Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Polywell Fusion Update


Here's a nice little video that graphically illustrates how the magnetic well in the Polywell IEC fusion device forms (there is now proof it does form). The little flashes later in the video represent ions fusing. Here is Bussard's original presentation to Google, which sparked interest in the Polywell concept.

This extremely technical discussion, with lots of scary equations, is apparently the key to whether IEC fusion of one type or another will pan out and usher in a new age of cheap energy abundance, or just waste everyone's time and money on a wild goose chase. It applies to both of the currently proposed IEC fusion machines are (Bussard’s Polywell and the Tri-Alpha colliding beam machine being built by Rostoker/Monckton). It’s from 1998, and is essentially a debate over whether the magnetic field in the Rostoker/Monckton colliding-beam IEC fusion device can reduce the thermalization (the tendency of the system to collapse to thermodynamic equilibrium). (Another issue is discussed as well, but it pertains only to the colliding-beam version.)

Rider’s earlier paper, cited by Nevins, supposedly proves the magnetic field cannot affect the entropy of the system. Rostoker/Monckton claim that Rider and Nevins used the wrong equation to describe the situation in an IEC machine, choosing conditions that don't reflect the reality of these devices. (Bussard has not presented a paper as of yet, though we might get one this year, but apparently makes essentially the same argument.) These are all serious scientists. There is apparently no definitive reference that resolves the difference of opinion. Most likely we’ll have to build the machines to know who’s right.

M. Simon of Power and Control is attempting to design a WB-7 Polywell fusion device, based on Bussard’s “Valencia papers” describing his work and some help from Tom Ligon (who worked with Bussard), that would provide definitive, repeatable, testable proof beyond any doubt. Effort is ongoing in this thread, with notes in this forum as well. Kinda neat, really; it’s a real Army of Davids kind of approach.

Of course, Tri-Alpha just got $40M to build their demo model, so they’ll probably be first past the post if they have a viable path to economical fusion power. But things will get pretty crazy (i.e., billions being thrown around at anyone with pretty PowerPoint slides, a la the 1999 Web bubble) if anyone can prove IEC fusion works, especially with oil staying over $70/bbl. Tri-Alpha has said they see commecial power within 15 years, so presumably that money is going to build a smaller prototype model, which is probably a 1-3 year project. Meanwhile, Bussard has hinted funding for his design may be forthcoming, so it could be a very interesting next few years.

Posted by Dave Price | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
McKiernan:
Ya' know, if you think you can fool the readership out here in DeansWorld-verse with all that techno-talk ----- you're exactly correct.

I have no response except, a close relative, only a couple of generations younger, is now working on THIS.

See: Airborne Laser Team
7.17.2007 7:54pm
Dean Esmay:
What's to fool? The folks involved in this are credible. It may or may not work but the usual signs of crackpottery are not there that I can see.
7.17.2007 8:36pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Dave,

You should add in a bit about POPS which could reduce break-even size to about the size of WB-7x if its gain multiplication can be made any where near as high as is claimed. (10,000X - although they have only shown 2X or 3X so far.
7.17.2007 8:40pm
HokiePundit (RDB) W&M 1L (mail) (www):
Well, once they finally developed retroencabulators that generate power from the modial interactions of magneto-reluctance and capacitive directance this was the logical next step. I'm excited to see where they take it from here.
7.17.2007 11:56pm
TallDave (mail) (www):
Hokie,

Heh. No, this isn't laundry balls or permanent magnet motors. This is the real deal.
7.18.2007 9:41am
TallDave (mail) (www):
Actually, I was really hoping someone of a serious physics background could weigh in on the Nevins/Rostoker debate there. No one really seems to be familiar enough with the Vlasov/Fokker-Planck equation to state whether Rostoker & Co. made a mistake in deriving a form of the equation that allows the magnetic field to have an effect on the thermodynamic equilibrium of the system.
7.18.2007 9:44am
P Mike (mail):
Hey Ali,


According to Bussard, "The funds were clearly needed for the more important War in Iraq."

Not sure what penalty to credibility ought to be levied on making suspect statements, but in my book the Wiki entry:

Bussard notes that, "Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?"

indicates someone who might not have a good grasp in practical reality. A full-scale plant that has never been built before (using a technology that has only been used in laboratory experiments) without a design or enviromental assessment cannot be in the same time-scale it takes to build a conventional power plant, and the price tag for engineering the experiment is less than a SWAG.
7.18.2007 10:21am
RyanR (mail):
P Mike- The guy's a physicist. He does not have a practical side that he is aware of. That's why we have engineers.

Ryan
7.18.2007 11:50am
Casey Tompkins (mail) (www):
Does this mean we'll have Bussard collectors on the front ends of the warp-drive nacelles, just like on the models?

Kewl...
7.18.2007 3:07pm
TallDave (mail) (www):
P Mike,

Good points, M Simon and I made much the same arguments a few months ago when we heard about this. The answer to the 4-6 year is that Bussard is very old and in failing health, and wants to see it happen before he dies (which dings his credibility a bit imho, though not fatally). He does concede he will probably not get that funding, and has lowered his sights a bit to something somwehere in between his WB-6 model and the 100MW full-scale commercial reactor. If he can get that up and going, 4-6 years is probably not too optimistic. Given IEC fusion's promise, billions will be spent in an effort to be the first once the principle has been proven out.
7.18.2007 4:37pm
TallDave (mail) (www):
M. Simon,

I'm trying to keep this to one way-out technology at a time. I think POPS needs more experimental proof -- though it is quite exciting.
7.18.2007 4:38pm
jimmybob (mail):
Well, a full-scale plant is pretty small. There is no steam cycle, which is the biggest expense even for nuclear fission plants. Instead it uses direct conversion of an ion stream, using well-understood technology. Environmental impact is essentially nil, since it produces no pollution whatsoever, uses minimal and very cheap fuel, and produces very little radiation, requiring minimal shielding. Due to the low capital and fuel costs, the power it produces will be about fifty times cheaper than the going rate. Once there is a working demo plant, I think that price differential will make conversion to fusion happen remarkably quickly.
8.27.2007 12:34am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.

Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.

Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.