Re: Explosive compression of MTF liners?

"Paul M Koloc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Raziel wrote:
>
> > "Paul M Koloc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>Raziel wrote:
>
> >>>>Dan Mills wrote:
>
> >>>>It doesn't, except that the metal wall is deforming and cracking so in
> >>>>the liner case it has a faster impurity injection.
> >>>That is incorrect.  The liner is 'liquified' almost immediately after
>
> >>> the z-pinch current is applied.  The Aluminum becomes elastic.
> > correction: the Al becomes plastic not elastic.
>
> You are splitting hairs.

maybe, but you have to get these things correct.

> The fact that the Al becomes plastic means it
> is deforming.  Plastic or not, the surface is hotter than it is in the
> pre crushed state, and, therefore, there is more emission of crud.  Note
> that Aluminum tends to form crystal (sapphire) Al203 at its surface, and
> it is possible that during compression this stuff would flake off. But
> the Al itself will out gas.
>
> >>>also incorrect.  the 'static vacuum wall' is well outside the liner.
>
> Okay, and there is no pathway that out gas from the static vacuum wall
> could get to the magnetized target plasma?  Do you know something that I
> don't know?
>
there may be, but I don't think it is an issue.  No one I have talked to
about it thinks it is an issue.  The plasma density and temperature are so
high that I don't think it matters if there are some impurities at the wall.

> >>I was speaking of a MFE vacuum wall device, i.e., a tokamak.
>
> > why?  that is irrelevant to the question.  further, he asked about MTF
> > liners not tokamaks.
>
> Wrong Raz
> I quote the exchange:
> pmk  ">The liner is an impurity generator, and since liner junk is not
>        ">ionized,
>        ">the impurities will not be impeded by the vacuum field of the
>        ">magnetoplasmoid target.  The impurities will freeze the plasma,
>        "> quench any fusion hopes.
>
> Mills  "How does this differ from the wall outgassing inherent in any
>          "vacuum system?
>          "As I understand it the other possible issue is that impurities
>          "raise the resistance of the plasma possibly giving rise to
>          "instabilities (what are I believe called G-Mode instabilities
>          "in a JET style machine?)?
>
> So, my read was more broad than yours.  And, I wasn't aware that this
> would be a source for misunderstanding. Are you always this difficult?
> -
> >>>ook.
>
> What does ook mean?   ok? or something else more specific.
>
> >>>have you actually formed one?  or do you still just have cartoons?
>
> Well, the cartoons came first.  It was a difficult thing to back
> engineer from guesses about natural ball lightning formation caused by
> lightning strokes; and even though the cartoons describe a series of
> formation morphologies, there was no certainty that the scenario would
> actually work in practice.  The first experimental try was only aimed at
> producing a current pulse discharge whose signature was similar to a
> lightning pulse.  To our amazement, the crude plasma generator we
> included in the circuit worked on the first shot, and several more shots
> until the device disintegrate due to failure of portions of insulator
> made from five minute epoxy (curing time).
>
> Have we formed them?  Yes, as papers on the web sites describe.
>
> >>>>This work is not easy for us, because we are out on the wings of the
> >>>>distribution function, and the USDOE is quite retarded as far as
fusion
> >>>>concept-space is concerned.
>
> >>>yes, they have that pesky peer-review process whereby physicists
> >>>actually look at the experiments.
>
> >>Well, we haven't been funded by the USDoE so.. .
>
> > have you submitted a proposal?
>
> Not recently, the USDOE funding by Congress has been cut to the point
> where it hurts their efforts to do tokamak fusion.  They are throwing
> away a good opportunity taking this time to develop an engineering
> physicist fusion design that is workable.

not at all.

> That leaves them with ITER,
> a low plasma pressure vacuum device of immense size and inefficiency due
> to its exclusion of the toroidal field currents (actually toroidal field
> currents are poloidal) from the toroidal plasma (they would flow the
> short way around the plasma torus).  The USDoE uses unethical tactics
> such as implying it is time to do a "Burning Plasma Experiment".

The DoE has done no such thing.  You really should stay up on these things.
There were myriad meetings about just this subject at the last APS.

> This  is nuts, since the BPE experiment will be forced knowing that such a
> burn is impossible in a tokamak.

according to whom?  certainly not the scientists in the fusion community.

