1. spin the outer magnets really fast creating centripetal force inside keeping the plasma particles away from the sides......

2.

And the word is tokamak.

4. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
And the word tokamak.
Yes ,sorry about the spelling of the word tokamak, and why do you think it's crap, its just a thought, may work may not.

From what I understand the Tokamak can only work briefly, as basically the plasma is snaking and buckling the magnets messing up the bottling process.

The plasma is currently what rotates?

So the plasma will always try to have centrifugal F, catching out the magnets.

Rotate the magnets creating centripetal F to counter act the centrifugal F from the plasma?

And It would be wrong of me to have a thought and not share that thought just in case.

5. To feel any force the plasma must spin with the magnets.
The centripetal force only matches the centrifugal (actually the converse).
In other words spinning faster may increase the centripetal force but ONLY by increasing the "force" throwing the plasma outwards and against the walls.

Since the two forces are in balance (one is a reaction to the other) then increasing one will not improve the situation.

6. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
To feel any force the plasma must spin with the magnets.
The centripetal force only matches the centrifugal (actually the converse).
In other words spinning faster may increase the centripetal force but ONLY by increasing the "force" throwing the plasma outwards and against the walls.

Since the two forces are in balance (one is a reaction to the other) then increasing one will not improve the situation.
How can it throw outwards towards the walls when the walls are spinning and forcing inwards at the right balance to make it work?

7. Originally Posted by theorist
How can it throw outwards towards the walls when the walls are spinning and forcing inwards at the right balance to make it work?
One more time: the two forces are in balance.
If you spin faster to increase the inward centripetal force that only happens because the outward one increases.

Think of a stone on a piece of string: does spinning it faster make the stone move inwards? No.

8. Originally Posted by theorist
its just a thought, may work may not.
And seeing as it was your thought and your profound ignorance of almost everything which is more likely? Kindly think or do some basic reading before splashing whatever nonsense hits the surface of your brain onto the forum.

And It would be wrong of me to have a thought and not share that thought just in case.
No it really would not be wrong at all.

9. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
How can it throw outwards towards the walls when the walls are spinning and forcing inwards at the right balance to make it work?
One more time: the two forces are in balance.
If you spin faster to increase the inward centripetal force that only happens because the outward one increases.

Think of a stone on a piece of string: does spinning it faster make the stone move inwards? No.
So the magnets are not static in the tokamak anyway?

10. Originally Posted by theorist
So the magnets are not static in the tokamak anyway?
Not that I'm aware of.
But it wouldn't make any difference.

11. I thought the problem with tokamaks was getting the reaction to sustain itself. If plasma containment were the issue wouldn't the whole thing just melt?

12. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
I thought the problem with tokamaks was getting the reaction to sustain itself. If plasma containment were the issue wouldn't the whole thing just melt?
I thought from previous forum discussions the problem was the reaction could not substain itself, but this was due to buckling of the magnets from the plasma, ''snakeing''.
As the particle stream picked up pace , the magnetic field was failing allowing ''snakes'' to shoot out, centrifugal F adding extra F to the plasma?
And as to the whole machine melting, no, because once the containment is broke, plasma become a harmless gas again.

13. Uh... A little reading indicates that a sufficient technical understanding of Tokamak reactors would require several years of university level study.
Good luck with that there theorist. In the interim; Stellarator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

14. Me tomahawk need no fixin'....kill pale face real good.

15. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Uh... A little reading indicates that a sufficient technical understanding of Tokamak reactors would require several years of university level study.
Good luck with that there theorist. In the interim; Stellarator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True, to fully understand a device several years of study would be required, but to see and understand the basic principle is not hard to understand.

The Stellarator, I could not see why a changing in the shape of the magnetic patterns,magnets, into a roller coaster design would make any difference, but im sure as per normal a computer simulation has been run, so it must work right ?, lol.

Plasma is no more than an electrical spark that runs wild in nature, choosing direction to the nearest earth, in my primative look on things.

I can not see how a static machine/magnetic band, would ever work unless the magnetic field could be seriously strengthened.

My view would be that to make plasma, and substain plasma, going with the flow is needed, the walls of the machines lined with magnets would have to move also, to certainly create less plasma friction as such.

rotating magnets creating a magnetic inward vortex of magnetism.

Probably about as far off as a man lost in the desert, but changing the shape, spirals etc, of the magnets, will only alter the plasma rotation speed around the device, and not control the plasma from hitting the sides due to its erratic nature IMO.

16. Originally Posted by theorist

True, to fully understand a device several years of study would be required, but to see and understand the basic principle is not hard to understand.
You have demonstrated time and time again several lifetimes, not years, of study would be required for you to reach grade school.

17. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by theorist

True, to fully understand a device several years of study would be required, but to see and understand the basic principle is not hard to understand.
You have demonstrated time and time again several lifetimes, not years, of study would be required for you to reach grade school.
IM sorry Ph, you are rather rude, I am on this forum to learn science and ask questions about science, and give my opinions.

Your posts always seem to be in an offensive insult manner.

For years now plasma machines have failed to substain the goal.

So you know the answer to fixing it do you?

I can only put forward ideas, and people with more scientific knowledge may just advance on one of their ideas maybe, a penny drops.

I am just here to talk and learn, can you please stop trying to give me a hard time and try to get me banned again , for no reason except talk and ideas.

And also I could take you down the paths of some of the trades etc that i do know welll and you would not have clue maybe.

18. It may appear rude but trust me, it's just frustration at your responses to the answers you get. There is nothing wrong with asking questions if you learn from the answers you are given. You don't. You are given an answer and then you twist it into utter gibberish and come back with some nonsense which often has nothing to do with anything, you say this is your "learning style", it's very evident it doesn't work, you're as clueless now as you were a year ago. Another frustrating thing is that despite having no knowledge or understanding of any of the subjects on this forum you think your ideas have merit and may cause a "penny to drop" they really don't and won't, they are without exception witless drivel. Maybe this is the reason I treat your posts with less respect that you think they deserve, if you don't like it change your posting style, I'm perfectly polite to people who ask genuine questions and learn from them, it's only people who spout nonsense or refuse to learn despite the time and effort posters make to answer their questions that I'm "rude" to.

As to your last point that may be true but then I don't go around to a discussion area for these other trades and spout nonsense about their work or expertise do I?

19. Originally Posted by theorist
And also I could take you down the paths of some of the trades etc that i do know welll and you would not have clue maybe.
Except that you've also shown you're clueless with regard to those as well.
Milk as a substitute for white paint, for example.

20. Yes, that was a classic from theorist wan't it...

21. Yes sure thing, I have learnt nothing, I do not know some basics about a tokamak and plasma, I do not understand the difference between fison and fusion, I do not know how an atom is formed and how chemistry can manipulate bonds to make new chemicals.
No I have obviously learnt nothing.

Observation is a key point in science IMO, i see plasma in the sky every day, it is a huge ball of plasma and other elements called the Sun.

I see lightning in the sky, but what containment do I see?

Substaining a proton-proton chain would be perpetual energy............

p.s- how does a doughnut shape compare to the suns shape? the sun is a ball of energy

22. Originally Posted by theorist
Yes sure thing, I have learnt nothing,
I'd agree, having had a few questions answered and being given a few very basic facts does not equal "learning" or "understanding" as you have shown by your inability to apply the answers you have been given to anything else without making up some ludicrous nonsense to cover the huge gaps in your understanding.

Originally Posted by theorist
Observation is a key point in science IMO, i see plasma in the sky every day, it is a huge ball of plasma and other elements called the Sun.

I see lightning in the sky, but what containment do I see?

Substaining a proton-proton chain would be perpetual energy............

p.s- how does a doughnut shape compare to the suns shape? the sun is a ball of energy
You see, this just makes my point. Despite the correct answers you have been given on these subjects, after passing through your head this gibberish and made up nonsense is what results.

23. Originally Posted by theorist
it is a huge ball of plasma and other elements called the Sun.
Plasma isn't an element.

Substaining a proton-proton chain would be perpetual energy............
No it wouldn't.

p.s- how does a doughnut shape compare to the suns shape?
One is a doughnut shape the other is a ball shape.

the sun is a ball of energy
No it's not.

24. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by theorist
Yes sure thing, I have learnt nothing,
I'd agree, having had a few questions answered and being given a few very basic facts does not equal "learning" or "understanding" as you have shown by your inability to apply the answers you have been given to anything else without making up some ludicrous nonsense to cover the huge gaps in your understanding.
If you note, my nonsense as you call it mostly related to catergories that yet do not have a definite answer, e.g - making plasma and substaining it.

Science does not yet have the answers either yet....

so my nonsense is a few days old, sciences nonsense is decades old and it still does not work, billions spent on uselesss inventions.

So tell me, explain to me why my idea would not work, dont just say it wont work explain why it wont?

25. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
it is a huge ball of plasma and other elements called the Sun.
Plasma isn't an element.

I didnt say it was, I said the sun contains plasma and other elements

Substaining a proton-proton chain would be perpetual energy............
No it wouldn't.

p.s- how does a doughnut shape compare to the suns shape?
One is a doughnut shape the other is a ball shape.

