MICF
Paul Dietz
Lee, Galbraith and Kammash at U. of Michigan are presenting some work
on magnetically insulated inertial confinement fusion (MICF). MICF
uses a laser to create a magnetized plasma inside a cool metal shell,
which retards (by its inertia) the expansion of the plasma. MICF does
not have the problems with implosion symmetry that plague ICF (there
is no implosion and associated hydrodynamic instabilities), nor the
problems of scale and wall damage that plague MCF. Kammash and
Galbraith calculate a Q of several hundred can be achieved in MICF
with a laser of < 1 megajoule (a CO2 laser, I think). They also state
that "D-He3 ... can be ignited and can generate large gain factors for
reasonably modest input laser energies".
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Barry Merriman
>I read a couple of interesting abstracts in the latest Bull. APS.
>
>Lee, Galbraith and Kammash at U. of Michigan are presenting some work
>on magnetically insulated inertial confinement fusion (MICF). MICF
>uses a laser to create a magnetized plasma inside a cool metal shell,
>which retards (by its inertia) the expansion of the plasma. MICF does
>Kammash and
>Galbraith calculate a Q of several hundred can be achieved in MICF
>with a laser of < 1 megajoule (a CO2 laser, I think). They also state
>that "D-He3 ... can be ignited and can generate large gain factors for
>reasonably modest input laser energies".
But don't get your hopes up too high. Coincidentally, I was
planning to work on this MICF project with Kammash last year
(but the funding for my end of things didn't go through...I'll
try again this year). I was discussing the project with Kammash
at U of Michigan last winter.
What he told me is that things are wonderful in their calculations
_if_ they can reach a certain magnetic field configuration. They
had run simulations assuming this configuration, and that is where
they get their good performance figures.
Unfortunately, the configuration needed is a _spherically symmetric_
magnetic field. Since this is not possible (via maxwell's equations)
they can never reach the optimal configuration. The question
then becomes
Q1: How close to optimal can we get?
and
Q2: How do we startup the device to reach the good configuration?
The work that I was supposed to do was numerical simulations
addressing Q2 and Q1. At the time, Kammash didn't have anyone
with the skills needed to do the startup modelling. I don't know
if he found anyone since then.
(PS: I'm considering offering my services for "free" now, since
I have funding from other sources. I consider MICF to be a very
interesting approach---particularly because it lends itself
to fusion powered rockets. But the challenge of starting it up
correctly is highly nontrivial, and maybe impossible.)
Barry Merriman
Paul Dietz
>Unfortunately, the configuration needed is a _spherically symmetric_
>magnetic field. Since this is not possible (via maxwell's equations)
>they can never reach the optimal configuration.
...
>(PS: I'm considering offering my services for "free" now, since
>I have funding from other sources. I consider MICF to be a very
>interesting approach---particularly because it lends itself
>to fusion powered rockets. But the challenge of starting it up
>correctly is highly nontrivial, and maybe impossible.)
The MICF idea, as originally proposed by Hasegawa, has the plasma in a
spheromak (not spherically symmetric) configuration. This
configuration, a compact toroid, is a Taylor minimum energy state.
Why is constructing such a state highly nontrivial? In a situation
where magnetic helicity is conserved, the plasma (assuming it starts
with nonzero helicity) should automatically relax to this
configuration.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Barry Merriman
In article <1989Oct24....@cs.rochester.edu> di...@banana.cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <19...@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> ba...@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>>Unfortunately, the configuration needed is a _spherically symmetric_
>>magnetic field. Since this is not possible (via maxwell's equations)
>>they can never reach the optimal configuration.
>...
>>correctly is highly nontrivial, and maybe impossible.)
>
>The MICF idea, as originally proposed by Hasegawa, has the plasma in a
>spheromak (not spherically symmetric) configuration. This
>configuration, a compact toroid, is a Taylor minimum energy state.
>Why is constructing such a state highly nontrivial?
When I talked to Kammash, he said they wanted a
spherically symmetric B field, not a spheromak field.
Kammash acknowledged the impossibility of this, but was interested
in getting as close as possible. Also,
in their paper (see Fusion Technology, vol. 12, pg 11--21,july 1987)
they do their calculations assuming spherical symmetry.
The reason it is difficult to get a desired field
is that one has very little control over the field generation.
In a tokamak, we can position magnets to create the desired field.
But in MICF, the field is generated by the induced plasma
dynamics, so it is a highly nonlinear system.
(Of course, if the desired field were an energy min,
this would be less of a problem...although you might not
reach the min fast enough...)
Also, as Kammash notes on page 20 of that paper, there is
a problem with uniform illumination: your laser beam
scatters all over the inside of the shell, ablates the
wall coating uniformly, and you get a uniform plasma.
(this does lead to a spherically symmetric B field, namely
B = 0). This is what is observed experimentally.
An ion beam might avoid this problem, since there would not be as
much reflection.
-Barry Merriman
Matt Kennel
>magnetic field. Since this is not possible (via maxwell's equations)
>they can never reach the optimal configuration. The question
>then becomes
What if the system isn't necessarily magnetostatic? Can you get
an approximation to the requisite B field then?
Oh I know! Just squirt some magnetic monopoles in. :)
>Barry Merriman
Matt Kennel
pa1...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Paul Koloc
>
>>Unfortunately, the configuration needed is a _spherically symmetric_
>>magnetic field. Since this is not possible (via maxwell's equations)
>>they can never reach the optimal configuration.
>...
>configuration, a compact toroid, is a Taylor minimum energy state.
Yamanaka carried out MICF experiments in Japan. All three, Kammmash,
Hsagawa, and Yamanaka with this MICF idea are "strongly competitive" to
to the "US National Fusion Program". .. . Get the drift? ? ???
Spheromaks are "spheroidally AXIsymetric". They have a surrounding
^^^^
and bounding current layer (conducting shell) which neutralizes their
normally occuring dipole field into a closed resultant "more sphere-like"
one. Beyond the Taylor criteria for stability there is an additional one
which deals with the outer conducting shell/vacuum field boundary. The
minimum energy contribution from this condition is that for a given total
trapped flux and volume, the pressure produced by the neutralizing currents
(at the conducting shell) at the outer vacuum field boundary or separatrix
should be uniform. The volume area within the Separatrix is the Kernel
and it includes the plasma ring and its surrounding vacuum field.
If this condition is be imposed automatically, then the conducting shell
must be a sort of "Mantle of plasma", which itself is within a pressure
supporting gas or plasma atmosphere (blanket) since such media will
quickly equilibrate pressure variations. The only other necessary
condition over a Spheromak is that the currents be highly conducting
(means currents must be energetic or relativistic). This last described
variation is the PLASMAK(tm) configuration. A PMK is a Plasma Mantle
and Kernel configuration plasmoid.
A PMK will produce fusion aneutronically, in the relatively near future.
Simply form it in fuel, compress it to a few kilobars and . ..*%$@i#% Wow.
Prometheus II, Ltd. has the patents that cover these technological
approaches. Of these, the most interesting is the latter.
>Why is constructing such a state highly nontrivial? In a situation
>where magnetic helicity is conserved, the plasma (assuming it starts
>with nonzero helicity) should automatically relax to this
>configuration.
Why indeed? But, why did the laser take so much time, or why is it taking
so long to find the correct TECHNIQUE for producing cold fusion??
PMKs can be made extemely reliably, and we have done so. In atmospheric
air they are very dazzlinly lovely. They are also formed in nature as
Ball Lightning. And, PMKs are formed from plasma super saturated
with magnetic flux that cavitates forming a vacuum magnetic bubble
periodically below the surface of the Sun. The PMK then forms its
vacuum magnetic field and displaces both the Kernel and Mantle plasma
to form room for itself. This produces enough adiabatic heating to
generate an intense pulse thermonuclear burn at least in the Kernel
plasma.
This soon ceases as the PMK diameter grows to pressure equilibrium and
it ascends toward the surface of the Sun (from its bouyancy). As it
ascends the surrounding pressure diminishes and the PMK expands, cooling
the vacuum field insulated Kernel plasma. Unfortunately, very near the
surface the pressure differentials from the top to the bottom of the PMK
becomes too great and the PMK becomes unstable and breaks up -- (imagine
the yoke breaking on an egg one wanted to fry sunny side up :-(. Some
of the remnants are brought to the surface in the up-wash and that
includes portions of the still highly magnetized Kernel plasma, which
was cooled adiabatically very substantially on its long (many years)
jouney to the surface.
Actually, the time could be calculated due to the difference in arrival
time at the surface between the polar and equatorial regions. Those PMKs
coming up near the pole have few flux surfaces to cross and thus are
not as magnetically damped in their ascent.
If this proves out, it could account for the fluctuations of heat, and
droughts during heavy sun spot cycles. Our last one was quite heavy,
so maybe global green house is not so bad. It even could have played a
hand in the ozone hole over the poles. Particles from expanding flux
released as magnetized plasma arrive at the surface, accelerate particles
which are then captured and blow up the earth's dipole field. Sort of
like injecting air between the layers of a rubber onion. The particles
can then reach all the way into the upper atmosphere as the flux
surfaces are spread apart. This produces aurora, etc. and may
contribute to the ozone hole and other upper atmospheric chemistry.
That may become more apparent if the hole begins to close in two or
three years.
>
> Paul F. Dietz
> di...@cs.rochester.edu
Answers by the undersigned pmk@prometheus
COPYWRITE 1989 Prometheus II Ltd. Copy allowed if attributed.
pmk@prometheus
Pierre St. Hilaire
>A PMK will produce fusion aneutronically, in the relatively near future.
>Simply form it in fuel, compress it to a few kilobars and . ..*%$@i#% Wow.
>Prometheus II, Ltd. has the patents that cover these technological
>approaches. Of these, the most interesting is the latter.
This is quite fascinating. Are there references in the scientific
litterature on this PMK configuration and on how it could achieve
aneutronic fusion? How do you generate such a plasma in practice?
I read a few years ago that Tesla had apparently been able in
some of his high voltage experiments to produce some stable plasma
configurations (which were reported to be equivalent to Ball
Lightning). Does this seem reasonable, or is it just another myth
surrounding Tesla's experiments?
Pierre St Hilaire
MIT Media Lab
Paul M. Koloc
>>
>>A PMK will produce fusion aneutronically, in the relatively near future.
>>Simply form it in fuel, compress it to a few kilobars and . ..*%$@i#% Wow.
>
>litterature on this PMK configuration and on how it could achieve
>aneutronic fusion? How do you generate such a plasma in practice?
Three references on the PLASMAK(tm) Configuration / PMK :
J. R. ROTH*, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy",
Paper 29-P-14 presented to the 13th Symposium on Fusion
Engineering, Oct 2-6, 1989.
For copy write:
Prof. J. Reese Roth, Dept. Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-2100
Or perhaps contact his secretary:
(615) 974-4446
There is a simplified discussion of formation here. However, the
formation process which takes place in significant less than 20
microseconds, and in reality is extremely difficult and very convoluted.
Yet, it appears to work reliably! We will need a year or two just to
further manipulate and diagnose the formed PMKs fully BEFORE publishing
ANY formal claims (papers).
Applications of this are fantastic, and one I find most interesting is
its use in two different modes to drive both a boost phase and a high
power high specific thrust engine for planetary excursions.
See also:
P. M. KOLOC, "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power For Space Applications",
Fusion Technology 15, 2B, p1136 (1989).
The latter discusses the PLASMAK(tm) charateristics and methods to
achieve ANEUTRONIC burn. The comparison is made between CIT type
machine burning D-T and a PLASMAK(tm) burning a very advanced fuel.
> I read a few years ago that Tesla had apparently been able in
>some of his high voltage experiments to produce some stable plasma
>configurations (which were reported to be equivalent to Ball
>Lightning). Does this seem reasonable, or is it just another myth
>surrounding Tesla's experiments?
Yes, there are such reports, and in fact, a couple of brothers Corum,
from the Ohio and West Virginia area, reproduced Tesla's device. Since
at least one of them is an electrical engineer they were able to peak
the output from the device. Consequently, they (according to their
claims) produced Ball Lightning with an occasional regularity but
located randomedly along a twentyfive foot air arc path! The BLs
were usually fleeting but rarely one would be four inches or so
in diameter. R. Golka also reproduced a monster Tesla experiment in
the West and managed to produce, "Bead Lightning" (as recorded with an
Air Force high speed movie camera, but no Ball Lightning.
I believe that Tesla's plasmoids did NOT float freely, but remained
attached to the electrode. That does not preclude them from being Ball
Lightning. A magnetoplasmoid would remain attached to an electrode,
if that electrode contained iron, nickel or other ferromagnetically
active compound. BLs frequemtly are seen running along power lines
trapped by the mutual interaction of the current produced magnetic
flux. If you live in a northern high storm area, check with your local
"old duffer" powerline repair person and cronies for their first hand
observations.
For those interested in this subject, the "Proceeding for the First
International Symposium on Ball Lightning (BL) " should be published
and distributed by now (initially - problems with Singapore publisher).
If it can't be found yet, I could send a copy of a BL paper I gave at
that conference to the first twenty or so people that request it.
P.M. KOLOC, "The PLASMAK(TM) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
presented at the First International Symposium on Ball
Lightning, Tokyo, JAPAN (July 1988).
> Pierre St Hilaire
> MIT Media Lab
pmk@prometheus
Answers
COPYWRITE 1989 Prometheus II, Ltd. Copy If Attributed
+---------------------------------------------------------+*********++
| Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 |**FUSION**|
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 |***this***|
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP |**decade**|
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
Albert Boulanger
In article <1989Oct28.1...@prometheus.UUCP>, Paul M. Koloc cites:
Three references on the PLASMAK(tm) Configuration / PMK :
J. R. ROTH*, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy",
Paper 29-P-14 presented to the 13th Symposium on Fusion
Engineering, Oct 2-6, 1989.
and
P.M. KOLOC, "The PLASMAK(TM) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
presented at the First International Symposium on Ball
Lightning, Tokyo, JAPAN (July 1988).
This reminds me. What ever happened to the work of Geert Dijkhuis?
Here is a citation:
"Themonuclear Energy from Ball Lightning"
Proceedings of the 14th Intersociety Energy Conversion Conference
Boston MA, August 5-10, 1979, American Chemical Society, Wash DC, Vol.
2, 1614-1617.
The general idea that he and others had was that there was some kind
of transition to a superconducting state with large enough currents, >
~150KA in typical lightning channels (so probably current density),
that occurs in:
1) Positive return strokes. (Often between the anvil of a thundercloud
and ground at the end of a T-Storm.)
2) When submarine batteries are switched. Geert was using submarine
batteries.
In Geert's work, the stability of the plasma was due to the fact that
the hydrodynamics was London's equation. For a good book on empirical
work on Ball lightning see:
Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning
James Barry
Plenum Press, 1980
Cheers,
Albert Boulanger
BBN Systems & Technologies
aboul...@bbn.com
Albert Boulanger
In article <1989Oct28.1...@prometheus.UUCP>, Paul M. Koloc cites:
Three references on the PLASMAK(tm) Configuration / PMK :
J. R. ROTH*, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy",
Paper 29-P-14 presented to the 13th Symposium on Fusion
Engineering, Oct 2-6, 1989.
and
P.M. KOLOC, "The PLASMAK(TM) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
presented at the First International Symposium on Ball
Lightning, Tokyo, JAPAN (July 1988).
This reminds me. What ever happened to the work of Geert Dijkhuis?
