Talk:Directory:Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion Device

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:31 am.

One error has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion Device

Image:Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion EIF 95x95.jpg

Dr. Bussard and his team at Energy/Matter Conversion Corporation, after close to 20 years of hard work, have developed a revolutionary radiation-free fusion process that takes boron-11 and fuses a proton to it, producing, in its excited state, a carbon-12 atom. This excited carbon-12 atom decays to beryllium-8 and helium-4. It was developed under a DOD contract and has recently been made public.

Comments

post here

(Just click on the "There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1].)

NEC Comments

Not Cheap Not Soon

On Jan. 5, 2006, a New Energy Congress member wrote:

6-10 years is a long way out, and $150-200 million is NOT cheap.

: Rebuttal: On Jan. 9, 2007, Dr. Bussard wrote:

: It can make power at about 5/8 the cost of conventional plants (most is BOP costs) process steam at 1/3 the cost of others, make syfuels (ethanol) at less than 0.5/gallon, destroy nuclear waste, and make space engines commercial, etc, etc. The basic physics is summarized in my IAC paper in October. And in much earlier papers in the early 1990's. All still valid.

: The physic is essentially done, in the 11 years we worked under publishing embargo. Now the real engineering is needed to build a full scale demo plant, which is the next logical step. Cost $ 200 M for the whole thing, and five years for 100 MW. Marks the end of fossil (and fission) fuels.

: We are looking for private money, not government.

Exciting Possibilities

On January 9, 2007, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Robert Indech, PhD PE wrote:

This work is exciting in that it offers the possibility to remove our

civilization from the petroleum standard. For our readers, 'I will attempt to give my interpretation of its methods of operation, limitations, and possible place in the energy scheme of things.'

To begin with, it is not a "free energy" device, but rather a method to

fuse two lighter nuclei into a heavier nucleus, with an accompanying

substantial conversion of matter (due to the strong nuclear binding force)

to heat energy. Presumably, such heat energy released would then be

conventionally processed into electric power on the national grid or,

alternatively, high energy alpha particles released from the reaction could

be used as the output thruster of a spacecraft.

The device utilizes one major method of confinement: magnetic fields

placed in a modified spherical assembly -- in this case a 6 sided polyhedron.

The ionized reactants are confined by the magnetic fields, eventually

repeatedly passing through a geometrical center point, where they assume a

high concentration, and a high enough velocity so that when they collide

fusion occurs. Such general magnetic confinement has been used for many

years in conventional hot fusion devices, but not of this exact geometry. In

conventional fusion devices, instabilities in the hot plasma flow lead to

extreme losses through the magnetic confinement fields, making a practical

device, at present, not possible. In the present geometry, the magnetic

fields are themselves static, but the influence of these fields upon the

ions is dynamic. This is in contrast to the older Farnsworth type designs,

whereby the positive ions were confined by a static electrostatic field, but

which led to jet-like instabilities before a critical power density could be

reached for a usable device.

Twenty years of experimentation has ironed out many of the theoretical

difficulties associated with this technology: primarily the requirement to

reduce to almost (or equal to) zero, the amount of metal in contact with the

energetic ions. However, the inventor does state that 6-10 years of further

work and $150-200 million would be required to develop a full scale working

prototype. If this work were a national objective, such monies would be

readily available, and the time scale would be substantially reduced by

parallel development projects. However, we are a society heavily dominated

by oil interests, and this technique would not sit well with them. Thus,

private monies would be required, and, on this scale, hard to come by.

Upon reading the IEC attached report [awaiting permission to post] one fact does stand out: the

magnetic confinement fields themselves are static. In conventional hot

fusion devices, the magnetic fields themselves are pulsed to further heat

the hot plasma and drive energy into it. Sequential squeezing across each

major axis by pulsing opposing magnetic fields may provide an immediate gain

in heating the hot plasma so generated so that cusp loss effects are further

minimized, and may also allow a much smaller unit to be built for energy

breakeven. Thus, pulsing may substantially reduce this given time and

expense estimate. Further, placing a water jacket around the coils would

provide an instant method to extract the heat energy so generated, which

could be then used to produce electricity.

This device should be placed in the top ten, and elevated in position

if funding is achieved for the next development step.

Other Comments

RogerFox 13:50, 22 Sep 2007 (EDT)

A few of points.

1) Dr Bussard has used DD fuels, not P-B11. His results do indicate P-B11 fusion can occur in a small device such as WB-6, with a hi enough drive level.

2) Fuel ions are generally not confined by the McGrid or magnetic fields. Fuel ions are accelerated by the potential well. Fuel ions' behavior is generally dictated by the breadth & depth of the potential well.http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/FogerRox/WELLFields.jpg

3) Bussard states that 200 million and about 5 yrs can yield a proof of concept, not a prototype.

4) A D-D fueled polywell of net power size would likely use heat/steam much as current fission plants do to generate electricity.

5) A P-B11 fueled Polywell of net power size would use electrostaic grids to trap alphas, to generate electricity.

6) WB-6 was a cube. WB-7 will likely be a truncated cube, WB-8 a truncated dodec.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/FogerRox/180px-Polywell_WB-6_complete.jpg

WB-6 Magnet assembly.

7) P-B11 fusion is aneutronic, meaning it creates no neutrons. That is not to say there is no radioactivity.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/FogerRox/P-B11cycle.jpg

To get to He, lIRC there is some fission. The Carbon 12 must split, as well as the Be.

8) Cusp loss effects: electrons recirculate,. Dr Bussard has inferred that the truncated cube or dodec may may improve electron loss figures & general efficiencies by 3 to 5 times. As is, since electrons recirculate, this is a minor issue. See You Tube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmp1cg3-WDY

It may be that at one point LN2 is used for cooling in a smaller device such as WB-6, LN2 would allow for 100's of seconds of run time vs the milli second pulses that WB-6 performed. LN2 cooling and sufficient drive levels would allow exploration of areas where theory say PB-11 fusion occurs. The ability to explore P-B11 fusion in a small device (30cm on a side) means proof of P-B11 fusion at a reasonable cost (10 million ?), possibly on the order of a few minutes run time. Regardless, LN2 cooling is an intermediate step to proof of concept which will likely require super conducting magnets.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/FogerRox/singlemagnet6.jpg

A schematic look at the "McGrid".

PesWiki.com