you don't know too much.

There's more reasons than you can shake a stick at that this won't work. For starters, you can forget about aneutronic fusion. It's not just the temperature, Bremstrahlung is almost to certain radiate more energy than you produce by fusion no matter how good your confinement is. Even if you somehow manage to get a decent power balance, for a given plasma pressure and fusion power, a p-B11 reactor would have to be about 1000 times bigger (and more expensive) than a corresponding D-T reactor.

The next thing to worry about is the electrons. The magnetic configuration has not only lines of radial field from the center to the edge, which is bad enough judging from the experience with mirror machines, it also has lines of *zero* field along which the electrons will gush out. The idea of recycling electrons lost through the cusps won't work because they will come out almost parallel to the field but hit the return cusp with a large perpendicular velocity component they picked up going around the bend.

And the ions? The device is conceived to utilize a bi-modal velocity distribution, which will be destroyed very quickly by the two-stream instability. The anisotropy of the velocity distribution is also know to be a big problem, again from experience in the mirror program.

We haven't even started to talk about energy loss to the grids, the consequences of tiny field misalignments, charge-exchange ion losses, energy coupling between electrons and ions, and whether the potential distribution envisioned is even possible at a non-trivial ion density.

Since they managed to sweet talk somebody into giving them money, let them finish and publish their results, but let's not stop looking for ways to save energy and trying to develop other, less sexy but more reliable energy sources.

Fusion quest goes forward

Neil Ferguson, Yuma, AZ — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:24:29 GMT

Satan is in the specifics. Very limited initial tests are encouraging, but there are fundamental properties of the principles they are trying to use that could preclude energy or economic break-even anytime soon.

For example, the magnets that surround and form the reaction area must use super-cooled superconductors. But the magnet housings will have to absorb and drain off 20% of gross nuclear output as heat. As rated output goes up, the heating problem increases exponentially.

I'd say be hopeful that the science is possible to engineer, but the odds are still rather long.

Fusion quest goes forward

Dr. Roger E. Billings — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:25:10 GMT

This project deservers everyone's support, if not on the basis of proven merit at this point, then on the basis of its potential. Good luck Richard and team - we are all counting on you...

Fusion quest goes forward

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:49:11 GMT

The sooner we can get this working, the faster we can everyone in the third world less dependant on major countries like the U.S. for technology and some supplies and energy for development projects. They can then compete for technology development projects and manufacturing plants from major companies. This would also speed the devlopment of electric cars since we could run them off the electrical outlet from home.

Fusion quest goes forward

seedload, cherry hill, new jersey — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:59:19 GMT

"Running like a top"
"... very pleased, frankly, with the things we have been getting out of it"
"We're fully operational and we're getting data"

Can those quotes be read any other way than that they are getting neutrons and he is please with the numbers?

Fusion quest goes forward

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:11:37 GMT

"please dont let some greedy party or organization get control of this. Let this be a blessing for mankind in general."

and...

"They would rather use taxpayers' money to buy these inventions and then discredit them after it's theirs or simply lock it away, but the technology exists."

Not to worry. Too many people know about it, and if it works, only a modest technical capability is needed to re-create it, not a Manhattan or Apollo Project.

Remember, the downside of 'hidden' technologies is that you can't fall back on patent protection if someone else independently discovers it, for a patent requires admitting it exists, and it eventually expires, anyway.

And even so, there are plenty of energy-hungry places that ignore intellectual property rights when it suits them. (China?)

Fusion quest goes forward

rnebel — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:17:51 GMT

Just a few comments for Mr. Carlson

1. The theory says that you can beat Bremstrahlung, but it's a challenge. The key is to keep the Boron concentration low compared the proton concentration so Z isn’t too bad. You pay for it in power density, but there is an optimum which works. You also gain because the electron energies are low in the high density regions.

2. The size arguments apply for machines where confinement is limited by cross-field diffusion like Tokamaks. They don't apply for electrostatic machines.

3. The Polywell doesn't have any lines of zero field. Take a look at the original papers on the configuration. See :
Bussard R.W., FusionTechnology, Vol. 19, 273, (1991) .
or
Krall N.A., Fusion Technology. Vol. 22, 42 (1992).

Furthermore, one expects adiabatic behavior along the field lines external to the device. Thus, what goes out comes back in. Phase space scattering is small because the density is small external to the device.

