Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:57:39 -0600 To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: sci.physics.fusion discussion Here is the transcript of a discussion I found on sci.physics.fusion on an alternate path to fusion. I have been told that this file just barely is below the limit at which trouble starts in the mailing systems. (I guess people mailing each other termcap has done _some_ good; then again having read through termcap I must say I don't know what else it's good for :-) Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations." Andrew Carnegie Here it comes, duck or hit -n-... 0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion 7m 901 lines more (3%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 2 KNewsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: What's coming, elsewhere? (Was Cold Aneutronic) Date: 23 Nov 90 17:34:01 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <4042@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: > >Dr Koloc, what do you propose as an alternate fusion technology other >than tokamaks? Of course, they're hard to build, but the reason that >they're still around is that, nonetheless, they seem to work better than >competitors. Tokamaks are hard to build, and therefore justify large expenditures making it the single solitary fusion concept that can keep the total fusion budget of the world's plasma techs "busy" for the next fifteen centuries, if need be. MICF and Spheromaks concepts have not been funded at a level yet to make a good evaluation of their ultimate prospects. In the government funding game, one biggy usually survives big in each catagory . Robert Bussard has a new concept (well, a reworked older untried one) and its funding was cut off with the Field's fiasco at US DARPA. Then there is our own PLASMAK(tm) concept, an advanced form of our first (Spheromak) concept, but with a gas compressible plasma shell. This has been funded internally just to see if such an object can exist with exceptionally long life time and stability. It can and it does. Now we will go forth from here.. >If indeed, boosting pressure is the key, what will do it in a way that >maintains the temperature? The compression not only increases pressure and density (cube of the compression ratio "cr" ) but it increases temperature (square of "cr"). The burn rate would increase by the sixth+ power of "cr". > I.e., how do you do without magnetic confinement? If a magnetic field can confine a plasma, then a plasma can confine a magnetic field. So .. . simply confine a central Kernel plasmoid ring within its own self generated fields and then trap the external vacuum boundary of that confining magnetic field within a highly conducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed 7m 861 lines more (8%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 4 Kconducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed up by a high tensile strength material compression chamber wall will determine the ultimate confining external pressure. What is nice is that its internal magnetic topology "focuses" pressure on the fusion fuel ring so that its pressure can be a substantial fraction of an order of magnitude higher. It's not that the magnetic field is absent.. it's just that it is transparent to the user. :-) >(I already know about laser-fusion, the technology is about 5-10 yrs behind >tokamaks) Who's been doing the research? Not much around,. after all the international fusion effort the IAEA (a combined effort of the world's DoEs) is run by old "duffers". Consequently, they agree to fund what they know about in common.. Tokamaks, Stellarators and Mirrors. Those are the machines that produce most of the research literature. Laser fusion has "classified" objectives so there is a relative paucity of research publication. With meager private funding going into the innovative work, there is a reticence to publish outside of patents, because of the necessity to protect the risk of the hard earned investor dollars. > Is there a review article in a journal somewhere? Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141 >BTW: I'm not asking about P&F type cold fusion now, I think that's been >rehashed enough. Until what is technically and/or scientifically causing the results AND non-results of CF is combed out of the research, press releases stop being sought after, and the and the world's cf researchers come to a consensus, we must continue to "rehash". Who knows, one of us my discover the missing key to unlock this thing, assuming it's there. +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ Page 6 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? (Was Cold Aneutronic) Date: 24 Nov 90 03:07:16 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research In article <1990Nov23.173401.17318@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > >Then there is our own PLASMAK(tm) concept, an advanced form of our >first (Spheromak) concept, but with a gas compressible plasma shell. >This has been funded internally just to see if such an object can >exist with exceptionally long life time and stability. It can and >it does. Now we will go forth from here.. > >If a magnetic field can confine a plasma, then a plasma can confine