I’ve set my sites on a fusor win. The heart of the fusor is it’s grid. It occurred to me that a polywell shape might work as a shape for a fusor grid. So I started a new branch on github and modified the design to work as a fusor grid. Here is the result, there is no internal structure, just solid metal:
Prometheus Fusion Perfection 
I feel silly for asking, but why do you think that? It seems the TeslaBoys managed with a *very* inexpensive pair of grids, so why go to the expense of having one custom, precision, machined?
I assume you have a reason that I just don’t see — I dont’t mean to be accusitory.
(Blast, didn’t check “notify me of followups”.)
That wouldn’t be that expensive to make at prometal. I’ll get a quote as soon as I get an STL out.
I asked TeslaBoys for the DXF files for his grid. He said he’ll give them to me when he gets back from a trip.
The advantage of your design for the Polywell type approach of electron confinement is the magnetic field arrangement at the center of the device. For a fusor, you are simply accelerating ions (opposite bias by the way, hopefully your HVPS(s) are bipolar) inward. Recent research has shown that the mean free path of the ions is short enough (at P ~ mTorr) that spherically-radial convergence (i.e using a spherical grid) is probably not super critical for a working fusor, but there is certainly no advantage that I can see of using a Polywell type chassis for this application. In fact, the increased surface area of the Polywell type grids is most certainly detrimental to a fusor. Spherical grids offer the best compromise between surface area and electric field uniformity, and so
I would recommend using a significantly more transparent and cheaper spherical grid for the fusor and the full chassis design you have shown for the Polywell approach.
OK. I’ll use a spherical grid! I see what you mean by less surface area.
I may however have this part made, if only to have a physical model of the core to show people.
SUP MARKY MARK IN THIS MOTHAFUCKAAAAA!!!!! Haven’t checked the site in a while BUT SHIT IZ LUKKIN DOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE!!! FREE ENERGY IN YO FACE BEYITCHES!!!!
Hummmminnnaaa Dooo it.
Have you seen the discussion at talk-polywell about the chassis’ connecting nubs possibly being right in the middle of a lot of traffic? User KitemanSA (IIRC) has done a short study of it and come up with some alternative designs to account for this.
It’s also been noticed (or at least suggested) from the latest details out of the EMC2 R&D that they’re looking to alter their “nub” design. This might have been the precursor to KitemanSA’s study.. I don’t recall the specifics, sorry.
Matt: not aware of that discussion.
I’m not sure if this is what I was remembering, and I suppose you’ll read the whole discussion, but here’s the quick and dirty search results I got:
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=17231&highlight=nub#17231
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=17246&highlight=nub#17246
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=17231&highlight=nub#17231
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=17499&highlight=nub#17499
Sorry Matt, that got caught in the spam filter.
The PM I sent you at talk-polywell has a one extra bit of info.