On Mar 26, 2007, at 15:11 UTC, Ross Mohan wrote:

> Hate to be a naysayer without coming up with a constructive
> path forward, but...Bussard himself said his coding guy couldn't
> get the numerical simulation of the field dynamics to converge
> in a reasonable time.

Oh yes, sorry, I see I was unclear: I had in mind basically qualitative
simulations, with the purpose of giving us an understanding of what the
3D field looks like and how electrons interact with it. I wasn't
aiming for the level of precision Dr. Bussard was talking about (i.e.,
the precision needed to be useful in predicting actual experimental
results). There's a big difference.

Also, I think his comments were about trying to simulate the actual
fusion process, which means keeping track of all the electrons and
ions, and requires great precision in order to know whether the ions
actually fuse or just bounce off each other. I had no intent of doing
either; I'm just talking about magnetostatics (i.e., computing the
static magnetic field, assuming constant currents). That's a pretty
well-trodden path.

Does anyone else think it'd be helpful to be able to follow the path of
an individual electron through the system, so we can understand *how*
this arrangement of magnets generates a deep potential well? Maybe I'm
the only one that still doesn't see that.

> I'd like to hear more about this topic. Maybe the SpaceX folks
> (heard they picked up an option to work w/Bussard) will publish
> something if they start working forward.....

Jim Benson was interviewed on The Space Show a while back, and spends
ten minutes or so talking about this. He's clearly excited, but what
appears to have come out of it is the EMC non-profit organization,
which can now accept donations. I'm still hopeful that there is more
in the works than that -- Benson knows a lot of people (e.g. Richard
Branson and Paul Allen) who could single-handedly fund the next phase
of research (which requires about $5M), and who seem like likely
candidates for doing so.

But it may be that those funders are waiting for Dr. Bussard to finish
his technical paper first. That might take a while.

In the meantime, I think there is value in amateurs like us trying to
understand this technology as deeply as we can, and then retell it to
the world in ways that others can easily understand too. This is the
sort of thing any college plasma physics lab should be able reproduce,
at least on a small scale. The more we can help get the word out, and
make it as easy as possible for people, the more groups are likely to
try it.

I think the genie's out of the bottle, and there can be no stuffing it
back... but it's a bit of a slow and ponderous genie, so anything we
can do to give it a push will make it grant our wishes that much
faster. :)

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

Go for it Joe.

And thanks for the link to the software.

Simon

--- joe@... wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2007, at 14:21 UTC, M. Simon wrote:
>
> > The easiest simulation to start would be to get
> four
> > bar magnets. Glue them to a surface and then put a
> > piece of paper over them. Sprinkle the paper with
> iron
> > filings and photograph (or just study) the
> patterns.
>
> I meant simulate computationally, not study
> experimentally.  Though of
> course there's merit in the experimental approach
> too; it just requires
> more time and money (at least, once you have the
> simulation code
> working).  Also, it's going to be very hard to
> visualize the path of
> individual electrons experimentally, though I
> realize there are ways to
> do it (with streams of electrons) with the right
> equipment.
>
> 2D magnetostatics software is available from Ansoft
> (http://www.ansoft.com/maxwellsv/).  I'd rather work
> in three
> dimensions, though.  I've started looking into this;
> it gets a little
> hairy but not too bad, since the setup here allows
> us to make a number
> of simplifications.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

Moving charges create magnetic fields. This affects
other charges moving with respect to the moving
charges and every thing happens at right angles to
evry thing else.

Add in charge effects and fixed electric and magnetic
fields and every thing gets complicated.

A 2-D simulation might not be accurate, however it
might help visualization.

A good 2-D simulation of the magnetic fields alone
might be a good place to start.

Simon


--- Ross Mohan <rmohanx@...> wrote:

> Hate to be a naysayer without coming up with a
> constructive
>   path forward, but...Bussard himself said his
> coding guy couldn't
>   get the numerical simulation of the field dynamics
> to converge
>   in a reasonable time. As they moved the mesh size
> down on
>   the Euler (or whichever) method, the run time
> skyrocketed, and
>   they couldn't get it down to where it needed to be
> to be physically
>   realistic.
>
>   I gather this was for a "3-D" simulation, so a 2-D
> pattern would
>   present an even less-complete picture of the
> actual dynamics.
>
>   I'd like to hear more about this topic. Maybe the
> SpaceX folks
>   (heard they picked up an option to work w/Bussard)
> will publish
>   something if they start working forward.....
>
>
>
> "M. Simon" <msimon6808@...> wrote:
>           The easiest simulation to start would be
> to get four
> bar magnets. Glue them to a surface and then put a
> piece of paper over them. Sprinkle the paper with
> iron
> filings and photograph (or just study) the patterns.
>
> Simon
>
> --- joe@... wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 2007, at 11:42 UTC, M. Simon wrote:
> >
> > > Or possibly they were not trying for maximum
> > > confinement.
> >
> > Possibly so. I'm going to work towards simulating
> > the field resulting
> > from various configurations, and possibly even the
> > paths of electrons
> > within the field. That may help us gain the
> insight
> > we need to really
> > understand Dr. Bussard's work.
> >
> > Best,
> > - Joe
> >
> > --
> > Joe Strout -- joe@...
> > Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a
> > Better Place"
> > http://www.verex.com/
> >
> >
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail
> arrives.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
>
>
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

On Mar 26, 2007, at 15:11 UTC, Ross Mohan wrote:

> Hate to be a naysayer without coming up with a constructive
>   path forward, but...Bussard himself said his coding guy couldn't
>   get the numerical simulation of the field dynamics to converge
>   in a reasonable time.