a >magnetic field. So .. . simply confine a central Kernel plasmoid >ring within its own self generated fields and then trap the external >vacuum boundary of that confining magnetic field within a highly >conducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed >up by a high tensile strength material compression chamber wall will >determine the ultimate confining external pressure. You have said elsewhere that some folks write off your PLASMAK(tm) due to overzealous use of the Virial Theorem. (Aside: The Virial Theorem says that an ideal (no internal resistance) MHD (behaves like a fluid) plasma cannot ``confine itself'', i.e. it can't be in equilibrium (== net force of 0 on any bit of plasma) unless it is contained inside a conducting vessel. In the absence of such a vessel, it must expand.) So, how do you wiggle out from under the VT? My guess is that you don't plan to be in equilibrium. But perhaps you also think the Mantle can play the role of a conducting vessel, in part? In any case, VT applies only to establishing MHD equilibrium. This is a good regime for theorists to operate in, since the equations take on their simplest form. But what about nonequilibrium configurations? In particular, has anyone ever considered ``dynamic equilibrium configurations'', in which the forces on a plasma element don't sum to zero, but do oscillate in such a way that they time average to zero? -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet) Page 9 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 24 Nov 90 18:45:49 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <791@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wr ites: >In article <1990Nov23.173401.17318@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M . Koloc) writes: >> >>Then there is our own PLASMAK(tm) concept, an advanced form of our >>first (Spheromak) concept, but with a gas compressible plasma shell. >>This has been funded internally just to see if such an object can >>exist with exceptionally long life time and stability. It can and >>it does. Now we will go forth from here.. >> >>If a magnetic field can confine a plasma, then a plasma can confine a 7m 753 lines more (19%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 10 K>>If a magnetic field can confine a plasma, then a plasma can confine a >>magnetic field. So .. . simply confine a central Kernel plasmoid >>ring within its own self generated fields and then trap the external >>vacuum boundary of that confining magnetic field within a highly >>conducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed >>up by a high tensile strength material compression chamber wall will >>determine the ultimate confining external pressure. > >You have said elsewhere that some folks write off your PLASMAK(tm) >due to overzealous use of the Virial Theorem. > >(Aside: The Virial Theorem says that an ideal (no internal resistance) >MHD (behaves like a fluid) plasma cannot ``confine itself'', >i.e. it can't be in equilibrium (== net force of 0 on any bit of plasma) >unless it is contained inside a conducting vessel. >In the absence of such a vessel, it must expand.) (This discussion relates to a spheroidal sandwich or "onion" of pressurized plasmas, fields, and surrounding chamber compressed fluids.) Of course the plasma fluid has no confining capability but a "tied" KOf course the plasma fluid has no confining capability but a "tied" magnetic field does. You will note that I put the "confine itself" in parens. Since the "confining field" is itself externally confined by surrounding Mantle mediated pressure, the PLASMAK(tm) as a whole DOES NOT confine itself. Again, it is the conducting shell (Mantle) which itself is in pressure equilibrium (confinement) with its surrounding fluid blanket (such as ordinary gas pressure) that provides the external support for the "self Kernel plasma confining field". These fields are self confining only in the sense that all of the currents used to produce these fields are generated by the currents of the confined central Kernel plasmoid itself. (Their external boundary is neutralized by Mantle current.) Incidentally, "net force of zero" does NOT SIMPLY apply to systems which have "two dimensional surface tension" and this includes soap bubbles. Soap bubbles are "mostly" confined by external atmospheric pressure, and partially by their own surface tension. Here the surface integration of the VT should make a cut through the bubble surface and integrate over its inner surface to pick up he contribution from surface tension. This makes the region "simply connected". In a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid most of its high internal pressure comes from the interlinked flux and Kmost of its high internal pressure comes from the interlinked flux and only about 8 to 10 % from the pressure at its external boundary (blanket pressure). >So, how do you wiggle out from under the VT? In the PLASMAK(tm) configuration, it is the interaction of both toroidal and poloidal field "lines" that produces the equivalent "surface tension" (actually an infinity of nested toroidal pressure bearing surfaces). The toroidal field produces compression of the plasma in the major radius and the poloidal field in the minor radial direction. Application