From: adder_black_the@yahoo.com (Steve Ivy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.plasma
Subject: Re: Another Reactor design.
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
References: <a4u9ps$et97$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <a52obm$5gvo$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu>


Dr Mike, I looked at the MST and I guess I must have missed something
because (to me anyhow) it doesn't look or sound all that much like the
design I suggested here the other day.

Is there a large resonant tank circuit somewhere in the MST power
supply that I just can't see? I guess it would have to be on the
primary side since I can't see any capacitors on the secondary (torus)
side of the MST.

In the MST I take it that the toroid itself acts as the single turn
secondary of a large transformer? And that the primary side is driven
by a large (parallel or series) type LC tank circuit? I guess it would
have to be since if the MST was not driven by a LC tank circuit then
you may have missed one of the main points of my idea.

I mean the whole point in my suggestion was to use a high Q resonant
tank circuit to slowly build up a very large current (and an
associated large B field in the torus) by using an inexpensive power
supply and to do so without the use of large bulky and expensive iron
cores and also to avoid any problems with iron core saturation or
hysteresis.

I would think that even with a closed core ferrite design there would
be a lot of leakage inductance off the MST design? What is the
coupling coeffiecient between the MST primary and secondary?

Other than the circumference around the length of a cross section of
the toroid wall (Which is OK) the design I suggested would have a very
short parasitic inductance path. Thus hopefully there wouldn't be much
stray inductance in the circuit. Well I don't think so anyhow, still
that would need to be calculated.

Also I wonder if the relatively "thin walls" of the MST might
contribute to a lowering the Q of the tank circuit? I guess that would
depend on the frequency of operation you run at, you know because of
the skin affect and all.

I am right in thinking that current and thus B max are tied directly
to the small but finite resistance of the toroid walls and such? Or do
you think the ESR of the capacitors would be the dominant loss
mechanism?

I do think one minus to my suggested design is that it appears to be
limited to sinusoidal resonances.

Thanks again: Steve Ivy

Mike Rosing <rosing@neurophys.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<a52obm$5gvo$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