Oh yes, sorry, I see I was unclear: I had in mind basically qualitative
simulations, with the purpose of giving us an understanding of what the
3D field looks like and how electrons interact with it.  I wasn't
aiming for the level of precision Dr. Bussard was talking about (i.e.,
the precision needed to be useful in predicting actual experimental
results).  There's a big difference.

Also, I think his comments were about trying to simulate the actual
fusion process, which means keeping track of all the electrons and
ions, and requires great precision in order to know whether the ions
actually fuse or just bounce off each other.  I had no intent of doing
either; I'm just talking about magnetostatics (i.e., computing the
static magnetic field, assuming constant currents).  That's a pretty
well-trodden path.

Does anyone else think it'd be helpful to be able to follow the path of
an individual electron through the system, so we can understand *how*
this arrangement of magnets generates a deep potential well?  Maybe I'm
the only one that still doesn't see that.

>   I'd like to hear more about this topic. Maybe the SpaceX folks
>   (heard they picked up an option to work w/Bussard) will publish
>   something if they start working forward.....

Jim Benson was interviewed on The Space Show a while back, and spends
ten minutes or so talking about this.  He's clearly excited, but what
appears to have come out of it is the EMC non-profit organization,
which can now accept donations.  I'm still hopeful that there is more
in the works than that -- Benson knows a lot of people (e.g. Richard
Branson and Paul Allen) who could single-handedly fund the next phase
of research (which requires about $5M), and who seem like likely
candidates for doing so.

But it may be that those funders are waiting for Dr. Bussard to finish
his technical paper first.  That might take a while.

In the meantime, I think there is value in amateurs like us trying to
understand this technology as deeply as we can, and then retell it to
the world in ways that others can easily understand too.  This is the
sort of thing any college plasma physics lab should be able reproduce,
at least on a small scale.  The more we can help get the word out, and
make it as easy as possible for people, the more groups are likely to
try it.

I think the genie's out of the bottle, and there can be no stuffing it
back... but it's a bit of a slow and ponderous genie, so anything we
can do to give it a push will make it grant our wishes that much
faster. :)

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

On Mar 26, 2007, at 14:21 UTC, M. Simon wrote:

> The easiest simulation to start would be to get four
> bar magnets. Glue them to a surface and then put a
> piece of paper over them. Sprinkle the paper with iron
> filings and photograph (or just study) the patterns.

I meant simulate computationally, not study experimentally.  Though of
course there's merit in the experimental approach too; it just requires
more time and money (at least, once you have the simulation code
working).  Also, it's going to be very hard to visualize the path of
individual electrons experimentally, though I realize there are ways to
do it (with streams of electrons) with the right equipment.

2D magnetostatics software is available from Ansoft
(http://www.ansoft.com/maxwellsv/).  I'd rather work in three
dimensions, though.  I've started looking into this; it gets a little
hairy but not too bad, since the setup here allows us to make a number
of simplifications.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

The easiest simulation to start would be to get four
bar magnets. Glue them to a surface and then put a
piece of paper over them. Sprinkle the paper with iron
filings and photograph (or just study) the patterns.

Simon

--- joe@... wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2007, at 11:42 UTC, M. Simon wrote:
>
> > Or possibly they were not trying for maximum
> > confinement.
>
> Possibly so. I'm going to work towards simulating
> the field resulting
> from various configurations, and possibly even the
> paths of electrons
> within the field. That may help us gain the insight
> we need to really
> understand Dr. Bussard's work.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>

__________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

The easiest simulation to start would be to get four
bar magnets. Glue them to a surface and then put a
piece of paper over them. Sprinkle the paper with iron
filings and photograph (or just study) the patterns.

Simon


--- joe@... wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2007, at 11:42 UTC, M. Simon wrote:
>
> > Or possibly they were not trying for maximum
> > confinement.
>
> Possibly so.  I'm going to work towards simulating
> the field resulting
> from various configurations, and possibly even the
> paths of electrons
> within the field.  That may help us gain the insight
> we need to really
> understand Dr. Bussard's work.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

On Mar 26, 2007, at 11:42 UTC, M. Simon wrote:

> Or possibly they were not trying for maximum
> confinement.

Possibly so.  I'm going to work towards simulating the field resulting
from various configurations, and possibly even the paths of electrons
within the field.  That may help us gain the insight we need to really
understand Dr. Bussard's work.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

Or possibly they were not trying for maximum
confinement.

Simon


--- joe@... wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2007, at 03:44 UTC, joe@... wrote:
>
> > However, one mystery I still don't understand:
> given that they had
> > this understanding of the polyhedral geometry in
> 1989, why do all
> > subsequent machines seem to ignore it?
>
> All right, at last I get it.  Looking at WB-6
> (which, we now all
> understand, is the final machine, with the toroidal
> coils), it's
> finally sunk in how this can be considered a
> truncated cube and obey
> the polygonal arrangement described in the 1989
> patent.
>
> If I'm right, all you have to do is imagine bending
> each torus so that
> it's diamond-shaped, joined at the corners.  So we
> have six diamond
> faces and eight triangular faces in between, i.e., a
> truncated cube.
> Current flows (say) clockwise (when viewed from the
> outside) around any
> of the big diamond faces, and so it's
> counter-clockwise for any of the
> triangular ones.  So, all the diamond faces would be
> north inward, just
> as M. Simon said in the first place; and all the
> triangular faces would
> be south inward.  Every diamond's neighbor is a
> triangle, and every
> triangle's neighbor is a diamond, so this satisfies
> the alternating
> in/out criterion.
>
> My confusion was all from not considering the gaps
> at the corners
> between the torii to be faces.  But I see that they
> are.
>
> Now I just wonder what the advantage is to making
> the diamond faces
> circular.  I'm sure it makes a smoother field for
> those faces, but the
> opposite faces, the triangles, are even more
> distorted than they would
> be otherwise.  Maybe it has something to do with
> arcing.  Or maybe, if
> you have to choose, you want the smoother field on
> the diamond faces
> because they're bigger.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

Tom  Ligon says my description was correct.

Simon


--- joe@... wrote:

> Patent #4,826,646 is quite enlightening on the
> structure of the
> magnetic confinement device.  You can read the text
> here:
>    <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4826646.html>
>
> You can also get a copy of the PDF, with figures, by
> signing up for a
> free account.  But I've already done this; so if you
> send me a request
> by private email, I'll be happy to send you my copy.
>
> This patent clears up the previous confusion about
> the polarity of the
> magnetic fields.  From claim 26(a), "generating a
> magnetic field within
> a region by passing current through magnetic field
> coils positioned on
> edges of a structure forming a polyhedral figure,
> each vertex of which
> is surrounded by an even number of faces, said
> currents such that
> adjacent faces of said polyhedral figure have
> opposing magnetic
> polarities."
>
> So, as I suspected before, each face of the
> polyhedron must have a
> magnetic polarity opposite that of all its
> neighbors.  The references
> elsewhere to putting the coils on the edges means
> NOT that each
> toroidal coil is centered on an edge -- rather, the
> edges of the
> polyhedron *are* the edges of the coils.  You can
> see this pretty
> clearly in Figs. 4 and 8 of the patent, where arrows
> on the edges show
> the direction of current flow.  If you apply the
> right-hand rule to
> each face, you can easily see how the resulting
> field points
> alternately in and out as you go around any vertex.
>
> The patent illustrates this for an octahedron (Fig.
> 4), as well as for
> a truncated cube (Fig. 8).
>
> However, one mystery I still don't understand: given
> that they had this
> understanding of the polyhedral geometry in 1989,
> why do all subsequent
> machines seem to ignore it?  In Dr. Bussard's
> discussion of WB-1, he
> admits that it had line cusps, but all the
> subsequent WB machines seem
> to use the same basic geometry (six faces, which
> can't possibly
> alternate polarity) as far as I can tell.
>
> Tom, any insight here?
>
> (Over the next few days I should be getting copies
> of the 1992-1997
> papers, which hopefully will shed some light.)
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

On Mar 26, 2007, at 03:44 UTC, joe@... wrote:

> However, one mystery I still don't understand: given that they had
> this understanding of the polyhedral geometry in 1989, why do all
> subsequent machines seem to ignore it?

All right, at last I get it.  Looking at WB-6 (which, we now all
understand, is the final machine, with the toroidal coils), it's
finally sunk in how this can be considered a truncated cube and obey
the polygonal arrangement described in the 1989 patent.

If I'm right, all you have to do is imagine bending each torus so that
it's diamond-shaped, joined at the corners.  So we have six diamond
faces and eight triangular faces in between, i.e., a truncated cube.
Current flows (say) clockwise (when viewed from the outside) around any
of the big diamond faces, and so it's counter-clockwise for any of the
triangular ones.  So, all the diamond faces would be north inward, just
as M. Simon said in the first place; and all the triangular faces would
be south inward.  Every diamond's neighbor is a triangle, and every
triangle's neighbor is a diamond, so this satisfies the alternating
in/out criterion.

My confusion was all from not considering the gaps at the corners
between the torii to be faces.  But I see that they are.

Now I just wonder what the advantage is to making the diamond faces
circular.  I'm sure it makes a smoother field for those faces, but the
opposite faces, the triangles, are even more distorted than they would
be otherwise.  Maybe it has something to do with arcing.  Or maybe, if
you have to choose, you want the smoother field on the diamond faces
because they're bigger.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

On Mar 26, 2007, at 03:57 UTC, joe@... wrote:

> I wish we had more details about WB-6.  I wonder if the image on p. 14
> of the "Should Google go Nuclear" write-up is correct?  It looks much
> more like something from the 1989 patent, and doesn't seem to leave
> room for recirculation.  I'd expect WB-6 to be more like WB-5, i.e.
> mostly empty space apart from the coils.

Well shoot -- sorry to keep replying to myself, but this is important.
I was confused above because that write-up is simply wrong.  The
machine pictured on p. 14 and identified as WB-6 isn't WB-6; that's
PXL-1 (according to the 2006 IAC paper).  And the machine with the big
toroidal coils, identified as WB-5 in the Google write-up, is actually
WB-6.

So, while Mark Duncan has done a helpful service by writing up the
talk, there are clearly some pretty glaring errors in the figures, so
it has to be taken with a grain of salt.  (And yes, I'll point these
out to him.)

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

On Mar 26, 2007, at 03:44 UTC, joe@... wrote:

> However, one mystery I still don't understand: given that they had
> this understanding of the polyhedral geometry in 1989, why do all
> subsequent machines seem to ignore it?

Well, except for WB-6 and maybe PZLx-1, which use the truncated cube
geometry.  (Though I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how PZLx-1
works at all.)

I wish we had more details about WB-6.  I wonder if the image on p. 14
of the "Should Google go Nuclear" write-up is correct?  It looks much
more like something from the 1989 patent, and doesn't seem to leave
room for recirculation.  I'd expect WB-6 to be more like WB-5, i.e.
mostly empty space apart from the coils.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

Patent #4,826,646 is quite enlightening on the structure of the
magnetic confinement device.  You can read the text here:
    <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4826646.html>

You can also get a copy of the PDF, with figures, by signing up for a
free account.  But I've already done this; so if you send me a request
by private email, I'll be happy to send you my copy.

This patent clears up the previous confusion about the polarity of the
magnetic fields.  From claim 26(a), "generating a magnetic field within
a region by passing current through magnetic field coils positioned on
edges of a structure forming a polyhedral figure, each vertex of which
is surrounded by an even number of faces, said currents such that
adjacent faces of said polyhedral figure have opposing magnetic
polarities."

So, as I suspected before, each face of the polyhedron must have a
magnetic polarity opposite that of all its neighbors.  The references
elsewhere to putting the coils on the edges means NOT that each
toroidal coil is centered on an edge -- rather, the edges of the
polyhedron *are* the edges of the coils.  You can see this pretty
clearly in Figs. 4 and 8 of the patent, where arrows on the edges show
the direction of current flow.  If you apply the right-hand rule to
each face, you can easily see how the resulting field points
alternately in and out as you go around any vertex.

The patent illustrates this for an octahedron (Fig. 4), as well as for
a truncated cube (Fig. 8).

However, one mystery I still don't understand: given that they had this
understanding of the polyhedral geometry in 1989, why do all subsequent
machines seem to ignore it?  In Dr. Bussard's discussion of WB-1, he
admits that it had line cusps, but all the subsequent WB machines seem
to use the same basic geometry (six faces, which can't possibly
alternate polarity) as far as I can tell.

Tom, any insight here?

(Over the next few days I should be getting copies of the 1992-1997
papers, which hopefully will shed some light.)

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

I have a new one up with drawings and pictures.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/03/polywell-adding-details.html

Simon



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

On Mar 24, 2007, at 03:26 UTC, joe@... wrote:

> Maybe this
> is the configuration where all coils face north inward, as M. has
> surmised, but Dr. Bussard's point was that you could do much better
> with the polyhedral concept (which would require more than six coils).

I think this may be right.  In the 2006 IAC Paper, p. 20, Dr. Bussard
writes:

"The only small scale machine work remaining, which can yet give
further improvements in performance, is test of one or two WB-6-scale
devices but with 'square' or polygonal coils aligned approixmately...
along the edges of the vertices of the polyhedron.  If this is built
around a truncated dodecahedron, near-optimum performance is expected;
about 3-5 times better than WB-6."

But this repeats the assertion that the coils should go on the edges of
the polyhedron, rather than on the faces.  So I'm still confused.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

On Mar 24, 2007, at 01:45 UTC, M. Simon wrote:

> This is my current understanding. If you have anny
> corrections or additions post them to the list or to
> the www site

Have you looked up the references in the "Should Google go Nuclear"
transcript?  In particular, I think the ones on page 8 (Bussard et al.
1995, and Krall 1992) will be very helpful.  These explain directly the
polywell confinement system.  U.S. Patent 5,160,695 should be on our
must-read list, too.

> You have six magnets. They are on the face of a cube.
> The north poles of the magnets all face into the cube.

This doesn't sound right.  On p. 7, "It is a configuration that is a
polyhedron where the coils are all on the edges of the polyhedron, and
the polyhedron has the property that there are an even number of faces
around every vertex so that the alternate faces are north, south,
north, south, north, south."

From my understanding, if you had two adjacent coils with the same
polarity, then you'd have the "line cusp problem" and electrons would
pour out along the "seam" where the two fields abut.

TThe relevant shape here (at least with regard to Dr. Bussard's
statement above) would seem to be not the cube, but the tetrahedron,
which has 6 edges that happen to correspond to the 6 faces of a cube,
if you inscribe the tetrahedron in a cube (see
http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/platonic_relationships.html).
However, the tetrahedron doesn't have the property specified; each
vertex has an odd number of faces around it, not an even number.

I suspect (but haven't proven) that Dr. Bussard's statement amounts to:
don't let any neighboring pair of coils point the same way, and it's
pretty easy to see how this is impossible in a cube.

So I'm mighty curious to learn exactly which way those coils are facing
in the cubical (or tetrahedral, if you prefer) arrangement.

(Incidentally, while re-reading this, I see that even their WB-6
experiment used fields of only 1300 Gauss, i.e. much less than a single
Tesla, and way less than the 35 Tesla we were contemplating before.
I'm sure the breakeven machine will need more, but I'd be quite happy
initially just producing copious DD fusion as WB-6 did!)

I think maybe there may be more than one concept here.  One is magnetic
shielding of the apparatus itself; the other is the polyhedral concept.
If you look at the diagram on p. 16, and the "Missing the Obvious"
text, it shows the field lines shielding the apparatus, but "in essence
we built a railroad track for the electrons to get lost."  Maybe this
is the configuration where all coils face north inward, as M. has
surmised, but Dr. Bussard's point was that you could do much better
with the polyhedral concept (which would require more than six coils).