Thats sarcasm, you know what i meant

the sun is a ball of energy
No it's not.
I would argue it is, why isnt it?

26. That is irrelevent, the absence of a "definite" answer doesn't mean that any crap you make up without understanding any of the basic physics is going to have any validity. Dunning and Kruger would like you to return their calls, they think your delusions of competence need further study.

27. Originally Posted by PhDemon
That is irrelevent, the absence of a "definite" answer doesn't mean that any crap you make up without understanding any of the basic physics is going to have any validity. Dunning and Kruger would like you to return their calls, they think your delusions of competence need further study.
Arrr, dunning and Kruger, when a person thinks he his clever and above everyone as such, nope i do not think so.

You told me on this forum about plasma and the Tokamak and why it was not working.

I open a topic for discussion, on a suggestion I have, we are or should never be too proud to listen. Its just an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea,

got it now, if it wouldnt work nothing lost nothing gained, i do not care, im asking not telling.

28. Originally Posted by theorist

Arrr, dunning and Kruger, when a person thinks he his clever and above everyone as such, nope i do not think so.
No it's when someone who is incompetent (i.e. you) overestimates their ability or competence.

Originally Posted by theorist
You told me on this forum about plasma and the Tokamak and why it was not working.
Nope I have never posted on this subject until this thread.

Originally Posted by theorist
I open a topic for discussion, on a suggestion I have, we are or should never be too proud to listen. Its just an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea,
It is nonsense which shows you don't have a clue, as this is a science forum it's usual that any "idea" presented has some conenction to reality -- especially in the hard science forums.

Originally Posted by theorist
got it now, if it wouldnt work nothing lost nothing gained, i do not care, im asking not telling.
No, you asked no questions in your OP you made a ridiculous statement. Can you not see how this is annoying?

29. Originally Posted by theorist
IM sorry Ph, you are rather rude, I am on this forum to learn science and ask questions about science, and give my opinions.
It's the giving of opinion part that gets you in trouble. Why would you think people want to hear uninformed opinions? We can read that kind of drivel anywhere. We expect something better on a science forum.

30. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by theorist

Arrr, dunning and Kruger, when a person thinks he his clever and above everyone as such, nope i do not think so.
No it's when someone who is incompetent (i.e. you) overestimates their ability or competence.Thats what i said

Originally Posted by theorist
You told me on this forum about plasma and the Tokamak and why it was not working.
Nope I have never posted on this subject until this thread.NOt meaning you personally meaning the forum

Originally Posted by theorist
I open a topic for discussion, on a suggestion I have, we are or should never be too proud to listen. Its just an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea, an idea,
It is nonsense which shows you don't have a clue, as this is a science forum it's usual that any "idea" presented has some conenction to reality -- especially in the hard science forums.
Reality science is trying to harness the suns energy as such, by using the wrong shapes to the original , the sun.

So why the shapes not a sphere?

Originally Posted by theorist
got it now, if it wouldnt work nothing lost nothing gained, i do not care, im asking not telling.
No, you asked no questions in your OP you made a ridiculous statement. Can you not see how this is annoying?
I understand my spag is annoying at times,

31. I'm out, my patience is gone and I've reached my "conversing with dimwits" threshold for today.

32. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by theorist
IM sorry Ph, you are rather rude, I am on this forum to learn science and ask questions about science, and give my opinions.
It's the giving of opinion part that gets you in trouble. Why would you think people want to hear uninformed opinions? We can read that kind of drivel anywhere. We expect something better on a science forum.
I understand Harold, Im making conversation and learning at the same time, I learn something, then question that something, my opinions are just thoughts on what im learning, I think to myself I wonder if that would work, so simply ask a question although they come across opinionated. Please dont ban me again , I have learnt alot really.

33. Originally Posted by PhDemon
I'm out, my patience is gone and I've reached my "conversing with dimwits" threshold for today.
Ph im asking questions, then I have to reword the question because i still dont get an answer,

I will try again, why is the Tokamak and the stellarator like a doughnut, where did the ideas come from for that shape e.t.c.?

What science in involved to define the shape or is it just a random guess?

34. Originally Posted by theorist
I will try again, why is the Tokamak and the stellarator like a doughnut, where did the ideas come from for that shape e.t.c.
Because it is (relatively) easy to confine a fast moving stream of charged particles in a tube - a solenoid - because the field is straight and so will keep the particles moving straight.
Solenoids as Magnetic Field Sources

But the problem is that you can't build an infinitely long solenoid so you have to deal with the ends. The obvious answer is to wrap the solenoid around to make a doughnut.

That would work in principle except for the very high temperatures and the complex electric and magnetic fields created by the moving plasma which makes it unstable.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement