So by October 2011, one predicts that a Polywell will be generating net power using the p-B11 reaction? That would be great!Not necessarily so, I wish I had the proper citation, Dr Nebel loved to comment how Polywells' plasma density or sumsuch thing was superior to a Tokamak. A proper search at talk-polywell would reveal the quote.
In fact the comparison of accomplishments is most relevant, and I predict will become more so as research continues. I predict in 20 months Polywell will be at a development stage equal to or more advanced than the Tokamak. In fact if the current trend continues Polywell will be showing Net power from the PB-11 reaction, before the ITER gets fully warmed up.
Oops, thanks should be 2010 of course.Dave, I'm sure April 2009 is a typo.
Best case scenario is 2015. Most likely they would try a D-D first, but if WB-8 is promising enough and there's enough interest simultaneous D-D/p-B-11 projects aren't impossible.So by October 2011, one predicts that a Polywell will be generating net power using the p-B11 reaction? That would be great!
That's about as minimal an update as minimal can get. They added the words 'validate and extend' to their 1-page website? No hint of results or a paper? The interview says, some 20 years after the origination of Bussard's basic confinement concept, that he wants a few $100k to "do some basic physics on this"?Update:
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.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.
Could be, but like I said I read through and have never seen such.I don't have a link, but I think he has said it, either on T-P
No.or to Alan Boyle
Yes years ago and well publicized, and which has absolutely nothing to do with this current work.(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.
...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.
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.
Fair enoughOK, I bit the bullet and dug around till I found his statements:
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.
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.
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.Here's the IEC 2010 conference which has some papers on IEC in general and Polywells in particular.