Opinions on the Polywell fusion power system

In summary, the conversation focused on the Polywell fusion power system and the general consensus and opinions surrounding it. Participants shared their personal thoughts and criticisms on the ITER project and why particle accelerators have not been pursued as a method of fusion. They also discussed the drawbacks of the Polywell/fusor system and the advantages it may have compared to a tokamak. The potential of the Polywell to achieve high plasma density and power density was also a topic of discussion, along with the unknowns surrounding losses from cusps in the magnetic bottle. The conversation also touched on the recent research on POPS and its potential impact on the viability of IEC schemes like the Polywell.
  • #36
TallDave said:
At that point there is an option for the Navy to fund the $200M prototype reactor. We will know if this happens that the loss scaling was something friendly, like the B^.25 * r^2 Bussard claimed. If it doesn't happen, there's a good chance we will see some data.
We don't know how something performs just because the government funds it in the seven figure range. The public will know when we get a real paper with experimental results.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #37
I don't have a link, but I think he has said it, either on T-P or to Alan Boyle (check some of his earliest posts). Bussard has stated he could not publish for the same reason. Tom Ligon (who worked with Bussard) has also supported this.

If they fund an eight-figure reactor, we can make some reasonable inferences about the upper limit of the losses that would have been acceptable. I certainly would prefer to see a paper, but that may be optimistic unless funding falls through at some point.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
TallDave said:
I don't have a link, but I think he has said it, either on T-P
Could be, but like I said I read through and have never seen such.

or to Alan Boyle
No.
(check some of his earliest posts). Bussard has stated he could not publish for the same reason. Tom Ligon (who worked with Bussard) has also supported this.
Yes years ago and well publicized, and which has absolutely nothing to do with this current work.
 
  • #39
It has quite a bit to do with the current work, as it's the same sponsors that gagged Bussard. I don't know why you would expect them to gag Bussard and not Nebel.
 
  • #40
OK, I bit the bullet and dug around till I found his statements:

We anticipate that we will be getting a lot of data over the next few months. Consequently, it would good to let you know what to expect from us in terms of information:

1. We can’t release data. The DOD has to determine what it wants to release. Eventually this will all come out, but they are our customer and this is their call. We are free to discuss anything which has been released (such as the WB-6) but they will control the new data. I’m willing to discuss where we are and what we are learning, but I can’t give you a lot of numbers.

2. Don’t expect us to be making a lot of pronouncements to the press like the cold fusion people did. We will have a very high level review panel that will be looking at our results, and we don’t want to prejudge their conclusions.
...
To all:

I understand that people are interested in our results, particularly on this website. I‘ll keep you informed. This is typical of DOD contracts, and the rationale behind it is pretty simple. They don’t want contractors making public statements that aren’t correct, or haven’t been looked at. That sort of thing can turn into a huge embarrassment.

The perfect example of that was the cold fusion mess. That was funded out of Advanced Energy Projects at the DOE. The Utah people got paranoid and went public before their work was adequately reviewed. Advanced Energy Projects no longer exists at the DOE. We’re not going to let that happen. We’re going to have a credible, independent review, and we won’t prejudge what they have to say.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=5071&highlight=#5071

I've been following this as closely as anyone since Bussard's Tech Talk. The lack of information is extremely frustrating. I would love to see raw data and a paper. It may not happen anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
TallDave said:
OK, I bit the bullet and dug around till I found his statements:


...


http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=5071&highlight=#5071

I've been following this as closely as anyone since Bussard's Tech Talk. The lack of information is extremely frustrating. I would love to see raw data and a paper. It may not happen anytime soon.
Fair enough
 
  • #42
I'm frustrated too. Though, it's better they say nothing than to exaggerate IMHO. Maybe the discussions and attention on the internet will generate some data being released (with the Navy's consent).
 
  • #43
FWIW, Rick Nebel left this comment at Alan Boyle's:

As usual, I seem to have created some misconceptions by my comments. First of all, what we said on our website is that the work on the WB-7 has been completed. We did not discuss the results. If you would like to conjecture what those results are, let me suggest that you notice the fact that we are working on the WB-8 device. The WB-8 was not a part of Dr. Bussard’s original development plan. This device came about as a result of the peer review process which suggested that there were issues that needed to be resolved at a smaller scale before proceeding to a demo. This was a conclusion that EMC2 heartily concurred with. I don’t want to leave people with the impression that everything on the WB-7 is identical to the WB-6.
Secondly, in our contract with the DOD, EMC2 owns the commercialization rights for the Polywell. However, commercialization is not something that we can do with our DOD funding. That is what we would like to look at with any contributions from the website. This will enable us to:
1. Design an attractive commercial reactor package.
2. Identify the high leverage physics items that most impact the design (i.e. how good is good enough).
3. Give us a base design when we are ready to proceed to the next step.
 
  • #44
I really hope they'll be successful. In retrospect, that is not hard to believe: they haven't been, from what I can tell, unsuccessful.
 
  • #45
Some results were published shortly before Bussard's death:
http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf"

Navy is putting several $M into this. I'd vote to move it ahead quickly. ITER is likely to be over $25B all said and done, with DEMO even more... so I say, spend $200M if the incremental work looks good and we may have a solution this decade instead of in 25 yrs.

ITER suffers from size - it's requirements are down now but, technology is changing very rapidly, with new materials, higher power lasers, etc. Odds, IMHO, are better than 90% that alternative fusion to ITER will win out, and perhaps during the current decade.

Still, in the scheme of things, $25B isn't that much... it's just that it's not even DEMO. But keep on until Polywell or another technology shows better promise - then put ITER on hold if necessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
We'll have to see what the loss scaling with B looks like in WB-8. Bussard suggested loss scaling looked like B^.25 (and radius squared). It will need to at least vaguely resemble that in order to be as economic as proponents hope.

Here's the IEC 2010 conference which has some papers on IEC in general and Polywells in particular.

http://www.plasma.ee.kansai-u.ac.jp/iec2010/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
TallDave said:
Here's the IEC 2010 conference which has some papers on IEC in general and Polywells in particular.

http://www.plasma.ee.kansai-u.ac.jp/iec2010/
From that I see senior Kulcinski still runs the Wisconsin IEC program. When he eventually leaves/retires will that be bring an end to US university IEC programs? I am aware of no others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
I had forgotten about this post, but I LOVE the conversation and where it's going. I've been obsessed reading, re-reading, re-re-re-rereading just over and over again and learning about fusion projects.

I think more than anything, I hope the Polywell doesn't go the way of cold fusion... If it's viable, I hope the DOD doesn't keep it under wraps.

A lot of good points made along the way. There has been so much research money poured into toka's, but I always read how break even is just around the corner (did I read right that if JET used a D-T mix they'd hit a Q of 1.25?) and that ITER is the real deal.

The only thing that bothers me is a lot of hype has been generated in so many avenues, but it always falls flat. I can understand they didn't see all the plasma instabilities (squeezing Jello with rubber bands?) but now I have a lot of faith since so much research has been in this area. I feel really confident about ITER since they have come a long way and so much research has been done. Especially with superconducting magnets.

I'll keep praying. (To the universe of course).

I just know if they can ever get fusion on the ball, we'll enter a new paradigm in humanity.
 

Similar threads

Replies
70
Views
9K
Replies
28
Views
26K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
981
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
61
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top