From: Mike Rosing <rosing@neurophys.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.plasma
Subject: Re: Another Reactor design.
Organization: Medical Electronics Lab.
References: <a4u9ps$et97$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu>


Steve Ivy wrote:
[...]

> So you run the thing empty for a period of time while the current
> builds up in the tank circuit and then right at the last second you
> puff in a load of plasma.
>
> So there you go, you have a very strong very symmetric B field
> collapsing on whatever sort of plasma one wants.
>
> Well what do you all think, any promise here? I know it's a little
> rough yet.
>
>
> Comments? Questions? Clarifications?

That's a classic design actually. Check out
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/mst.htm
for a low cost design (it's across the street from where I'm sitting
now, that's
why I picked it :-)

The killer is in the details: how do you switch things on, and when is
that
"last second" before you "puff in" the plasma? a lot of people found
lots
of different instabilities where the plasma escapes the squeeze in the
same situation
back in the 1980's.

Rather than use brute force, I think a more subtle way is needed. We
know
that gravity works, but if it's as small as jupiter, it won't ignite.
For earth,
that's not an option :-) But we do know that ball lightning exists, we
just
don't know how! If we could build a thing that creates a stable plasma
like
ball lightning, we may be able to create a thermonuclear reactor. It
has been
observed in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, but that's not an option
either :-)

The real trick may be the pressure level, we may need a pressure chamber
rather
than a vacuum chamber. If we can build a stable plasma at 100
atmospheres, then
a sustained (and controlled!) thermonuclear reaction may generate a lot
of power.
It might be that glass walls and lots of RF will work better than metal
walls and
lots of current. But there's just too much we don't know yet.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike