Polywell revisited

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
madsci
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:22 pm
Real name:

Polywell revisited

Post by madsci »

I'm sorry if this is old hat, but I just watched the Google talk by Robert Bussard ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6673788606 ) and read the IAC paper ( http://emc2fusion.org/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf ) and now I'm wondering, what is the catch? The basic idea seems sound. Specifically: (a) using a population of electrons/ions with non-thermal energy distribution, and (b) using convex magnetic fields with point cusps for electron confinement and using electrostatic ion confinement. Bussard's explanation in the talk convinced me, at least at an intuitive level, that there could be something to it.

I've read some of the threads here (but probably not all), and I don't really get why this would not work. Not proven to work, sure, that's a different question, but I mean a theoretical reason why it *shouldn't be expected to* work? Anyone?

You can just point me to the relevant parts of old discussions if bringing this up is in bad form.

Best regards.

PS What is the latest status of the work at EMC2? Does anyone know what happened with the part of this that was at SpaceDev after the Sierra Nevada Corp acquisition?
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Carl Willis »

Here's the deal.

There are good (old, endlessly-rehashed) physics arguments in favor of the Polywell's viability. There are good (old, endlessly-rehashed) physics arguments against the Polywell's viability. But at the end of the day, there is a dearth of public data to definitively support one camp or the other. It's been that way for years--EMC2 is not an amateur open-source effort, it's a private business and the fruits of their research efforts, if any, are not available. No amateurs have built Polywells. Also, the best place to find information about EMC2 is to call or email them or read their press releases. The best place to bury oneself in the endless pro-con Polywell theory pillowfight is the aptly-named "Talk Polywell" forum.

Not surprisingly, given the absence of data, the Polywell subject serves mainly as grist for various "for" and "opposed" sycophancy camps, and the generation of a lot of low-information brownian motion in pop-science discourse including right here. In my view, Polywell discussions have come to epitomize this silly phenomenon.

My opinion only.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Richard Hull »

Carl got it right in my opinion......

If you got sumpin' really big.......Pull it out and show me.

I personnally love well crafted rhetoric and discourse, but after a few passes of the same old stuff, we needed to move on.

However, I'm always glad to watch a practical demo whirl up and do its stated thing.

Skeptically yours,

Richard Hull

P.S. We genuinely appreciate your due dilligence is reading past posts and materials as well as your timidity about advancing on the subject, thus we did not "open up" on you with both barrels. Carl's suggestion about checking out the other sites devoted to this methodlogy will hopefully keep you occupied should you wish to tilt at this windmill.

RH
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Hector
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:15 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Hector »

I'm not a poet so I'll just give the facts. The NAVY is still funding the research and it is showing great promise. That's the facts.

I know because I have friends in dark places.


Hector
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Chris Bradley »

Hector wrote:
> The NAVY is still funding the research and it is showing great promise. That's the facts.
hmm.. in a manner of speaking. The current contract terms are;

"This effort will continue the research of Advanced Gaseous Electrostatic Energy technology previously explored under Broad Agency Announcement Contracts N00014-93-C-0224 and N00014-96-C-0039 and contract N68936-03-C-0031....The contractor will modify/upgrade the existing wiffleball #7 (WB7) device by installing compact, high temperature coil joints to investigate the electron parallel heat loss. This modified device shall hereafter be identified as Wiffleball #7.1 (WB-7.1).....The Contractor shall test the WB-7.1 to measure the plasma beta (ratio of plasma pressure to the applied magnetic field pressure) and to monitor the wiffleball formation process.The contractor will deploy multiple magnetic field probes inside the device to generate time varying magnetic field mapping to investigate the wiffleball formation......"

If I'd funded a project to $20M (with what wasn't really my money in the first place), but had no objective results from it, then I'd probably pay a bit extra to try to get some *actual* results out of it....not sure I would entirely call that 'showing great promise' but I'm not against funding of science programmes per se though some view must be taken at some stage, and it must be a view based on a few results, at least. It suggests the Navy are properly thinking about getting some measurable objectives out of it before further support, and that seems an entirely and properly thought out, balanced approach to the matter. We're all keen to see some real investigative measurements of the proposed mechanism [of any device], so the Navy appears to be asking the right questions here.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Carl Willis »

>it is showing great promise. That's the facts.

Um....what are the facts that support that subjective statement about great promise? Rhetorical question, as mine usually are on this subject.

The facts are largely unknown for the purposes of making a new and meaningful contribution on a hobby fusion site. The minute someone builds a Polywell and shares his info, there will be new facts to deal with. The minute a paper from EMC2 rolls off the presses, there will be new facts to deal with. Having proprietary knowledge (from "friends in dark places," whatever that means) does not constitute facts that matter in a science discussion; the cranks who have graced us with such chest-thumpery-cum-attention-grab-cum-nonsense in the past have been rightly and roundly ro-sham-bo'd right outta here.

I do perennially hope the noise level on Polywell can be kept below a dull roar of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Dan Tibbets »

As mentioned, if you want to get deeply into the discussion and arguments about R. Bussard's Polywell concept you should visit Talk Polywell. The actual link is:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php

Dan Tibbets
madsci
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:22 pm
Real name:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by madsci »

Carl, Richard: Thank you, this actually answers the question I had pretty well.

"There are good (old, endlessly-rehashed) physics arguments in favor/against" - so it hasn't been settled either way as a theoretical question as far as this community is concerned; that's what I was asking.

"given the absence of data, the Polywell subject serves mainly as grist for ..." - I suppose so. There are effectively two separate issues here, a scientific question ("does it work?") for which there simply isn't enough data or enough definitive theory (yet), and a set of extra-scientific questions such as "is this getting adequate funding?" and "are people opposed to this for the wrong reasons?". I think it may help the discussion to keep the two clearly separate. There isn't much new to say on the first issue as indeed the data doesn't seem to be there yet. On the second issue, there is indeed quite a lot to say but maybe this is not the right forum.

This is my opinion only, and it deals with the extra-scientific issues only. In brief (a) It's *Bussard*. hard to find a guy with a stronger rep in this field. if he thinks it can work... it's not proof, of course, but it is something to take very seriously. (b) the level of funding is a joke, relative to the potential here. if we're spending a billion a year or more on tokamaks, then multiple millions per year funding of this until it becomes clearer whether it works or not would be the rational choice. do you have another alternative to tokamaks that you believe should get more funding? yes, the Navy likes to fund a bunch of odd things at minimum levels just to keep their options open. however i think this just ain't a serious development program right now, because of the usual Navy vs DOE issues, and that's a shame. and (c) i definitely think a lot of people are opposed to this for the wrong reasons, even here.

"it's a private business and the fruits of their research efforts, if any, are not available..." - it's a non-profit, actually. as for results not being available, blame the DoD.

"tilt at this windmill" - grea phrasing, and yes
madsci
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:22 pm
Real name:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by madsci »

Carl: "for the purposes of making a new and meaningful contribution on a hobby fusion site..." - some of the setups described in Bussard's google talk (look at the 45 to 48 minute mark), while not useful for power generation, seem a lot easier to build than a normal fusor. i'm thinking for example of the single-loop polywell setup machined out of a chunk of solid copper and driven by a pulse capacitor discharge. there would seem to be quite a lot of leeway to the design, too. thoughts?
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Carl Willis »

>seem a lot easier to build than a normal fusor

You know what?

It's a piece of freaking cake. A first grader could do it. Maybe a kindergartner. Yup, a lump of copper and some capacitors and voila, you dun' got you one 'em Polywell'n!

I can't wait for one of us lazy, ignorant clowns who've wasted so much precious effort tinkering with retrograde Farnsworth fusors and convoluted demo fusors to actually build one of these down-home copper chunks and report back. After all, the benefits of the Polywell are proven and obvious: ludicrous amounts of neutrons, simpler than the normal fusors, a mind-blowing amount of what they call "leeway" in the design. What. Are. We. Waiting. For.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Chris Bradley »

Your delicate subtlety and finely nuanced response is, as always, well targeted and appreciated on the forum for keeping things in check!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by Richard Hull »

Carl forgot to re-iterate the great cash prize awaiting an amateur polywell success. It has been offered here in these forums in great detail with the rules fully explained.

So, Carl and I are very serious about the Polywell, both having committed hard cash rather than a lot of jack-jaw to the effort. It has been loosely refered to as the "Hull prize"; (I originated it), though we are both contributors to the purse. I hope to refer to it in future as the Hull-Willis prize.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=242&hilit=Hull+Prize#p242

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
nathematics
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:25 pm
Real name:

Re: Polywell revisited

Post by nathematics »

Carl Willis wrote:
> >seem a lot easier to build than a normal fusor
>
> You know what?
>
> It's a piece of freaking cake. A first grader could do it. Maybe a kindergartner. Yup, a lump of copper and some capacitors and voila, you dun' got you one 'em Polywell'n!
>
> I can't wait for one of us lazy, ignorant clowns who've wasted so much precious effort tinkering with retrograde Farnsworth fusors and convoluted demo fusors to actually build one of these down-home copper chunks and report back. After all, the benefits of the Polywell are proven and obvious: ludicrous amounts of neutrons, simpler than the normal fusors, a mind-blowing amount of what they call "leeway" in the design. What. Are. We. Waiting. For.
>
> -Carl


Would you please describe this in more detail? How would the magnetic field producing current flow through the block, and where would the leads be attached?
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”