of the VT to plasma systems WITHOUT BOTH COMPONENTS OF FIELD or no field at all reduce to a simple form, since there is NO NET internal pressure bearing (volume trapping) surface in these objects. For a PLASMAK(tm) case one must integrate over the multiplicity of nested magnetic pressure bearing surfaces as well as the external gas boundary. Consequently, it is "cheaper" to do a straight forward volume integration to obtain its total energy (pressure). > My guess is that you don't plan to be in equilibrium. K In plasma physics, any SMALL plasmoid that has a constant size with a viable, and stable long lifetime on the order of a second, can be considered to be in equilibrium. The plasma is in pressure equilibrium with the sum of the plasma pressure (the smaller component in a lower Beta system) and the pressure transmitted to it from its magnetic topology (the larger component). > But perhaps you also think the Mantle can play the role of a conducting vessel, in part? It IS the vessel for the vacuum field it traps; however, the ultimate external pressure bearing surface is the high tensile strength pressure wall that traps the blanket (which the Mantle excludes). In the case of Ball Lightning it is gravitational compression of atmospheric gases that determine its external confinement pressure. The Mantle has all the conductivity needed, since its relativistic vacuum/plasma boundary layer current is collisionless (Magnetic diffusion times from 5 to 30 seconds). >In any case, VT applies only to establishing MHD equilibrium. This >is a good regime for theorists to operate in, since the equations take >on their simplest form. I agree as long as care is taken with respect to the boundary values. For our case it should be useful in evaluating the equilibria achieved during strong adiabatic compressions we intend to use in fusion related applications. > .. . . But what about non-equilibrium configurations? In >particular, has anyone ever considered ``dynamic equilibrium configurations'', >in which the forces on a plasma element don't sum to zero, but do >oscillate in such a way that they time average to zero? I'm not too sure what you are hinting at. Usually, it is the time averaged sums that determine equilibrium. Forms of Inertial Confinement, pondermotive, and Magdellan(sp?), magnetic instabilities, etc., forces can all drive non-linear (dynamic equilibrium) effects. Energy density and pressure are closely coupled. So one might imagine KEnergy density and pressure are closely coupled. So one might imagine a huge and dynamic PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (perhaps buried under the surface of the sun or Jupiter). At formation it is compression heated to ignition, and then it expands and cools, quenching the fusion burn. But if it over shoots on the fusion driven expansion phase, it could re-ignite during the equilibrium recompression, thus producing the energy for a second expansion. For a while these fluctuations might grow in intensity. The big problem with doing this work in the sun, is that these monster PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasma bubbles rise, adiabatically cool, and then near the surface where the differential vertical pressure is de-stabilizing, they will tear open and spill out the strongly cooled and magnetized disintegrating Kernel plasma, producing BIG UGLY sun spots. Our periodic research there is being blamed for the occasional droughts, floods, etc. :-) Micro PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids are formed by a fusion approach called MICF (Magnetic Inertial Confinement Fusion). Perhaps PLASMAK(tm) plasmoids of the right size and fuel choice could be made to flash burn and re-burn on each return of the fusion driven compression wave reflected from the chamber wall. That may or may not make for a promising engineering application. PLASMAK(tm) fusion can produce all the power you need, But you wouldn't use it to directly drive your razor. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1990 Paul M. Koloc +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ Page 17 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 25 Nov 90 20:25:07 GMT Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology I read one of your papers on ball lightning and it seemed pretty interesting in it's description of how it is self-confining. However, it seems to me that the PLAMAK configuration would pose some engineering problems. It seems to me that if you're burning D+T, you'd have very high neutron loading on the walls; in addition, you'd have very high temperatures and pressures on the walls of the reactor, making things kind of tough. Now, if you could get high enough kernel temperatures and pressures to use an aneutronic reaction like Li7+p, you might be able to solve of those problems. Would the fluid surrounding the mantle have to be a gas? If you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat 7m 599 lines more (36%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 18 Kyou could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat pretty well. Practically, how would you assemble a PLASMAK configuration? How far have you come in experimentation work on PLASMAK? What would the specifications of a commercial PLASMAK