![]() | Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe | The Oil Drum: Canada | Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it? | ![]() |
Blogroll
- 321 Energy
- The Archdruid Report
- ASPO Canada
- Ali Samsam Bakhtiari
- The Sir Robert Bond Papers
- Briarpatch Magazine
- Chatham House
- Paul Chefurka
- The Council of Canadians
- The Daily Canuck
- The Daily Reckoning
- The Dominion
- Energy and Capital
- Energy Bulletin
- Feasta
- Financial Sense
- Global Public Media
- Graphoilogy
- The Garret Hardin Society
- Richard Heinberg
- Thomas Homer-Dixon
- The Housing Bubble Blog
- iTulip
- James Kunstler
- LATOC
- Darryl McMahon
- George Monbiot
- Murky View
- Dmitri Orlov
- Plants for a Future
- Raise the Hammer
- Ramsay House Project
- Rigzone Canada
- R-Squared
- Nouriel Roubini
- Safe Haven
- Shack in the Middle
- Michael Shedlock
- Treehugger
- The Tyee
- Jeff Vail
- Vive le Canada
- John Warnock
- Whiskey and Gunpowder
User login
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
No problem I like your responses also. And as you say you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
But I'd respond that if we are not careful we will smash the bottle and shoot the genie.
As far as crossections etc all I can say as showme :)
Like I said I actually worked on Penning Paul traps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap
A number of variants exist.
I worked on this. In fact this link is too my professor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9920628
In any case consider mechanically spinning both the electrodes and magnets with the electrodes
and magnets designed to produce a non-linear field say a double well.
This sets up all kinds of secondary fields and compression of the magnetic field lines.
I've never seen anyone spin the piss out of there 10 million dollar traps but its something
I'd love to see done.
So in short yes you can beat thermal cross sections. And I really supect if I'm alive when we
finally develop fusion that at least part of the machine will have a mechanically spinning magnet
or electrode that generates a non-homogeneous rotating field causing plasma oscillations.
Right now these are considered the problem but I think they are the solution the ions are
allowed to "escape" but if you can spin fast enough you capture them with the time varying field.
This paper off the first page is going in that direction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15446986?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Enough on that I'll get sucked in again :)
The only point I disagree on is carrying capacity of the earth. Here I think we are in overshoot.
Just flying over the US and China shows that we have developed all the best places and a good bit of the marginal lands. Flood plain ecosystems have been destroyed for so long people don't realize it.
Natural rivers in the south used to have huge natural dams called snags that built up along the rivers the riparian environment has been destroyed etc.
What I mean by living within our means is only using a small portion of the best lands say less then 10% so that all the natural ecosystems remain intact and this means leaving many rivers untouched by man all along there route. I don't know exactly the density that we need to be at to support keeping large parts of the worlds ecosystems untouched but its a lot lower than today.
Now since we must always have some high energy sources if we are going to have a technical civilization done correctly fusion could replace the use of hydroelectric altogether and we could rip out all or dams.
But it has to be done at the right time and place and for the right reasons and the right level. We are not ready for another endless power source we screwed up big time with our first one (oil).
So I hope that if we do achieve fusion it won't be for a long time and it will be in a society that wants it to rip out dams.
As far as space goes the more the merrier plenty of room to expand and a society that lives within its means would only lightly touch the planets it settles before moving on to others.
If we had star flight now we would basically be a scourge on the universe. We make locust swarms look benign.
Who knows if aliens exist but if they did I'm sure they would not want use "escaping" :)
Memmel: "As far as crossections etc all I can say as showme :)"
Here is WB6 in a vacuum machine,

In page 14 of the should google go nuclear PDF linked to above, Bussard reports
"On November 9 and 10, 2005 they obtained DD fusion
at about 10 KV, with B fields of 1300 Gauss, in a 30 cm
diameter device. It produced a pulse of DD fusions at
109 fusions/second that was 200,000 times higher then
anything that Hirsch and Farnsworth had ever achieved
in any experiment they had ever done for similar well
depths and drive conditions."
According to emc2fusion.org this "agreed with rate predicted by theory" and "confined electrons as the computer models said it should".
When the funding was cut to the lab they decided to run WB6 with as much power as it could handle, that's how they got the above results. (On the last test run it was broken perhaps a magnet short circuited, they didn't get the results until they were computed a month later).
Now WB7 an improved version of and the same size as WB6 has been built to reproduce and verify the results obtained from WB6. Here it is achieving first plasma in January (a larger image is on emc2fusion.org):
Richard Nebel who is leading this project said "The initial analysis showed that Bussard's data on energy yields were consistent with expectations", according to a report here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/13/224458/454/929/436375
But I'm not sure that info is accurate, because they were reporting on first plasma, at the time of the report first fusion may not have yet been achieved.
Next they may build WB8 another device similar in scale to WB6 and WB7, but with an alternative (truncated icosahedron) topology which may more efficiently trap electrons. After that if the results are ok if funding can be obtained the plan is to build WB1000. The full scale net power gain model, that is if Bussard's prediction that power gain scales with the 5 power of the radius is correct.
Hopefully Nebel reports more results. But he may have to go under embargo publishing like Bussard.
Maybe fusion will help or maybe it will accelerate peak food and other problems as you suggest. Anyway thanks for the discussion about it, it has helped improve my understanding.
Regarding Penning Paul traps, I will look at the links you have provided. Your suggestion to consider mechanically spinning both the electrodes and magnets sounds interesting, thanks, I will think about it.
Regarding the carrying capacity of the earth, well you could be right. I hope for the best but I can see the logic in planning for the worst.
Memmel: "What I mean by living within our means is only using a small portion of the best lands say less then 10% so that all the natural ecosystems remain intact". This sounds nice but I don't know how it can be achieved in practice it's difficult to get people to practice population control. I could see the planet getting more crowded with cheap power. We might irrigate the deserts and colonize them and also build colonies in the oceans.
Thanks again for the discussion.
I don't know if you have mentioned it in any of your links, but the next reactor is likely to be 100MW:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/next-bussard-iec-fusion-reactor-could.h...
Next Big Future: The next Bussard IEC fusion reactor could be 100MW size producing net energy
Hi Dave!,
I'm not sure if that blog is correct. Perhaps it is a misinterpretation of something Nebel said. I think he said 'We might as well go ahead and build the next one'. Which I would have thought meant WB8. The author of the blog may have jumped the gun thinking it meant the 100MW machine.
If they are going to start work on the 100MW version that would be great. I'm interested in a link to a direct quote by Nebel making that clear.
Another gee whiz technology that will be forgotten in ten years as a curiousity in plasma physics when they finally realize they aren't getting useful energy out of it. Maybe in 100 years something similar will be used for caulatron refining.
So far I've seen no conclusive data from these guys, just press releases to get more grant funding. I'm sure they're not being dishonest and believe in the concept, but I just don't see them overcoming braking radiation losses.