4. The machine does not use a bi-modal velocity distribution. We have looked at two-stream in detail, and it is not an issue for this machine. The most definitive treatise on the ions is : L. Chacon, G. H. Miley, D. C. Barnes, D. A. Knoll, Phys. Plasmas 7, 4547 (2000) which concluded partially relaxed ion distributions work just fine. Furthermore, the Polywell doesn’t even require ion convergence to work (unlike most other electrostatic devices). It helps, but it isn’t a requirement.

5. The system doesn’t have grids. It has magnetically insulated coil cases to provide the electrostatic acceleration. That’s what keeps the losses tolerable.

6. The electrostatic potential well is an issue. Maintaining it depends on the detailed particle balance. The “knobs” that affect it are the electron confinement time, the ion confinement time, and the electron injection current. There are methods of controlling all of these knobs.

Fusion quest goes forward

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:31:20 GMT

Art,

Thanks for an almost verbatim summary from IEC's hot-fusion critics. But, fortunately, most of your criticisms don't apply to this particular configuration - as Bussard and colleagues managed to show before his passing. So mock on... I hope you have a tasty supply of hats.

Fusion quest goes forward

Joe D Kingsley, Moab, UT — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:37:19 GMT

ALL the above comments about big business buying new technology and 'hiding away' when it could impact their current model is VERY REAL! My consulting firm has seen this happen more than once! I hope you are able to remain immune to this threat.

Fusion quest goes forward

Redd Green — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:15:15 GMT

"...Conservation of energy says that it will always take at least as much energy to split the water as you will get out of the hydrogen when you burn it. In reality, you will get much much less, since the efficency of an internal combustion engine is somewhere around 25%. ..."

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.

The conservation of energy law states that the total amount of energy in a closed system can't increase or decrease. It can, however, change forms. Energy is a particularly dense form of energy. We've proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt (for some anyway), that we can manipulate matter in such a way, that we can get large amounts of energy out, much more than we put in, e.g. the N bomb.

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. What it does state is that, the total energy in the system, which is very difficult to measure, must be constant. So, you may transform H2 into some amount of energy, by burning it, and have to put in some energy to break the bond, and a little more energy to start combustion. The amount of energy you get back from the combustion is not dependent on the strength of the bond (if it were, then an N bomb would not work, nor would a nuclear fission reactor).

And it absolutely does not state that:
"You would be much better off just to run an electric engine directly off the battery that you're using to split the water in the first place. If it worked like you say, I could set up a generator and an engine and get free power forever"

No! You're mixing up several issues. First, it takes energy to start the process. (Just like it takes energy to start a fission reaction). Youget some energy out, more than you put in. Then, the fuel is exhausted, and, well, the thing stops. The issue of internal combustion engines efficiency is totally irrelevant to the "conservation of energy" discussion.

Fusion quest goes forward

Redd Green — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:17:51 GMT

Re
"I've been keeping track of this for years (Starting with Tom Ligon's article in Analog, and it looks like he commented just above!)
It is my every hope that WB-7 pleases the DOD enough for funding, and that WB-8 reaches breakeven. Good luck, Dr. Nebel!"

You can be guaranteed that it will be classified and tossed into the vault if it ever does produce positive returns.

Fusion quest goes forward

Redd Green — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:21:27 GMT

"If this is possible I feel that the United States of America should keep this as a top secert source of power for ourself and our country. Let the oil rich nations blow to dust, for they NEVER did us any favories. Oil trading at $130 a barrel is draining all our wealth and man power and will most likely lead us to more wars in the near future. Russia, China, and the hatefilled neihbors in the near east can all choke on their high price oil"

We could just use less of it (oil), to start with, until something working comes out. There's *absolutely* no reason to drain wealth from this country, except that the big oil companies want it that way.

Fusion quest goes forward

Jason, Camarillo, CA — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:42:14 GMT

To everyone attacking what Underwhelmed said, I'd like to point out that he or she only said that the car successfully ran on hydroxy gas. Underwhelmed didn't say anything about if the gas was made on-board the vehicle or not, and didn't say anything about if how energy efficient or economically efficient the process is.