reactor look like? What power output? Size? Weight? -- Page 19 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 26 Nov 90 00:23:37 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research In article <1990Nov25.202507.29247@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) writ es: > >it seems to me that the PLASMAK configuration would pose some engineering >problems. It seems to me that if you're burning D+T, you'd have very >high neutron loading on the walls; This is no less true in standard Tokamak designs, though. The only saving grace is that the projected size of commercial reactors is so large that the loading/ wall area is small. > Would the fluid surrounding the mantle have to be a gas? If >you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat K>you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat >pretty well. Actually, gases are better than liquids in many cases, because they convert heat to radiation which can be dispersed over a large volume. The most promising designs for handling the plasma wall interface in the next generation of Tokamaks (ITER, etc) are gas pockets into which the exhaust plasma from the core is directed by magnetic fields. It heats the gas, and the heat converts to radiation and is effectively dispersed. Alternatives like liquid metal blankets to convect away exhaust heat are much trickier---for example, the metal vapor may contaminate and cool your plasma, a disruption may coat your machine with liquid metal, and the amount of metal passing through the machine is large (estimated at a ``truck a second'' in some devices). >How far have you come in experimentation work on >PLASMAK? One possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too KOne possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too clever---i.e. there may be too much integration of the confinement, power generation and heat removal facilities, not leaving enough room for tweaking the design. In a tokamak, these are all handled in a modular fashion, mostly independent of one another. More robust, thereby. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet) Page 22 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 26 Nov 90 09:24:00 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <793@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wr ites: >In article <1990Nov25.202507.29247@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) wri tes: >> Would the fluid surrounding the Mantle have to be a gas? If >>you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat >>pretty well. >Actually, gases are better than liquids in many cases, because they >convert heat to radiation which can be dispersed over a large volume. >The most promising designs for handling the plasma wall interface >in the next generation of Tokamaks (ITER, etc) are gas pockets into which K>in the next generation of Tokamaks (ITER, etc) are gas pockets into which >the exhaust plasma from the core is directed by magnetic fields. >It heats the gas, and the heat converts to radiation and is >effectively dispersed. Sounds like a job for high pressure helium rather than a more viscous high Z radiation trapping gas. But I really don't know this scheme and haven't been following the "ITER soaps" (all things for everyone). Secondary radiation effect can not be the main fusion heat transfer mechanism. Thermal conduction through the "vacuum first wall" is. That means it is quite inefficient. This "gas pockets" gimmick suggests that it is there to handle plasma disruption or fast mag shutdown, which would then allow the fuel plasma to crash toward the walls. Considering the short time and energy content of such an event, serious first wall damage would occur if there is not an adequate dumping mechanism. >Alternatives like liquid metal blankets to convect away exhaust >heat are much trickier---for example, the metal vapor may contaminate >and cool your plasma, a disruption may coat your machine >with liquid metal, and the amount of metal passing through the machine is K>with liquid metal, and the amount of metal passing through the machine is >large (estimated at a ``truck a second'' in some devices). Very true! The contamination comes from the low conductivity of the metal vapor which can then diffuse rapidly across the insulating field into the trapped ignited fuel (plasma). Moving conducting metal "inside" the magnetic confinement region, as in tokamak, is a beast. It wants to "freeze into the field" and stop flowing thereby cutting off its heat transfer purpose. More pump pressure causes EMF driven currents in the metal which then heat the metal and dissipate even more energy. In the PLASMAK(tm) scheme the Mantle/blanket (first wall) is essentially OUTSIDE the magnetic field. Secondly, it doesn't use the blanket for convective/conductive heat transfer, but instead uses convective/ adiabatic expansion which DIRECTLY drives either IMHD electric power or propulsive power. No cascading the energy density to produce steam, as in other energy schemes (including tokamak). PLASMAK conversion efficiencies could be .. perhaps 95% with p-B(11) and co-generation. Consequently, the initial state of a blanket can be a non-metallic KConsequently, the initial state of a blanket can be a non-metallic liquid. Converted to a hot very dense plasma by the fusion burn, and unencumbered by the lack of tied magnetic confinement fields, it is then conductive enough after its expansion for efficient IMHD electric power conversion. >One possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too >clever---i.e. there may be too much integration of the confinement, >power generation and heat removal facilities, not leaving enough room >for tweaking the design. In a tokamak, these are all handled in a modular >fashion, mostly independent of one another. But with PLASMAK(tm) there will be a much, much smaller component of heat to remove, meaning the plant size will be greatly reduced (or for PLASMAK(tm) converted sites, the power output very greatly increased using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need for huge vacuum handling modules, or huge magnetic confinement modules, or the homopolar module needed for startup, or the substation sized power unit to keep its systems operating, or RF beam heating modules, or particle beam heating modules, or the monstrous control network, or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to Kor the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to handle a shorted toroidal field coil, or the long zig-zag corridors designed to dissipate the shock expansion wave, or the monster tritium handling building and apparatus, etc. A PLASMAK(tm) power unit works sort of like an auto engine (diesel), you just fill up the tank, switch it on and put the petal to the metal. > .. . . [tokamak is ] .. . More robust, thereby. A PLASMAK(tm) unit by comparison is very, very LEAN and MEAN. If attacked it could drop its IMHD, convert to thrust output, and chase the invader out of the solar system and eat its lunch.. .. just kidding.. .. . :-) ...but not by much. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1990 Paul M. Koloc +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ Page 28 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 27 Nov 90 02:25:48 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research Paul M. Koloc writes: >In article barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > >>One possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too >>clever---i.e. there may be too much integration of the confinement, >>power generation and heat removal facilities, not leaving enough room >>for tweaking the design. In a tokamak, these are all handled in a modular >>fashion, mostly independent of one another. > >But with PLASMAK(tm) there will be a much, much smaller component of heat >to remove, meaning the plant size will be greatly reduced (or for >PLASMAK(tm) converted sites, the power output very greatly increased >using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need K>using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need >for huge vacuum handling modules, or huge magnetic confinement modules, >or the homopolar module needed for startup, or the substation sized >power unit to keep its systems operating, or RF beam heating modules, >or particle beam heating modules, or the monstrous control network, >or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to >handle a shorted toroidal field coil, or the long zig-zag corridors >designed to dissipate the shock expansion wave, or the monster tritium >handling building and apparatus, etc. A PLASMAK(tm) power unit works >sort of like an auto engine (diesel), you just fill up the tank, switch >it on and put the petal to the metal. But the Tokamak people didn't invision the need for all these immediately either---they were tacked on as needed. For example, I gather the PLASMAK is heated resistively---but resistance drops rapidly at high temperatures (which you plan to use, for your P-B11), leading to reduced heating capability. So what if resistive heating can't take you all the way? Can PLASMAK be heated by external beams? This would seem to disrupt its magnetic configuration, which is rather delicate being totally self induced. 7m 395 lines more (57%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 30 Kconfiguration, which is rather delicate being totally self induced. Or, what about various MHD instabilities---in a tokamak, you can use the applied magnetic field as a knob to eliminate some of these, such as kinks. In the PLASMAK you have no such knob? -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet) Page 31 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 27 Nov 90 16:19:06 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <810@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wr ites: >Paul M. Koloc writes: >>But with PLASMAK(tm) there will be a much, much smaller component of heat >>to remove, meaning the plant size will be greatly reduced (or for >>PLASMAK(tm) converted sites, the power output very greatly increased >>using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need >>for huge vacuum handling modules, or huge magnetic confinement modules, >>or the homopolar module needed for startup, or the substation sized >>power unit to keep its systems operating, or RF beam heating modules, >>or particle beam heating modules, or the monstrous control network, >>or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to