I wonder if this has anything to do with the FOIA request that comes due tomorrow?(Some of the guys at talk-polywell.org couldn't stand it any longer, and took matters into their own hands...)
How does this demo package compare with a 100MW fission package?
Ugh, why would they do that? Let me guess, some of the lefties who don't like the Navy being in control of it?
Well you can build a 100 MW fission package in less space, but its certainly going to be far more massy than polywell, but I couldn't say exactly how much.
Quote from: aero on 03/17/2010 11:42 pmSo that is what, 7.8 meters on a side? Assuming the man is 6 ft. tall.Guess so. Whats nice tho is that once you've reached net power, a little more scaling upward produces a LOT more power output. Note also that its not a big solid mass like you'd see with a fission device, most of the interior is empty space. If simon is around maybe he can let us know how heavy this puppy is supposed to be.
So that is what, 7.8 meters on a side? Assuming the man is 6 ft. tall.
Quote from: mlorrey on 03/18/2010 12:07 amWell you can build a 100 MW fission package in less space, but its certainly going to be far more massy than polywell, but I couldn't say exactly how much.Does that include the heat engine necessary to get electricity out of a fission pile? (Okay, maybe I'm jumping the gun on the whole pB11/direct conversion thing...)
Quote from: 93143 on 03/18/2010 12:16 amQuote from: mlorrey on 03/18/2010 12:07 amWell you can build a 100 MW fission package in less space, but its certainly going to be far more massy than polywell, but I couldn't say exactly how much.Does that include the heat engine necessary to get electricity out of a fission pile? (Okay, maybe I'm jumping the gun on the whole pB11/direct conversion thing...)Yes I do mean the closest fission analog to what this Polywell package includes. As close to an apples to apples comparison as possible.
Quote from: mlorrey on 03/17/2010 11:47 pmQuote from: aero on 03/17/2010 11:42 pmSo that is what, 7.8 meters on a side? Assuming the man is 6 ft. tall.Guess so. Whats nice tho is that once you've reached net power, a little more scaling upward produces a LOT more power output. Note also that its not a big solid mass like you'd see with a fission device, most of the interior is empty space. If simon is around maybe he can let us know how heavy this puppy is supposed to be.I did a spread sheet using simon's estimate of 5 tons/cubic meter of superconductor in the magnets and 1 ton /cubic meter for coolant in the magnet channels. I came up with about 6.3 metric tons for the magnets, again using simons estimate of a 2 meter radius. That fits nicely in my estimated 7.8 meter chamber. The way a truncube Magrid is configured, 2 * (2 meters+20%) = 4.8 meters on a side, leaving 1.5 meters space around the periphery of the chamber.The WB8 image on the EMC2 website shows the configuration quite well.
Quote from: Cinder on 03/18/2010 12:29 amQuote from: 93143 on 03/18/2010 12:16 amQuote from: mlorrey on 03/18/2010 12:07 amWell you can build a 100 MW fission package in less space, but its certainly going to be far more massy than polywell, but I couldn't say exactly how much.Does that include the heat engine necessary to get electricity out of a fission pile? (Okay, maybe I'm jumping the gun on the whole pB11/direct conversion thing...)Yes I do mean the closest fission analog to what this Polywell package includes. As close to an apples to apples comparison as possible. That polywell reactor should have the direct conversion grid inside it. So in that case, no if were going to include turbines and generators, plumbing, valves, pumps, and cooling tower, well, polywell wins hands down.When I was at Worcester Polytech we had a 150 kW fission reactor for the nuke engineers to learn their trade with, and it was easily larger than this polywell design, including everything.
Are they actually designing it to use superconductors and not just copper coils? I would think they'd want to do a proof of concept scale model with superconductors first.
I know there is a way go go yet before this technology is proven,however as the EMC2 team appear to be making real progress towards a demonstration design, and as this is the Advanced Concept thread, is it time to start thinking about how this technology might extend capabilities.If the energy production does scale by the 7th power then would Orion class vehicles be feasible?
And there I was just thinking about getting a significant tonnage to LEO I have read Dr Woodwards work with great interest and have my fingers crossed for that one as well. I still don't fully understand the efficiencies though,my math isn't up to it yet. What I had in mind was, assuming known technology, how much more capable would a 'fusion HLV' be if we could scale up the Pollywell to several Gigs.Would it approach the lift capability that the Orion team were proposing. As a minor aside I remember reading the Dyson history of that project and from memory it was only when Freeman Dyson was talking about vehicles of several million tons during design studies that he was told to 'calm down'. Microwaves are an efficient way of transforming electrical energy to heat perhaps as an air breather for the initial phase then converting to heating a propellant mass to reach orbit.At the ISP's suggested the mass fraction for the payload could be significantly higher.But I agree with you,a Woodward-Mach impulse engine would be far more effective if the thrust scales.
That's such an open ended question...
I am assuming that there is some engineering limit on building the reactor -material limitations must apply at some point.
I am not sure if the Pollywell is subject to neutron coupling like fission reactors.
The work that EMC2 is currently doing, could it have been started any sooner?