Striking off on my own here, it seems to me that the simplest
polyhedron to satisfy this criterion would be an octahedron, which has
12 edges, and 4 faces around each vertex... but I still don't see how
to arrange the coils on the edges so that they always alternate.  You
can do it if you put them on the FACES of the octahedron, though.  I
wonder if that's what he meant, and the bit about coils on the edges
was a slip of the tongue?

Can anyone else support or refute the idea that the 6-coil WB machines
didn't actually satisfy the polyhedron criterion Dr. Bussard mentioned?

Best,
- Joe



>
> There is no magnetic field in the center of the cube,
>
> because identical poles repel each other's fields.
>
>
>
> Behind the cusps formed in the magnetic field is a
>
> grid. The grid conforms to the cusps of the field.
>
>
>
> Surrounding all this is a vacuum chamber.
>
>
>
> The vacuum chamber is at ground potential. The grid at
>
> some high + voltage (H).
>
>
>
> There are gas atoms in the chamber. Deuterium (D).
>
>
>
> Electrons are injected into the chamber from the
>
> chamber walls.
>
>
>
> The electrons are accelerated by the high voltage to H
>
> ev (electron volts - a measure of energy).
>
>
>
> Some electrons moving into the center of the vacuum
>
> chamber ionize some of the D to D+ due to collisions.
>
>
>
> Through some mechanism I'm not yet clear on the
>
> electrons clump in the center of the chamber forming a
>
> virtual cathode (negative electrode) and in
>
> conjunction with the + grid forms a field internal to
>
> the grid.
>
>
>
> This field attracts D+ to the center of the chamber.
>
> Stuff happens.
>
>
>
> Electrons repelled by their clump in the center of the
>
> machine and attracted by the field made by the clump
>
> and the + grid, head for the + grid. The magnetic
>
> field deflects them so they do not contact the grid.
>
> As they get outside the grid the field between the +
>
> grid and the chamber walls attracts the electrons back
>
> towards the grid wich they sail through because it is
>
> mostly empty space and decelerate towards the center
>
> where the electrons are clumped.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Be a PS3 game guru.
>
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo!
> Games.
>
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

Polywell - As I Currently Understand It

This is my current understanding. If you have anny
corrections or additions post them to the list or to
the www site:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/03/polywell-as-i-currently-understand-i\
t.html

You have six magnets. They are on the face of a cube.
The north poles of the magnets all face into the cube.
There is no magnetic field in the center of the cube,
because identical poles repel each other's fields.

Behind the cusps formed in the magnetic field is a
grid. The grid conforms to the cusps of the field.

Surrounding all this is a vacuum chamber.

The vacuum chamber is at ground potential. The grid at
some high + voltage (H).

There are gas atoms in the chamber. Deuterium (D).

Electrons are injected into the chamber from the
chamber walls.

The electrons are accelerated by the high voltage to H
ev (electron volts - a measure of energy).

Some electrons moving into the center of the vacuum
chamber ionize some of the D to D+ due to collisions.

Through some mechanism I'm not yet clear on the
electrons clump in the center of the chamber forming a
virtual cathode (negative electrode) and in
conjunction with the + grid forms a field internal to
the grid.

This field attracts D+ to the center of the chamber.
Stuff happens.

Electrons repelled by their clump in the center of the
machine and attracted by the field made by the clump
and the + grid, head for the + grid. The magnetic
field deflects them so they do not contact the grid.
As they get outside the grid the field between the +
grid and the chamber walls attracts the electrons back
towards the grid wich they sail through because it is
mostly empty space and decelerate towards the center
where the electrons are clumped.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

Nice page on electromagnets:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=539901

I slipped a decimal point.

10,000 gauss = 1 Tesla.

A metal called Permadur can support a maximum of 2.3
Tesla.

However field uniformity would probably suffer vs a
strictly coil generated field.

Simon



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

Joe,

The iron thing is definative. I assure you.

Also there may be some minimum field stregth required
for the Polywell to form.

Tom can you help on this?

Simon


--- joe@... wrote:

> On Mar 22, 2007, at 21:46 UTC, M. Simon wrote:
>
> [re. use of permanent magnets]
>
> > The I believe it has already been tried. Tom would
> > know more about that.
> >
> > I expect that the limit is that the field is not
> > strong enough.
>
> Probably -- some more reading has turned up that
> permanent magnets max
> out at about a Tesla.  Halbach arrays can get a
> somewhat higher field
> strength, over a decent-sized volume, but the shape
> of the field may
> not be what we need to contain electrons.  (I'm
> still struggling a bit
> to understand exactly how electrons are contained by
> the field in a
> polywell reactor).
>
> However, 1 T or so might be enough for a small
> (consideably subscale!)
> test apparatus.  If so, that would greatly reduce
> the power
> requirements for the overall reactor, though
> probably not the expense
> (I imagine such large, powerful magnets are quite
> pricey not to mention
> difficult to work with).
>
> Tom, any insight on these issues?
>
> > The problem is that iron saturates at fairly low
> field
> > levels a few hundred gauss I believe. The desired
> > field intensities are 1,000 gauss and up 10,000 is
> > better and 30,000 might be required. Then you have
> the
> > problem of getting the desired field shape with a
> > magnetic core.
>
> These are reasonable cautionary points, but they
> don't seem definitive.
> It might be worth exploring further -- again, even
> if that trick won't
> scale up to a 2m reactor, it may help people who
> want to build 20cm
> reactors at home, and there's some value in that.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

On Mar 22, 2007, at 21:46 UTC, M. Simon wrote:

[re. use of permanent magnets]

> The I believe it has already been tried. Tom would
> know more about that.
>
> I expect that the limit is that the field is not
> strong enough.