K>>or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to >>handle a shorted toroidal field coil, or the long zig-zag corridors >>designed to dissipate the shock expansion wave, or the monster tritium >>handling building and apparatus, etc. A PLASMAK(tm) power unit works >>sort of like an auto engine (diesel), you just fill up the tank, switch >>it on and put the petal to the metal. > >But the Tokamak people didn't envision the need for all these >immediately either---they were tacked on as needed. I'm not sure I buy that. >For example, I gather the PLASMAK is heated resistively---but resistance >drops rapidly at high temperatures (which you plan to use, >for your P-B11), leading to reduced heating capability. So >what if resistive heating can't take you all the way? The PRINCIPAL method of heating comes from STRONG ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. You are absolutely, right that the effectiveness of ohmic heating at high temperatures is USUALLY inadequate. For p-B11 an INITIAL TEMPERATURE (pre-compression) of one to two keV is required from resistive effects K(pre-compression) of one to two keV is required from resistive effects and this should not be a problem considering the Z and density of the fuel. In addition, aside from the straight forward temperature rise from compression, it turns out that both the total current increases and the current cross section drops during compression. Add to this the fact that for energetic currents, the resistivity (heating) goes up in proportion to plasma density. The density goes up with the cube of the compression ratio. So these things seem to work backwards from the classical thermal electron driven ones! :-) > Can PLASMAK be heated by external beams? EXTERNAL beams? Probably not. But, its own energetic currents are extremely dense, corresponding to its much higher magnetic pressure. In fact, these currents can be treated as beam currents, so in a sense a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid is heated by INTERNAL beams. >This ...[external beams]... would seem to disrupt its magnetic >configuration, which is rather delicate being totally self induced. K>configuration, which is rather delicate being totally self induced. More likely it would be the intrusion of the beam gun head through the vacuum-field/Mantle interface, that would destroy the PMK (plasma Mantle and Kernel plasmoid). This would be sort of like doing X-ray cancer therapy on the brain by punching the output tube through the skull. As far as the notion of "delicacy". Consider that Ball Lightnings bounce and survive rain and ripping wind turbulence for thousands of times the equivalent magnetic resistive decay times of tokamaks. Note that this is without compression. With compression, the magnetic confinement for a very, very hot p-B11 in a PMK will produce 10^18 + densities where a tokamak with D-T is lucky to get to 10^14 in a relatively very cold (5-10keV) plasma. Punching the tip of your finger into a p-B11 burning PMK for just a millisecond, would change its topology drastically. In a tokamak the THERMAL effects would hardly be noticeable. One of the things we were considering is impulse accelerating a compressed PMK to ultra-kinetic velocities just to see how much steel Kcompressed PMK to ultra-kinetic velocities just to see how much steel we can punch through. During drift it takes on a topology like the earth in the solar wind. It is ram and bow shock compressed. Fired from orbit (with PLASMAK(tm) driven power) in certain sandy locations, it would produce ingots of molten steel from intrusive heavy tracked vehicles. >Or, what about various MHD instabilities---in a tokamak, you can use >the applied magnetic field as a knob to eliminate some of these, >such as kinks. In the PLASMAK you have no such knob? Most active plasma feed back systems aren't fast enough. Consider the forces and mass of the plasma compared to the inductance of the currents being "twiddled". It was tried on Syllac at LLNL. Assuming no strong de-stabilizing externally applied magnetic field and given its anomalously high conductivity, a well formed PMK topology is IDEALLY MHD stable*. Consider its natural forms of BL and the solar PMKs that drift for YEARS to the surface of the sun where they hatch out an unsupported expansion cooled Kernel plasmas. Even our very meager work so far have produced PMKs that have stable lifetimes a Kmeager work so far have produced PMKs that have stable lifetimes a nearly thousand times that of the DoE lab produced Spheromaks. * M. Bussac, H. Furth, et al, "Low Aspect Ratio Limit of the Toroidal Reactor: The Spheromak", IAEA CN-37, Innsbruck, 1978. * M. Rosenbluth and M. Bussac, "MHD Stability of Spheromak, Nuc Fus 19, 489, 1979. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1990 Paul M. Koloc +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ Page 37 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 26 Nov 90 09:13:19 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <1990Nov25.202507.29247@nmt.edu> pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) writ es: > >it seems to me that the PLASMAK configuration would pose some engineering >problems. It seems to me that if you're burning D+T, you'd have very >high neutron loading on the walls; For D-T, the pressure would be backed way down; but, operating wide open, you are correct. This is why it is a great disadvantage to use neutron producing fuels in fusion burners without the severe pressure limitations of a tokamak. It should be illegal to burn such fuels in a PLASMAK(tm) generator in the first place, since hot neutrons are environmentally Kgenerator in the first place, since hot neutrons are environmentally hazardous and they can be energy moderated easily and used to breed Plutonium for use in disrupting human societies. > . . . . .. in addition, you'd have very high >temperatures and pressures on the walls of the reactor, making things >kind of tough. Remember the "first wall of the reactor" is a liquid density fluid. Since a PLASMAK(tm) burner operates in the megawatts per cubic centimeter range the device is very tiny compared to a tokamak, which occupies several acres of ground to handle the "modular" auxiliary buildings needed in support of its operation. Also, the pressure wall in a PLASMAK(tm) unit is very unsophisticated (dumb but strong) as it is insulated from the fusion power output by a liquid density gas compression blanket. The high power density ensures small size, and that coupled with the compression induced high burn rates means the cycle time is very fast. Thus the compression wall will not see the hot central blanket temperatures, and furthermore, each compression shell can be operated with an arbitrary duty cycle. Kshell can be operated with an arbitrary duty cycle. > . . . [with an]. aneutronic reaction like Li7+p, you might be >able to solve of those problems. A fuel like p-B(11) is my choice since it doesn't have side neutronic side chains and both ingredients are very common. Also p-B11 requires a high optimal compression to produce the burn and that means the highest cycle rates and power output/cc (power per unit mass or volume). > Would the fluid surrounding the mantle have to be a gas? If >you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat >pretty well. The blanket surrounding the Mantle could be any fluid (liquid, gas or plasma), and if it started out as a liquid or gas it would change state under the injection of huge amounts of fusion energy. In a tasmanian devil design (pB)_, the fast burn rate ensures multiple cycling per second. That means nearly all of the energy of ignition, compression and burn is carried off as the blanket and disrupted spent PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid are dumped out through magnetic apertures into 7m 205 lines more (78%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 40 KPLASMAK(tm) plasmoid are dumped out through magnetic apertures into an inductive MHD (IMHD) energy conversion unit. > . . . .. Practically, how would you assemble a PLASMAK >configuration? We can form PLASMAK plasmoids reliably and efficently. However, we can't answer that question AT THIS TIME, because of the paranoid belief it is likely to work well, and it has a potential of being exploited by jerks with bent agendas. When its potential is investigated to compression burn tests, then the IAEA (and greens) can handle and crush or strongly discourage any proliferation problem. > How far have you come in experimentation work on >PLASMAK? Far enough that it looks very very promising, so: The slogan "SEND MONEY" !!! That is our cry for this coming year. From day one with the $$$ in hand we'll need <3-5 years to first commercial burn. After all, we don't have to wait years to build a small city to support this thing, and we can make each PLASMAK(tm) (tokamak chamber 7m 185 lines more (80%). Press for more, 'i' to return. mH2JMessage 8/27 From Fraering Philip Page 41 Ksupport this thing, and we can make each PLASMAK(tm) (tokamak chamber and magnet equivalent) in a few microseconds. >What would the specifications of a commercial PLASMAK >reactor look like? What power output? Size? Weight? A fifty meg burn device would be about the size of a desk and the drivers would fit on one side of an office housing five or six grad students. Device modules would scale a tad less than the cube root of the power. That doesn't consider the output energy buss. The IMHD unit would be bigger, and in the case of an atmospheric thruster (rocket engine) it would be smaller again.. but don't stand in the first kilometer of its output stream (at sea level). The power units can range from 50 megawatts to 100 gigawatts. Several of the latter will be a great size for energizing the mag PLASMAK(tm) accelerator thrusters to drive fast space freighters between planets. Sound good??? All we need is one tough, interested and gutsy SoB with 10-20 hard earned megabucks to do it. Cheap for an aneutronic CBEF. K10-20 hard earned megabucks to do it. Cheap for an aneutronic CBEF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1990 Paul M. Koloc +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ Page 43 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 26 Nov 90 19:52:19 GMT Organization: Univ. of Southwestern LA, Lafayette In-reply-to: pmk@prometheus.UUCP's message of 26 Nov 90 09:13:19 GMT Maybe it sould be a good idea for you to cross-post all of this stuff to sci.space, as well as the space-tech mailing list. I'm sure they'd love to hear about it. BTW, you said it would cost about $10 to $20 million to build? Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu P.S.: I have completely lost the number of that guy who saw ball lightning after lightning hit his [deleted in case it's close to one of your proprietary Kafter lightning hit his [deleted in case it's close to one of your proprietary mechanisms]. Since you're generating them already, I doubt this matters much... Page 45 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 27 Nov 90 09:32:28 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Phi lip) writes: >BTW, you said it would cost about $10 to $20 million to build? No! It was cost for one shot at a time COMMERCIAL (engineering) Break Even demonstrator. It is too early to estimate prices. However, prices for a PLASMAK(tm) reactor would be a small fraction of the current estimates projected for an equivalent power output tokamak reactor. >P.S.: I have completely lost the number of that guy who saw ball lightning >after lightning hit.. . Since you're generating them already, I doubt > this matters much... K> this matters much... It will be interesting to compare behavior range of the artificially produced PMKs (Plasma Mantle and Kernel plasmoids) with naturally produced Ball Lightning. It would be comforting if it turns out that: Anything Ball Lightning Can do PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids Can do better +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ Page 47 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere? Date: 28 Nov 90 02:41:12 GMT Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology I was interested in the PLASMAK (tm) rocket engines you were talking about. What kind of thrust/weight and specific impulse would you expect from them? Seems to me that you might still have problems with radioactive contamination if you fire one at sea level -- seems to me that the temperature/pressures that you'd need to push the boron reaction through would also start the proton-proton chain. That produces D, and the reaction p+D->T+gamma can then go through... And even a small amount of tritium contamination would be considered intolerable by the general public. (Of course, the reaction is multistep and neither have a high cross-section, but still, it might be a problem.) Also, how big of a PLASMAK (tm) can you generate today? How K Also, how big of a PLASMAK (tm) can you generate today? How long does it last? What does it look like? I looked at some of the theory in one of your papers and the only thing that doesn't look totally OK to me is the integrity of the outer mantle - what keeps it from mixing with the outside fluid? I can understand how the kernel is confined perfectly -- all my doubt rests in the mantle being confined by the surrounding atmosphere. I've noticed that there are at least four companies (including yours) that are pursuing work on commercial fusion.) All are keeping a pretty low profile -- is the threat of proliferation the major influence? How big is Prometheus II now, and how many people do you have working for you? What do you think about Maglich and his migma cell? -- Page 49 K0, unseen,, *** EOOH *** From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion vacuums? Date: 27 Nov 90 09:40:14 GMT Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Distribution: usa Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <47639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >Would a large fusion reaction create a vacuum? > >Consider my train of thought > : 2 particles, each with a mass of 1 unit > The 2 partcles fuse in a fusion reaction > Some mass is lost, as it is changed into energy > The new particle has a mass of less than 2 units > >Any comments or answers? I've seen this posting before..... . . . ... . . . ... . . . A + B ---> C + (energetic)photons using "perfect mirrors" C + photons ---> C* (excited nucleon) ---> A + B or Mass ---> mass + energy ---> Mass Just showing that a man with a mustache isn't always bad. If a vacuum can be considered to be a very, very, very low pressure gas.. then the closer one gets to reducing the number of particles and energy from a region the closer the vacuum state. However, fusion doesn't work well after a few series of: A + B --> C and C + C --> D, etc. (ignoring side chains) because iron seems to be the absolute limit for the energy yielding fusion process. Iron's vapor pressure is quite low however. Ahhhh .. but.. If the chunk of iron gets big enough then it could be converted to a really big element called a neutron star. These things can convert gravitational energy into electromagnetic radiation (pulsars) and those things can keep the local nebula quite warm and glowing for some time. Warmth ---> sublimation ---> less local vacuuum. Anyway, we are way past where things are of interest to human CTR or CF devices so ... perhaps sci.astro will help or wait a couple of 100 billion years and measure it. Pi Bi +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+ | +Commercial* | Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION*** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the*** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties** +---------------------------------------------------------************ ^_