I was looking through retired urologist’s blogroll which led me to this piece of primitivism that I thought stupid. On the upside that linked to this google talk on inertial electrostatic confinement fusion, which releases no neutrons and no radiation (that ought to shut up the anti-nuclear energy hippies). The speaker, Dr. Robert Bussard, seems quite old but is also lively and cracks jokes throughout. The claims he makes for it are quite astounding, and you can skip ahead to about the hour and two minute mark to see him summarize them on the page, including ending the greenhouse effect and smog, the end of water shortages, much cheaper ethanol, the elimination of existing nuclear waste and a number of other things (although the real reason he started work on it was for space travel!). He also claims that existing fossil fuel plants could be easily modified to add this capability. I’m skeptical of some of that, and think he could use some economic lessons on the “resource curse” and the cause of third world poverty. Throughout the talk he gives an interesting tale of stupid mistakes obvious in retrospect (though a whole lot was still over my head) and the trials and tribulations of government contract work. Looking at the comments I see that Bussard died last October, but he succeeded in getting funding, although the problem of needing the kind of expertise only those over 70 learned (vacuum tubes and such) might be harder to surmount as time goes by.
Pop question: name a polyhedron whose vertices have an even number of faces.
October 8, 2008 at 11:32 am
Well known to those of us who read technology-oriented blogs. M. Simon (not me) in particular has written a lot about it. Unfortunately there is a problem that non-fusion collisions will randomize the motions, leaving some ions with too little energy and sending others out of the trap. IEC fusion advocates claim to have a solution, which I have not really investigated, but my prior probability estimate that they have solved it is low.
I do agree that the Tokamak is not a particularly promising approach, though. Also, Bussard’s design might work for low energy fusion fuels even if it fails for aneutronic ones.
Answer: Octahedron is the only such polyhedron.
October 8, 2008 at 11:35 am
Self-nitpick: the only such regular polyhedron.
October 8, 2008 at 2:02 pm
There are other semi-regular ones.
October 8, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Bussard’s work was picked up by Dr. Rick Nebel from LANL. The Navy funded a redo of the WB-7 experiments, which was completed last month and is now being peer reviewed. Nebel believes, as Bussard did, that it’s very possible a 1.5M radius machine could produce 100MW of power, and has plans to go forward with such a reactor if the funders give it the green light (and, of course, the money). More details here:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/28/1301440.aspx
and there’s continuing discussion here:
http://www.talk-polywell.org
Only a trunated cube and a truncated dodecahedron qualify as Polywell-friendly polygons. The dodec is believed to be 3-5x as effective in producing a high ratio of electron density inside vs. outside the magnetic field, due to the better cusp shape.
I’ve been studying this concept a couple years. After seeing a lot of debate, while there are some unknowns there don’t appear to be any known physics problems with the concept that haven’t been adressed. You still see some skeptics citing the Rider thesis from 1995, but the Chacon paper tends to show his assumptions were probably wrong.
How losses will scale is probably the major concern at this point. Bussard believed losses would scale as r^2, but modelling does not have a great track record in other fusion schemes (e.g., tokamaks).
Polywell does have one major advantage over the mainstream tokamak fusion program: if it works, it will be much more cost-effective.
October 8, 2008 at 6:06 pm
oops, s/b “a redo of the WB-6 experiments, called WB-7”. Sorry.
October 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Oh, and here’s a nice pic of what a truncated dodec Polywell might look like (p24):
http://isdc2.xisp.net/~kmiller/isdc_archive/fileDownload.php/?link=fileSelect&file_id=422
March 13, 2010 at 9:56 pm
[…] 2010 Better than fusion? Posted by teageegeepea under Uncategorized Leave a Comment A while back I highlighted a Google Tech Talk on fusion power using polywells from the late Dr. Brussard. Now […]