To anyone talking about the oil companies with respect to this technology, this is going to be a large electrical generator if it ever becomes feasible. It won't be a replacement for oil, it will be a replacement for coal, and to a lesser extent natural gas and uranium. The big corporations responsible for electricity distribution wouldn't let a technology like this get surpressed, they'd welcome it. Lower costs for them means an opportunity for better margins on the bottom line.

Fusion quest goes forward

PJ-----Pikeville, Ky. — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:57:07 GMT

Being on this Earth with the likes of these forward looking geniuses of today....I can easily imagine a future so like science fiction of yesterday. I consider it an honor to have this forum to thank the scientists of this project for their work, which I am so sure will be the mainstay of energy for my children and their's. May the world have respect for the few, for without them, we would be doomed to live forever in the age of ignorance.

Fusion quest goes forward

Markus g, Stockholm, Sweden — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:49:01 GMT

Riddle me this: Oil is 5-10 times as expensive as coal, 2-4 times as expensive as gas, 50-100 times more expensive than yellowcake(non-breeder); why on Earth are we using oil for transportation and not any of these other sources or electricity derived from them?

The answer seems obvious to me; gasoline is nice and portable with a high energy density; it is clean enough to be used in a city and the machinery required to use it is compact.

So why on Earth would "big oil" be worried about cheaper electric power? We'll be using oil for plastics, airplanes, cars and industrial feedstocks for many decades to come.

Ramping up production of batteries, syn-fuels(if I had to pick I'd say anhydrous ammonia looks fairly promising) or any other replacement will necessarily take decades; there's no way around that. And even if automotive users go away there's still plenty of people who want oil, not energy, for producing a vast assortment of plastics, drugs, pesticides, flavourings, solvents, glue and many other useful things. If anyone is worried it's coal miners.

Fusion quest goes forward

Alex — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:30:48 GMT

Don't keep your hopes too high.

Dr. Bussard already spent more then $20M of government money and more then 20 years of his life trying to make this thing work.

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:07:13 GMT

Presumably correct, Alex. Now, compare that to the time and money spent on 'mainstream' fusion approaches, for not much better results so far...

Even if it doesn't quite pan out, we will still have learned something useful, for a relative drop in the bucket.

Fusion quest goes forward

Jen F. Usher, Dillwyn, VA — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:00 GMT

Great to learn that Fusion R&D is moving Forward...

Fusion quest goes forward

Barbara Lamb — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:33:19 GMT

In any nuclear or even water experiment you use a small amount of energy to release a form of energy from the sample that in turn sets off a chain reaction within the matter/gas whatever and if the reaction lasts long enough you get more power out than you put in.

The use of water to boost the energy output of a reciprocating engine is not new. The U.S. used water injection in fighter aircraft during world war two to boost engine horse power during emergency power needs but the engines didn't last long after the use due to the tempuratures and pressures within the engines. Water turns to steam making super heated steam and beyond.

Fusion quest goes forward

william fielding — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:51:02 GMT

Sounds like another crock of apple pie
in the sky to me. Just like visitors from
another world in a ufo. All the evidence
supporting either one would fit on the
point of the finest needle ever

Fusion quest goes forward

Charles Queen, Somerset,KY — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:13:41 GMT

If this works and funding is given the go ahead it would be great. A cheap and viable source for power instead of nuclear power. The space propulsion possibility's are also a very large plus

Fusion quest goes forward

Larry S, Reno, NV — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:06:33 GMT

In the late 1950s I was given a book titled "PROJECT SHERWOOD - The United States Program for Controlled Fusion"

FIFTY YEARS AGO they knew about the Tokamak or torus confinment design.

If President Carter had instituted a "Manhattan Project" type program to create a fusion powerplant "within a decade", we would not be dependant on greenhouse gas fuels now. President Bush could insure his (?) legacy (?) by doing this now.

I wonder how much of the resistance to Nuclear Energy and lack of funding for research has been fomented by the BIG Oil and Coal Companies ? ? ? ? ?

Fusion quest goes forward

Kevin Bottorff — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:15:59 GMT

sorry but the water use in WW2 aircraft was injected to suppress detinion in the cyl due to to low of an octane for the compression ratio. no energy was used from the water. KB

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:23:27 GMT

"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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Harley T, Grants Pass OR — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:04:36 GMT

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)

Fusion quest goes forward

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:34:17 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

ICouldBeWrong — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:11:13 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Prometheus — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:32:00 GMT

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...