Probably -- some more reading has turned up that permanent magnets max
out at about a Tesla.  Halbach arrays can get a somewhat higher field
strength, over a decent-sized volume, but the shape of the field may
not be what we need to contain electrons.  (I'm still struggling a bit
to understand exactly how electrons are contained by the field in a
polywell reactor).

However, 1 T or so might be enough for a small (consideably subscale!)
test apparatus.  If so, that would greatly reduce the power
requirements for the overall reactor, though probably not the expense
(I imagine such large, powerful magnets are quite pricey not to mention
difficult to work with).

Tom, any insight on these issues?

> The problem is that iron saturates at fairly low field
> levels a few hundred gauss I believe. The desired
> field intensities are 1,000 gauss and up 10,000 is
> better and 30,000 might be required. Then you have the
> problem of getting the desired field shape with a
> magnetic core.

These are reasonable cautionary points, but they don't seem definitive.
It might be worth exploring further -- again, even if that trick won't
scale up to a 2m reactor, it may help people who want to build 20cm
reactors at home, and there's some value in that.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

The Boron compounds suitable for injection into the
system all have an excess of Hydrogen.

Diborane is a gas (used in the semiconductor
industry). Its formula is B2H6.

======
Diborane is only available as a mixture, typically
using Argon, Helium, Hydrogen, or Nitrogen as balance
gases. Other balance gases are available upon request.

DESCRIPTION:  Diborane (B2H6) is a colorless, toxic,
flammable gas with a sickly sweet odor.

APPLICATION:  Diborane is used as a boron (P-type
dopant) source in chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or
ion implantation processes.

http://www.scottsemicon.com/pures/diborane.html

=====

Will the Helium in the mixture be a problem?

How about the excess Hydrogen?

Would sputtering solid boron be a better way to go?

The advantage of Borane gas is that you can buy it in
high purity from semiconductor gas supply houses.

Simon



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

--- joe@... wrote:

> On Mar 22, 2007, at 18:20 UTC, M. Simon wrote:
>
> > The second is much harder: magnetic fields. For a
> > given number of turns and field current the field
> is
> > inversely proportional to the radius of the coil.
> >
> > I did some back of the envelope stuff with a
> Helmholtz
> > coil configuration. What I came up with was a 3
> meter
> > diameter coil with 1,000 turns with 1,000 Amps of
> > current produces a .3 Tesla field. Dr. Bussard did
> a
> > pulsed experiment that generated a 35 T field by
> > driving the configuration with 35 KA. Not trivial.
>
> OK, thanks for this detailed reply.  Time for me to
> ask some of my
> naive physics questions.
>
> Now, I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable
> source, but I often find
> it a helpful starting point.  In the section on
> electromagnets, it
> states: "In applications where a variable magnetic
> field is not
> required, permanent magnets are generally superior.
> Additionally,
> permanent magnets can be manufactured to produce
> stronger fields than
> electromagnets of similar size."

The I believe it has already been tried. Tom would
know more about that.

I expect that the limit is that the field is not
strong enough.

> We certainly don't need a variable magnetic field
> here.  And we also
> want it to be as strong as possible for its size.
> Would permanent
> magnets be a possibility?  If not, why not?
>
> Also, the entry points out that electromagnets can
> be made much
> stronger if a ferromagnetic core (typically soft
> iron) is added.  The
> article on permanent magnets mentions this same
> effect: "'Soft' magnets
> are often used in electromagnets to enhance (often
> by factors of
> hundreds or thousands) the magnetic field of a
> current-carrying wire
> that has been wrapped around the magnet; when the
> current increases, so
> does the field of the 'soft' magnet, which is much
> larger than the
> field due to the current."  (Here by 'soft' magnet
> they seem to mean
> ordinary ferromagnetic materials, which are magnetic
> only in the
> presence of a magnetic field.)

The problem is that iron saturates at fairly low field
levels a few hundred gauss I believe. The desired
field intensities are 1,000 gauss and up 10,000 is
better and 30,000 might be required. Then you have the
problem of getting the desired field shape with a
magnetic core.

> So, can we reduce the difficulty of the problem by a
> few orders of
> magnitude by adding an iron core to our coils?

I assure you if it could be done it would have been
done. It is elementary for any EE.

Simon



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

On Mar 22, 2007, at 18:20 UTC, M. Simon wrote:

> The second is much harder: magnetic fields. For a
> given number of turns and field current the field is
> inversely proportional to the radius of the coil.
>
> I did some back of the envelope stuff with a Helmholtz
> coil configuration. What I came up with was a 3 meter
> diameter coil with 1,000 turns with 1,000 Amps of
> current produces a .3 Tesla field. Dr. Bussard did a
> pulsed experiment that generated a 35 T field by
> driving the configuration with 35 KA. Not trivial.

OK, thanks for this detailed reply.  Time for me to ask some of my
naive physics questions.

