Talk-Polywell.org

@ johanfprins Neat and clean. It points out your idea in a very effective way. What we need now is tha same with your model, with calculations of the expected Superconduction temperature for a couple of the existing superconductors and of the diamond substrate you propose. Than I think we will have ...

If we want to skip the resistivity at all, we can say that it must satisfy the following criteria: P=VI=0 After having slept on it I must congratulate you. This is the best definition of superconduction I have seen to date. It immediately leads to the fact that V=0 and that there can thus be no ele...

So, we have a definition?

google is your friend:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

My second trouble is that this definition is focused very sharply on the e-field inside the SC--that the field is "cancelled". That seems an odd perspective as well. The following on just occured to me in response, but my niave layman's response is that we observe superconductors excluding magnetic...

How about we go back to the definition of Superconductor? A much better definition than one usually finds in text books; but it is still flawed. Assume that the charge-carriers in a metal have an average free pathlength L and you have a wire of length smaller than L: There will then be no heat gener...

You will find that unfortunately people on this board have a broad range of definitions for the same word/theorem/law. Trying to define a common starting point with basic definitions (and range of applications) has been quite troublesome until now bringing some interesting threads to a standstill. I...

I agree, is not a good indicator. I was also monitoring the late reporters lists, but they have not yet been updated with the late reporters for the past quarter. Than there is also the list of the contracts that do not have to report at all, but for now it looks like is limited to those contracts u...

@ GIThruster You are right of course. My intention anyhow was not to make such a differentiation, but just an utopistic consideration that if there was an actual immediate return for sending people in space we would not have to worry about government or other agency to find ways to do it. People wou...

It's the same contract with the award number written in 2 different ways. The first one covers February till december 2009: http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=46419&AwardType=Contracts The second one has only the first quarter ...

IntLibber wrote: There have been, in fact, some four or five researchers who have all replicated Woodward's results.

Oh, and NASA identified mach effect thrusters as the greatest potential for breakthrough physics propulsion.

Do you have any sources for both claims?

The issue is not really that it costs too much, but that there is no immediate return for that investment.

If there was a suitable economic reason to go there be sure that we would have already some colonies on the moon and Mars.
Just look back at what happened with the discovery of America.

To be accused of false claims you should make a claim before, and this IMHO has not happened yet. Neither from R. Nebel, neither from EMC2.

The FOI was submitted as a direct consequence of the total lack of informations from their part.

A couple of interesting posts from Focusfusion about handling of Decaborane and the design of the related chamber:

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/a ... ng_issues/

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/a ... um_system/

ROTFL, that was quite a nice description!