> But it keeps the money flowing from the  taxpayers.
>
> The biggest question for the taxpayers is that the scientific results
> coming from such an experiment will be shoe horned into a form that
> would claim "break even Plasma fusion".  This is not break-even fusion
> as it is generally understood.  If any burning takes place, whatsoever,
> then the claim will be that the BPE works.  Detecting more fusion energy
>   in a selected cubic centimeter of plasma than was actually was put
> into that cubic centimeter of plasma to heat it up is not of
> significance.  The important consideration is the ratio of energy into
> the system versus fusion energy developed in the plasma.  The system
> includes beam guns, RF, adiabatic compression, vacuum pumps, etc.  The
> reaction rate with a full D-T fuel load has been and can be extrapolated
> from D-D results.  The USDoE should leave it at that.  It is already
> known by the Electric Power Industry that a tokamak will never make a
> workable power  generator.  It takes pressure to make fusion, ask any
> star.  The Magnetic field embodiment of a tokamak guarantees that the
> beast can Not develop the pressure required for an viable fusion burner.
>   This includes the burning the lowest ignition temperature dirty fuel
> there is, Deuterium-Tritium.
>
> So, do you think the USDoE has time or the stomach to look at something
> that is advanced as the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  What is pathetic
> here is the magnetic topology of the two concepts is identical, it is
> only the physical embodiments that differ.  The PLASMAK(tm)
> magnetoplasmoid has the advantages over the tokamak and the points are
> discussed at our web site.  Many are similar to the advantages of MTF,
> and for the same reasons.
>
> We feel that our progress could actually get us to burn before the
> tokamak.  If that happens???  You might be satisfied;  in the
> meantime just keep "investing your tax dollars" into the tokamak. I do,
> but I don't like it.
>
too much to read.  ITER is cheap.  Hell, Seattle will spend more than the
entire ITER effort on its light rail.

> >>we haven't done  "credible" experimental work,
> >
> > I couldn't answer that.  Last time I saw you at a conference I tried
asking
> > you questions and your responses basically consisted of:
> > 'that is proprietary', or 'that is trademarked', or 'I can't answer that
> > unless you work for me.'  That is unacceptable in science.
>
> Horse Biscuits!  What conference??  I don't think you mean that.  Use of
> Trade marked or patented concepts are open for your research at any
> time.  I have occasionally described my work at conferences.  My
> practice has been to be quite open about my concept; including what it
> is and how it works, etc.. Sorry, but I really do not remember you.  How
> long ago??

it was several years ago, i remember being very frustrated.

> We are talking really ancient times. What are you doing
> currently? Doing any plasma or fusion research?
>
indeed.  FRC work.

> >>since we do not have that level of funding
> >>to meet the USDoE review eligible level of "what is credible" (known as
> >>catch 22).
>
> > Bullshit.  If the physics basis is sound, you don't have to have done
ANY
> > experiments.  Now, they don't have much money for new work, there is
barely
> > enough to keep exisiting programs running, but blame Congress for that.
>
> Huh?  I told you the first thing I did was take the concept to Mdme
> Bussac and M N Rosenbluth.  Goldenbaum did the first (and best
> experiment for the spheromak class) at U Md.  Then Yamada at PPPL,
> although I warned Furth about the impurity problem arising from this
> formation scenario.  The better of the two (LLNL|LANL) was the LANL
> Spheromak (CTX) by Jarboe at LANL.  Tom is now with the UW I think.
>
he is.  however, taking the concept to a scientist, and writing a proposal
for DoE are two different things.

> >>So the USDoE would never entertain taking a look at work
> >>that has not past this filter.
>
> > again BS.  There is a peer review process for ALL new proposals, and all
> > existing programs.  New proposals are rated based on the physics
presented.
> > It has nothing to do with "credible" experimental work.
>
> Physics at the vacuum device plasma discharge level, doesn't get you
> there.  As I pointed out, if mag fields can confine plasmas, so plasmas
> can confine mag fields, thus making the All Plasma Spheromak possible.
> So, what level of physics knows one principle but not the corollary. THE
> USDOE.. .. YES got that right the first time.
>
> OR ...   I heard the following conclusion and argument from some ad hoc
> fusion committee of the NSF.  Advanced fuels can not be fusion burned
> with sufficient power density to be capable of viable commercial
> operation.  REASON:  well, in the tokamak, using the lowest burn
> temperature (DT) is fixed at ~10keV, and the plasma pressure is (say 10
> atmospheres), so therefore, the plasma density is fixed.  The burn
> density is less than 1 watt/cc.  Such a low burn density is marginal.
> Since it requires much higher temperatures for advanced (aneutronic)
> fuels, then the density would be proportionally lower.  Since the burn
> rate goes as density squared, aneutronic fuels would not burn at
> commercially acceptable rate. The barrier for producing high plasma
> pressure in the tokamak are limited by the stablizing toroidal field
> strength.  The bottom line of this limitation is the strength of the
> coils.  Good conductors are soft, and don't make strong pressure
> devices. So we have to load the coils with high tensile strength strands
> of whatever fits the bill.  With less cross-section for the conductor
> the resistance becomes a limiting factor.  So let's try Superconducting
> coils..   Ahhh.. damn, there is a limit on current (field) density
> before the superconductor becomes "NON-superconducting".
>
> BUT, in the PLASMAK(tm) system there are two plasma pressure advantages,
> that the tokamak embodiment does not have.  It is a spheromak, so it has
> the most efficient magnetic confinement topology there is and it is
> "stable".  The effective engineering BETA is a factor of three, which
> means that the plasma nkT pressure is 3 times that of the pressure
> applied to the Separatrix.  This is simply fabulous when we consider
> that a tokamak engineering BETA (from the inside of the toroidal field
> coil) to the central plasma pressure is order 1/100.  It is a reverse
> "lever and fulcrum" (pressure-wise).  By putting the toroidal field
> current in the plasma (driven by the poloidal current there), we have no
> limit as to how high we can drive the current density and total current.
> Note, that resistive ohmic heating is quite modest so the plasma beta
> does not blow up.  Rather the magnetic confinement pressure stays ahead
> of the plasma beta.
>
> And finally, the externally applied pressure to a PLASMAK(tm)
> magnetoplasmoid or PMK (for plasma mantle kernel).  This means we can
> use high tensile strength spherical chambers and compress the PMK using
> high pressure gas.. . or even water.  What a water compressed PMK?
> Sure, the water forms a gas layer around the plasma Mantle, and the
> fluid water in the rest of the tank can be converted by soft fusion
> X-rays into the plasma during the few milliseconds of burn.  (Here we
> hope to use p-B11, although DD and p will be used for first compression
> tests at commercial facilities.  Defense labs can use the ripe stuff
> (radioactive) D-T.
>
> In conclusion, since we can externally compress this Beta 3 system to 50
> kBar, we should be able to burn p-Boron at a million times the burn
> density of a D-T burning tokamak.  But.. . the NSF doesn't know that.
>
> You are naive if you think that the lock step USDoE plasma community
> would dare to recommend funding for such "obviously, crazy ideas" that
> are openly opposing the current direction of the National Fusion Program.
>
> So, your choice, believe the USDOE driven tokamak "Burning plasma"
> drivel, be happy and trust in the integrity, intelligence and good
> intentioned National Fusion Program.  To some (power industry engineers)
> that lie outside the fusion community, tokamak and the engineering
> studies on its potential are a big "joke".
>
> So how are we doing right now??  Will the end blew off the far end of
> our coax transmission line... fixed, the front end section of our PFN
> had a folded plate resistor with too much inductance,... fixed, and the
> plasma source gun passed too much charge transfer 50-100 coulombs
> (compared to the 4 or 5 coulombs used in a previous experimental level)
> to not erode .. . fixed using niobium copper of increased bulk.  We will
> next use Boron-11 electrodes closely tied to tungsten grade to a copper
> transmission line.
>
again too much to read, too little time

> >>On the other hand, we have done "credible" experimental work,
> > where are your publications?
>
> (Yawn) Results at the web site.
>
> >>and that is why we are continuing with the  support of "another US
agency"
>
> > which agency?
>
> MDA
>
which is?

> >>that has an interest in actually getting
> >>past the BS of tokamak fusion and moving on to a developing concept that
> >>makes sense and could be workable.  And, we have been issued USpatents
> >>covering methods and apparatus of this concept,
>
> >so?
>
> Read them, they might be helpful.
>
> >>in spite of the fact
> >>that the USDoE must technically approve each US application (involving
> >>nuclear energy) before the USpatent office will issue the patent.
>
> > technically.  But then again, many things slip through the cracks.
>
> Sure, like the mag flux through an imploding metal liner. ;-)
> These guys are Very thorough.
>
> >> Now I  realize that "peer review" is an important way to keep alive the
> >> spirit of conflict of interest, at least in the case of hot fusion.
>
> > hardly.  "peer review" keeps taxpayer money from being wased on
experiments
> > that violate the laws of physics.
>
> Aren't you being a bit naive. Ideas such ours are so cheap by comparison
> to the tokamak research, that the risk to gain ratio is negligible.
> This is certainly not the case for the tokamak.
>
> Your statement seems a bit silly .  It implies that theory can predict
> what experiments will work or not.  I think it is the other way around.
>   But, even so, we must tell you that "the Virial Theorem" as applied,
> makes the PMK, Sunspot energies, and Ball lightning impossible.  Since
> BL are observed to decay half the time as a big BLAM! (explosive
> expansion) and impart mechanical and electrical damage to nearby
> objects, one would observe from this, that its average energy density
> exceeds that of its plasma boundary in equilibrium with the surrounding
> air.  The problem for these objects isn't the virial theorem, it should
> work if correctly derived for this specific topology and physical
> embodiment.  The general VT works well for stars, smoke clouds, lumps of
> amorphous plasma, etc.  But here the KE of the collective current
> electrons is expressed as the magnetic energy of the magnetoplasmoid,
> which exceeds the total plasma energy significantly, while at the same
> the magnetic energy itself contributes to the Potential energy that
> confines the plasma.  Since the plasma can exist at low BETA, and the
> currents are energetic (nearly lossless), these two factors are quite
> removed from the BETA 1 types of thermal plasma (blob or a star) that is
> correctly the subject of the standard virial.
>
> BTW are You referring to peer reviewing of the tokamak?  I would say
> Peer Review from a group of working engineering physicists of power
> industry background is what is needed.  The meaningless peer review of
> academics working for the USDoE is not honest and pretends to be capable
> of judging innovative working industrial devices such as a tokamak when
> in fact they are totally clueless.  That is simply disgusting,
> laughable, or silly or something like that.  Tokamak is a very
> frustrating entity, mostly because of the duration of its reign.
>
I am referring to peer review in general.  All DoE fusion programs go
through it every couple of years.  If they are working they continue to get
funding, if not they are dropped.  Occasionally a completely new idea is
funded, and goes through the same process.

Raz




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----