Now, I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but I often find
it a helpful starting point.  In the section on electromagnets, it
states: "In applications where a variable magnetic field is not
required, permanent magnets are generally superior. Additionally,
permanent magnets can be manufactured to produce stronger fields than
electromagnets of similar size."

We certainly don't need a variable magnetic field here.  And we also
want it to be as strong as possible for its size.  Would permanent
magnets be a possibility?  If not, why not?

Also, the entry points out that electromagnets can be made much
stronger if a ferromagnetic core (typically soft iron) is added.  The
article on permanent magnets mentions this same effect: "'Soft' magnets
are often used in electromagnets to enhance (often by factors of
hundreds or thousands) the magnetic field of a current-carrying wire
that has been wrapped around the magnet; when the current increases, so
does the field of the 'soft' magnet, which is much larger than the
field due to the current."  (Here by 'soft' magnet they seem to mean
ordinary ferromagnetic materials, which are magnetic only in the
presence of a magnetic field.)

So, can we reduce the difficulty of the problem by a few orders of
magnitude by adding an iron core to our coils?

Thanks,
— Joe


--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

Joe,

I would assume the discussion has already taken place
and the answer was no.

Simon
--- joe@... wrote:

> OK, one more thought, as I was pondering that "food
> chain of the rich
> and famous"...  does anyone know whether Sir Richard
> Branson has been
> made aware of this?
>
> Branson has the financial means; he has already
> shown strong interest
> in both space development and clean energy; he
> dreams big; and we have
> a fairly direct connection to him in the form of Jim
> Benson.  Benson's
> motors powered SpaceShipOne, and I think they're
> going to be used on
> Virgin Galactic too.  Surely Benson could call
> Branson up and have a
> heart to heart.  Seems like this could be a real
> short cut to the
> desired outcome.
>
> Of course, if Branson provides the funding, it may
> mean that the first
> practical fusion reactor is British rather than
> American.  But does
> anybody really care, as long as it's made available
> to all?
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

Joe,

The problems with an amateur building a Polywell
machine are two. One is not so hard - electron guns.

The second is much harder: magnetic fields. For a
given number of turns and field current the field is
inversely proportional to the radius of the coil.

I did some back of the envelope stuff with a Helmholtz
coil configuration. What I came up with was a 3 meter
diameter coil with 1,000 turns with 1,000 Amps of
current produces a .3 Tesla field. Dr. Bussard did a
pulsed experiment that generated a 35 T field by
driving the configuration with 35 KA. Not trivial. He
contemplates using a 20 Tesla superconducting coil and
would like to go to 30 Tesla.

Look at it this way. if you have 6 coils of 1 ohm each
you would need a 6,000 volt, 6 MW power supply for
just the magnetic field. You are going to need a heck
of a delay line (a capacitor bank with inductors) to
deliver that at constant voltage for even a few mS.
Then you have to co-ordinate the electron guns, the HV
power supplies, the gas injection, the metering, etc.
with your magnetic pulse all with time discrimination
on the order of 10 uS. The experiment would need to be
run by computers with the data collected by high speed
sampling or slower sample and holds (for average
measurements).

This is a job for a team of high school/college
students and probably $100,000 in donated material.
For a machine on the order of .3 M dia.

Doing most of the engineering in advance of the
builders would be a big help. I can do a lot of the
power supply and electronics work. Maybe Tom could
pitch in on magnetics and chamber design (electronics
too). Don't forget the electron guns.

So maybe that ought to be the next step. I'd like to
shoot for an operational time of around 1 mS.
Repeatable once a minute or more. A lot of data could
be collected. Doubling the delay line length for the
magnet drive could be a subsequent improvement.

Once the machine is worked out on paper including
injection of a hydrogen borate gas (what about the
excess of hydrogen in B2H6?) then we can see about
building it.

Simon

--- joe@... wrote:

> OK, if you got Tom over here, then you can have me
> too.  :)  Brief
> introduction: I'm a software engineer, currently
> working on my own
> internet start-up and also doing some consulting on
> the side.  My
> science background is in neuroscience, so I'll
> probably be the one to
> ask all the dumb physics questions (though I am
> always eager to be
> educated).
>
> Some initial thoughts on how to move this forward.
>
> On Dr. Bussard's technical paper: this is clearly a
> top priority, and
> there's probably not much we can do to help.
> Except... paying somebody
> to help him with the figures and formatting really
> shouldn't be
> necessary; for something as important as this,
> surely we can find a
> competent volunteer?  Lots of people have good
> writing/formatting
> skills, and with modern software like SigmaPlot,
> it's not hard to make
> good publication-quality graphs either.  Maybe we
> can help him locate a
> competent volunteer?  (I assume Dr. Bussard would
> prefer to have
> someone in New Mexico that he can work with in
> person.)
>
> On fund raising: A couple million dollars is a lot
> to gather in $1 and
> $10 contributions, but not that much when it comes
> to major fund
> raisers of the sort Presidential candidates
> routinely pull off.  I
> think Hollywood is an especially fruitful place to
> work here, because
> there are a lot of people there with a lot of money,
> who care enough
> about the future of our country to contribute large
> amounts to their
> preferred candidates -- how much more would they
> contribute to an
> effort that could single-handedly solve so many of
> today's problems?
>
> Of course we can't just knock on Stephen Spielberg's
> door and make a
> pitch.  We'd need to work up the ladder of the rich
> and famous.  Once
> this group gets going, we should start with a survey
> of connections we
> have to people who are high up the ladder, who are
> likely to be
> interested in this sort of thing.  We might get
> lucky and work our way
> to somebody like Paul Allen (or Anousheh Ansari?)
> who could fund the
> next two experiments single-handedly; or we might
> reach someone who can
> set up a gala Hollywood fund-raiser dinner, with
> Robin Williams
> cracking jokes and diners paying $10K per plate.
> Either way, the world
> wins.
>
> On amateur development: Tom has expressed the
> opinion that amateurs
> could build small polywell devices, and at least
> validate some of the
> earlier results.  This seems worth pursuing,
> especially if we are
> unable to reignite Dr. Bussard's research quickly.
> I suppose we should
> start that by gathering as much technical
> information as we can on how
> these things could be built.  I suppose fusor.net
> would be the most
> fertile ground for pursuing that, though I haven't
> seen as much
> excitement over there about the polywell design as I
> would expect.
>
> Also, when it comes to home-built reactors, what are
> the primary
> hurdles to building larger machines?  Can we develop
> a model of how the
> costs scale with size?  This is important since the
> gain scales with
> size too, and people will always claim that we can't
> break even until
> we actually do so.  What's to stop one of us from
> building a 2-meter
> break-even pB-11 reactor in his barn?
>
> Whew!  That'll do for now.  I look forward to your
> comments.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a
> Better Place"
> http://www.verex.com/
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