Fusion quest goes forward

Robert Horning — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:53:58 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

CM, Modesto, CA — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:14:00 GMT

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)

Fusion quest goes forward

Chris S. F.Kent, Maine — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:55:16 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:54:42 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:08:11 GMT

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.)

Fusion quest goes forward

Dennis, Richmond VA — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:03:50 GMT

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?

Fusion quest goes forward

rnebel — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:07:51 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Carl, Orange CA — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:10:19 GMT

I really hope this technology works! In the mean time I'm going to go grill up some burgers on my saltwater/soundwave BBQ.

Fusion quest goes forward

seedload — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:11:37 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Greg, Bellows Falls, VT — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:33:06 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:16:43 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

rnebel — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:16:07 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:45:42 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Tom Ligon, Manassas, VA — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:09:18 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Matt W, Utica, NY. — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:38:20 GMT

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'.

Fusion quest goes forward

Steve Schaper, Rochester, Minn. — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:20:04 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Tom Ligon — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:24:40 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Ted Marr, Providence, RI — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07:00 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Seedload, Cherry Hill, NJ — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:38:07 GMT

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

Fusion quest goes forward

Jesse Nice, Port Orchard WA — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:18:47 GMT

Thanks, Art.

It's pleasing when someone lines up all the major objections in one place so Dr. Nebel can top-rope them.

Fusion quest goes forward

Dennis Moore — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:09:27 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:23:07 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

seedload, Cherry Hill, NJ — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:35:34 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

rnebel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:19:47 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:25:18 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

rnebel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:32:22 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Darby Clash — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:01:41 GMT

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.)

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:09:37 GMT

"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).

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:51:05 GMT

"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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Dave S., Amherst, MA — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:34:12 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:08:44 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:19:24 GMT

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

Fusion quest goes forward

Roger — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:27:44 GMT

Art Carlson:

The push back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmp1cg3-WDY

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:20:14 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

rnebel — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:07:21 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:46:32 GMT

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)."

Fusion quest goes forward

seedload — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:29:23 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Charlie Bucket — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:23:56 GMT

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."

Fusion quest goes forward

Art Carlson, Munich, Germany — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:48:55 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Dr. Mino Dautartas, Blacksburg, VA — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:46:54 GMT

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

Fusion quest goes forward

Fan of Fusion — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:43:42 GMT

"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!

Fusion quest goes forward

TallDave — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:16:29 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

Greg in Seattle — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:51:49 GMT

This looks very promising. We NEED to find some viable alternative and quickly. I wish more people knew about this technology.

Fusion quest goes forward

Tom Ligon, Manassas, VA — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:35:17 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

joe citizen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:06:19 GMT

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.

Fusion quest goes forward

joe citizen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:14:35 GMT

I also wanted to say thanks to Dr. Nebel for his contribution to the Polywell project and for getting on here posting and explaining stuff. Ive been following Polywell fusion for about the last year or so and I hope you guys can make it happen. The world would be a better place if you could. Just thought I would let you know there are people out there who appreciate your efforts.

Fusion quest goes forward

Tom Ligon — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:12:19 GMT

Joe Citizen,

Geothermal only taps heat leaking out of the mantle and into the crust. It is unlikely we could drill more than about 2 miles deep.

What geothermal definitely does do is drop the temperature of the rocks in the immediate vicinity. It simply stops working if you are greedy. The Earth is giving up this heat at a fixed rate, geothermal simply exploits the leaks.

On a large enough scale, the consequences might include alterations of crust plasticity and dynamics.

Fusion quest goes forward

Jeff Denver, CO — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:59:17 GMT

On a large enough scale, the consequences might include alterations of crust plasticity and dynamics.

Thanks Tom I'm glad you commented on that. They don't seem to understand that taking heat out of the planet is not as good of an idea as it seems at fist. Heck, if they use too much geothermal we would have to start burning fossil fuels to warm the planet back up. Where did I put that '69 Camero...

I think once they get this working, and I believe it is close, I'm going to build one in my garage and hook it up to my Lifter. Talk about fun!