OK, one more thought, as I was pondering that "food chain of the rich
and famous"...  does anyone know whether Sir Richard Branson has been
made aware of this?

Branson has the financial means; he has already shown strong interest
in both space development and clean energy; he dreams big; and we have
a fairly direct connection to him in the form of Jim Benson.  Benson's
motors powered SpaceShipOne, and I think they're going to be used on
Virgin Galactic too.  Surely Benson could call Branson up and have a
heart to heart.  Seems like this could be a real short cut to the
desired outcome.

Of course, if Branson provides the funding, it may mean that the first
practical fusion reactor is British rather than American.  But does
anybody really care, as long as it's made available to all?

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

OK, if you got Tom over here, then you can have me too.  :)  Brief
introduction: I'm a software engineer, currently working on my own
internet start-up and also doing some consulting on the side.  My
science background is in neuroscience, so I'll probably be the one to
ask all the dumb physics questions (though I am always eager to be
educated).

Some initial thoughts on how to move this forward.

On Dr. Bussard's technical paper: this is clearly a top priority, and
there's probably not much we can do to help.  Except... paying somebody
to help him with the figures and formatting really shouldn't be
necessary; for something as important as this, surely we can find a
competent volunteer?  Lots of people have good writing/formatting
skills, and with modern software like SigmaPlot, it's not hard to make
good publication-quality graphs either.  Maybe we can help him locate a
competent volunteer?  (I assume Dr. Bussard would prefer to have
someone in New Mexico that he can work with in person.)

On fund raising: A couple million dollars is a lot to gather in $1 and
$10 contributions, but not that much when it comes to major fund
raisers of the sort Presidential candidates routinely pull off.  I
think Hollywood is an especially fruitful place to work here, because
there are a lot of people there with a lot of money, who care enough
about the future of our country to contribute large amounts to their
preferred candidates -- how much more would they contribute to an
effort that could single-handedly solve so many of today's problems?

Of course we can't just knock on Stephen Spielberg's door and make a
pitch.  We'd need to work up the ladder of the rich and famous.  Once
this group gets going, we should start with a survey of connections we
have to people who are high up the ladder, who are likely to be
interested in this sort of thing.  We might get lucky and work our way
to somebody like Paul Allen (or Anousheh Ansari?) who could fund the
next two experiments single-handedly; or we might reach someone who can
set up a gala Hollywood fund-raiser dinner, with Robin Williams
cracking jokes and diners paying $10K per plate.  Either way, the world
wins.

On amateur development: Tom has expressed the opinion that amateurs
could build small polywell devices, and at least validate some of the
earlier results.  This seems worth pursuing, especially if we are
unable to reignite Dr. Bussard's research quickly.  I suppose we should
start that by gathering as much technical information as we can on how
these things could be built.  I suppose fusor.net would be the most
fertile ground for pursuing that, though I haven't seen as much
excitement over there about the polywell design as I would expect.

Also, when it comes to home-built reactors, what are the primary
hurdles to building larger machines?  Can we develop a model of how the
costs scale with size?  This is important since the gain scales with
size too, and people will always claim that we can't break even until
we actually do so.  What's to stop one of us from building a 2-meter
break-even pB-11 reactor in his barn?

Whew!  That'll do for now.  I look forward to your comments.

Best,
- Joe

--
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Verified Express, LLC     "Making the Internet a Better Place"
http://www.verex.com/

MSimon, you successfully dragged me over from NASASpaceFlight.com.
Helps that I just joined a Yahoo bicycling group and had not yet
forgotten my user name and password!

For the newcomers, I worked for R. W. Bussard on his fusion project for
over 5 years, and think he's figured out how to save the world.  I am a
science fiction author for Analog, and wrote a fact article for them on
IEC that won an Analab award for 1998.

I'm sometimes credited, due to that article, with starting the amateur
fusion movement centered on fusor.net, but actually that was mostly the
doing of Richard Hull.  I got Richard started, then he turned it into a
movement.  Writing that article was Dr. Bussard's idea.

This is the beginning of what I hope will culminate in the production
of a practical low cost fusion reactor.