I've only just recently started reading up on this and it's great. I saw a show on TV about the sun and how the magnetic fields get twisted and can store huge amounts of energy. When I listed to Dr. Bussard's explination of why he removed the grid from this design it all made sense. One of the things people don't talk about much when they mention how many tries it took for Edison to find the right filament to make a light bulb work is that it still took a while for him to get one that lasted any length of time. He had to make another change, something about secondary vacuum, before it would run for any real length of time. I think this is what Bussard did by removing the grid.

Fusion quest goes forward

James Anderson Merritt — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:24:43 GMT

Above, some people expressed the hope that this research stays alive and doesn't fall into the hands of those who might bury or otherwise abuse it.

I noticed a "donate" button at the EMC2 website (http://www.emc2fusion.org/), and put $5 toward their promising experimental work. If thousands or millions of people could kick in just a few dollars each, this would ensure that EMC2 had core funding to see the proof-of-concept experiments through without worrying about whether the Navy or some politically controlled government agency will continue to pay the bills, and without having to look for venture-capital with strings attached.

If 1 million people see this article and each donates just five dollars, EMC2 will have over twice the budget of the current project, which seems to offer a lot better odds at making one's own world a better place than buying five lottery tickets. How many people reading this article buy lottery tickets once a month? Once a week? I'm just sayin'...

Fusion quest goes forward

Curtis Lacy, Snohomish, WA — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:54:00 GMT

We all wait patiently for results from the tiny, underfunded team. My own hope is that Dr. Bussard's calculation of the scaling properties of the polywell design are indeed correct, and that all that is needed now is to build a big enough machine, and break-even will be surpassed. Our best wishes go to Dr. Nebel and all the team.

To those who are discussing the burning of HHO in cars: this is the wrong forum for that discussion, but one brief comment -- the claim is not that net energy is derived from splitting the water molecule and letting it recombine. Rather, the energy gain comes from the effect of hydrogen in the air-fuel mixture. Do some surfing on the topic of hydrogen-added fuel systems. The advocates claim that the hydrogen acts like kindling in a fireplace, producing even burning (no pinging), more complete combustion, smoother operation, ... The water-splitting is only a means of providing on-demand hydrogen, instead of having to store it in a tank. Watch Popular Mechanics for Mike Miller's report on his actual test of one of these devices. If there is value in it, I think he will report truthfully.

Fusion quest goes forward

James — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:57:20 GMT

I'd love to donate but my card (from outside of the US) clearly doesn't work. What other way can we support such a promising solution to space travel and the world's resources distribution crisis?

Fusion quest goes forward

Whitney V, Cherokee, North Carolina — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:38:10 GMT

I'm a senior working on my senior project, adn it is on Nuclear Energy of the Future. I have been following Dr. Bussard's work with my science teacher for a little over a year sadly it came to an end with him. If anyone has info on that can help me please e-mail me at caroline3223@yahoo.com. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Fusion quest goes forward

Remy Dyer — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:50:31 GMT

This reactor is a remarkably simple electromagnetic device. Furthermore, the "wiffleball" effect unexpectedly and nicely helps out with efficiency by making the electron confinement even better then one might expect. It'll work.

Redd Green:
On the subject of the paucity of education in US, you make an excellent case.

Sorry, but you're amusingly wrong Re: activation energy and bound energy. How much work you get out of a reaction, USUALLY DOES depend on how much energy you need to expend to push the system away from it's local point of equilibrium.

Efficiency of a process depends on how much energy ends up in the form you were shooting for. Go calculate the efficiency of an atomic bomb, on the lines of "energy released" / "energy content of all mass in bomb". It'll be vanishingly small, only a tiny fraction of the mass of an A bomb ends up as energy. H bombs are slightly more efficient, but not by much. And you were just shooting for heat, which usually is easy to get.

Most often what you're shooting for is some kind of useful work, as in, displacement against a force.
And most of the time a big chunk of energy gets wasted as heat.

Keep in mind that basic principle 'conservation of energy', and you'll be all right. Just don't forget that mass is just another form (albeit very very compressed) of energy. Just like a chemical bond, or the strong nuclear force holding protons together with neutrons in a nucleus.
If you're not putting energy in at high enough "temperature" or equivalently "force" to trouble those strong nuclear forces, then all you'll get is rearrangements of electric bond energy, and heat over volume.
The reason a A bomb works is that some mass is converted to energy, and also that the naturally unstable heavy atoms provide, in concentration, the energy required, in just the form required, to overcome activation barrier which stops the heavy atoms from just going off on their own anyway.

Incidentally, the reason these heavy atoms is unstable is due to yet another force, which is called the weak nuclear force.

In total, it's thought that there's really only 4 kinds of force in the universe, although the forth - gravity, is as yet still very poorly understood, especially compared to the electromagnetic force and the stong and weak nuclear forces.

As for running car engines on "electrolyzed" water.
Yes, it does work, but not how you think.
The water doesn't return much of the energy the alternator took to split the bonds to make it flammable, however it does allow the engine to burn the haze of oil entering the induction system via the EPA gear - effectively, some of the pressure in the cylinder escapes past the piston rings, and this pressure is allowed to escape the engine case via a breather tank designed to trap most of the big drops of oil.... but small drops make it through, to be sucked into the engine and usually to eventually appear out the exhaust as incompletely burn particulate matter.
Incidentally, old engines with very worn piston rings do this even better - that's why they blow smoke.

However, with the hydrogen in the mix, the engine can probably ignite the very lean mixture due to this oil, thus seemingly producing more energy then the alternator seems to take.

Easy test - detach the vacuum line from the intake manifold, and run the engine for a while on your "hydroxy" alone... eventually as all the oil is removed from the intake system (a fair bit will have stuck to the walls, so i wouldn't expect an instant response) you'll find that the engine output drops, and the battery energy level will drop as the electrolysis keeps pulling current that the alternator is no longer replacing...

Ultimately, you'll probably find you've managed to make an engine that is moderately efficient at burning engine oil, but this is nothing new - diesel engines are more efficient still, having higher compression ratios, a factor which appears if you analyze the efficiency of an internal combustion engine.

So, in otherwords - take an old petrol engine, remove the breather tank and carburettor; Add a bigger alternator, a big high current electrolysis cell/manifold and maybe also a bigger engine oil reservoir, and you can probably fuel it by topping up with cheap engine oil every so often. IF you can get it to start before the battery goes flat.

I'd also put a thin gasket under the head - you won't be running into any problems with detonation without petrol in the mix, and the higher compression ratio will help efficiency a bit further, although you'd still be nowhere near the compression ratio of a diesel engine.

The hydrogen will ignite easily with a spark, and create more heat and pressure, in an abundance of oxygen from the inducted air, basically then acting like a compression-ignition engine.

It should thus burn the relatively long carbon chain engine oil.

But at much lower useful output power for the capacity then just using the engine as intended.

It is in fact possible to burn air, but the product of the reaction isn't nearly as nice as just water vapor + carbon dioxide. What you'd be burning is the Nitrogen, and what you'll get is hot nitric acid in vapor form. :(
Very bad from an environmental point of view.

In fact, since every time you have excessively high ignition temperatures, you get high nitrous compounds, you might find the hydroxy system not so hot after all.

Fusion quest goes forward

Michael,kent oh — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:07:38 GMT

JPS H2 and O2 will sit in a mixture for a very long time,unless you add a spark. You are correct however that you will get no energy (in fact you will lose energy) by converting water to hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the result.

Overall,fusion energy is a tough nut to crack. There are more problems than just magnetic field configurations and such. (although those are in themselves very difficult) There are also problems of materials. What materials will hold up well under the kinds of radiation and the temperatures that exist in the reactor. The materials that work in a fission reactor may not be optimal. These are the questions that ITER is going to answer.

Fusion quest goes forward

Arthur McB. Block, San Juan, Puerto Rico — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:27:36 GMT

You cannot buck the 4 laws of thermodynamics. As far as energy transfer is concerned: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You cannot even get out of the game. 4. Unfortunately, it is not a game.
As far as using water to (partially) power cars: consider using a solar collector on the roof of the car to electrolyze water to create small amounts of pure hydrogen and/or pure oxygen which are then injected into the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine. You would obtain a net high energy fuel which could supplement what you are currently combusting and seriously drive down the price of the combustible fuel be it gasoline, diesel, ethanol or whatever.

Fusion quest goes forward

D. Curry. Scappoose OR. — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:27:49 GMT

PLEASE!! PLEASE!! PLEASE!! DO NOT let the energy pundits gobble this up. They cold bury this forever because it would be inexpensive energy to the average person.

Fusion quest goes forward

David, Kirkland WA — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:02:21 GMT

I'm surprised others on this thread haven't recognized how this would changes what fuel we use. MIT recent discovery of a catalyst that is nearly 100% efficient at electrolysis (splitting of hydrogen from oxygen). If we had cheap electricity we would be using fuel cell cars burning hydrogen for a fuel instead of Gas.

See recent MIT link on breakthrough...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Fusion quest goes forward

Mike Gale (Sydney, Australia) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:18:33 GMT

It's great to see things going on.

This is Navy funded so silence is again part of the deal, but that tantalising glimpse of WB-7 on the emc2 site and this article have been leaked to let us know something is happening.

If all you want is to research there's nothing stopping a parallel effort!

Good luck to the team, lets hope it can fulfill some of Dr. Bussard's dreams and be a fitting memorial for him!

Fusion quest goes forward

D, Huntsville, AL — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:19:39 GMT

WE WANT AN UPDATE!!! :)

Fusion quest goes forward

DJMELFI, Racine Wi — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 07:47:45 GMT

Four states of matter, Solid, Liquid, gas, plasma. My understanding that these fusion reactors convert Solids such as Boron II to a plasma. A plasma has high speed excited electrons that move so fast they are shared by atoms, thus releasing electrons from the "SOUP". These free electrons can be converted directly into electrical current. Essentially you create energy from matter. The Boron is converted to 2 or 3 different atoms, a combination which eventually frees electrons. In order to control the process you need a vacuum and magnetic field, both energy consumers. The question is weather you can create enough free electrons and CAPTURE them to exceed the power consumtion. A lot of this depends on electron loss. Loss can occur by "grounding" to equipment or escaping containment. Most believe you can create a plus electron gain, but disagree if you can net a gain after losses. The problem with most inputed atoms is that they also create neutrons which deteriate equipment. Supposedly Boron II (one of most comment elements) dosnt have this neutron issue. The net gain neednt be huge, because you are producing at the source an available energy, so recycling most of that energy to your device is OK. So in theory you just need a JUMP START. Even a small gain would be "Free Energy". The Polywell machine seems to be able to theoretically gain appreciably more than the "BOX" system such as the TAMARAK. Apparently the Polywell can also be "throttled" somewhat to control output.

In so far as conversions of energy, they dont have to be effivient to be usable. When we build a hyfroewlectric dam we arnt very efficient at converting all the Water/Gravitational energy to electricity, but we are convering a relatively unusable enegy to a usable one. So how efficent we are in capturing the Fusion energy isnt an issue, only that the usable energy produced exceeds the usable energy inputed, on a cost basis. So Cost of Boron II and all other issues are computed to generate a business model where a megawatt of power produced is competitive to some clean/energy yardstick.

Fusion quest goes forward

john — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:40:21 GMT

Cool. Now the terrorists will be extra destructive and can fuel their plans with a cheap fusion power plant. We'll all be bombed into oblivion if this thing is genuine and is marketed commerically rather than secretly held under wraps in military circles. I'd rather our military have this technology, solely, to protect us from all the blowhards, terrorists, and dictators in this world. We'll get by fine without and can do so knowing we'll live in a more secure world.

Fusion quest goes forward

Qmakz — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:33:47 GMT

Although I personally voted against Obama, the fact that the Energy secretary he chose knows about Polywell fusion is definitely a good sign.

Fusion quest goes forward

Steve Spicer — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:21:05 GMT

The fact ongoing research and development into fusion is progressing in two distinct lines is probably the most hopeful thing I can envisage for our children's future.

It's painfully obvious our energy needs are quickly outstripping supplies & the planets capacity to maintain life. The relentless progression of desertification means we are heading for a very difficult time, where affordable, healthy food becomes a privilege.

While I don't see this wonderful project solving greenhouse gas pollution, or shifting economic strength back to the West anytime soon, I do see it solving the much bigger problem of our civilisation's future - energy to fuel desalination plants to help provide water, redefining inner city transport and avoiding a whole saga of pointless, desperate war.. let's face it.. as long as it's implemented in a way that someone gets rich, it's bound to get going :)

I hope everyone involved in this project realises the importance and significance of their work, to your efforts Nebel & your team - thank you!