Google Polywell Fusion Counter

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

PolyGirl
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Google Polywell Fusion Counter

Postby PolyGirl » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:35 am

Use this thread to post the current number of generated results, when you put in the parameters "Polywell and Fusion into Google's search engine.

The current figure now stands at 17,000 hits

Update this every couple of days to let us know how well polywell fusion is spreading.

Regards
Polygirl
The more I know, the less I know.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:58 am

Baseline: two days ago Polywell Fusion was 14,400.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:18 am

16.5k now.

PolyGirl
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby PolyGirl » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:38 am

The figure of 17.500 was obtained using the words "polywell fusion" (without quotes), in that order. This search was carried out using Google in Australia, Brisbane.

I just reconfirmed this figure by repeating the search, just before posting this post.

Regards
Polywell
The more I know, the less I know.

PolyGirl
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Search Variations

Postby PolyGirl » Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:37 am

Other search queries provide the following
    Robert Bussard gives 91,900
    Bussard Fusion gives 37,500
    Polywell Fusion gives 17,500
    Bussard Polywell gives 13,700
    Bussard Polywell Fusion gives 7,890

Regards
Polygirl[/b]
The more I know, the less I know.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:55 am

Still 16.5k for 'polywell and fusion' (no quotes) and 15.8k for 'polywell fusion' (no quotes either), on my end.

Others:
    Robert Bussard : 90.2k
    Bussard Fusion: 37.1k
    Bussard Polywell: 7,740
    Bussard Polywell Fusion : 7.1k


So something's amiss in the "standard" here.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:03 am

Here is an interesting mention of Polywell at Amazon.

Amazon url

The guy doesn't express himself well but in general I think he is right. Tokamaks are sucking up all the resources for fusion that should be spread around.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Postby Tom Ligon » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:11 pm

Oh, that's fun! Ligon fusion, on the Altavista search engine, returns 85,700. I have not scanned down to see how many of those are Tom Ligon the actor. His name is associated with fusion in contexts other than nuclear.

Google typically has less trash hits and returns 20,400.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:21 pm

Tom Ligon wrote: Google typically has less trash hits and returns 20,400.


Interesting.

Ligon and fusion = 20,400
Ligon fusion = 18,800
Ligon fusion -Tom = 11,800

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Postby Art Carlson » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:48 pm

MSimon wrote:Here is an interesting mention of Polywell at Amazon.
Amazon url
The guy doesn't express himself well but in general I think he is right. Tokamaks are sucking up all the resources for fusion that should be spread around.

The guy doesn't express himself well and doesn't know what he's talking about either. Waste of time.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:04 pm

Art Carlson wrote:
MSimon wrote:Here is an interesting mention of Polywell at Amazon.
Amazon url
The guy doesn't express himself well but in general I think he is right. Tokamaks are sucking up all the resources for fusion that should be spread around.

The guy doesn't express himself well and doesn't know what he's talking about either. Waste of time.


Art,

Not everyone is a physicist, or even an engineer. In any case I think he is correct about the politics. Bussard's hope when he started the Fusion section was that 20% of the resources would go to new ideas and stuff that was off the beaten track. It didn't happen.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

StevePoling
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: grand rapids, MI
Contact:

all one's eggs in one basket

Postby StevePoling » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:00 am

MSimon wrote:Not everyone is a physicist, or even an engineer. In any case I think he is correct about the politics. Bussard's hope when he started the Fusion section was that 20% of the resources would go to new ideas and stuff that was off the beaten track. It didn't happen.


I don't think one needs to be technically inclined at all to recognize the desirability of not putting all one's eggs in one basket.

In this case, we've been doubling-down on bigger and bigger fusion devices that have not delivered. When you're seeing success, it makes sense to redirect resources toward winners, but we haven't seen that yet.

If Polywell and some of these other long-shots don't pan out, the next contingency is to put more thought into the underlying mathematics. I think youze guys need better tools for analyzing plasma. Ferinstance, I think Quantum Mechanics is the dog that doesn't bark in this story.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: all one's eggs in one basket

Postby Art Carlson » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:03 am

StevePoling wrote:
MSimon wrote:Not everyone is a physicist, or even an engineer. In any case I think he is correct about the politics. Bussard's hope when he started the Fusion section was that 20% of the resources would go to new ideas and stuff that was off the beaten track. It didn't happen.

I don't think one needs to be technically inclined at all to recognize the desirability of not putting all one's eggs in one basket.

In this case, we've been doubling-down on bigger and bigger fusion devices that have not delivered. When you're seeing success, it makes sense to redirect resources toward winners, but we haven't seen that yet.

If somebody without a clue about the physics and engineering happens to get the politics right, it's pure coincidence. I know Bush didn't think science facts were relevant input to science policy, but I do. Call me old fashioned.

I don't know where the idea came from that tokamaks haven't been successful. The triple product has doubled every 3 years for decades. Breakeven (Q=1) has been achieved. That's impressive in my book. No other concept has come close.

It is true that the tokamak couldn't have made this progress without heavy resources being poured into it, resources that other concepts have not enjoyed. So how can you compare the inherent promise of two concepts that have a very different development history? Find yourself a figure of merit. I'd take triple product divided by volume. On that basis, tokamaks are the only game in town. In other words, show me any alternate concept machine. A tokamak of the same size would produce a higher triple product, without exception. That's why the money went to tokamaks. They were always the best shot.

You should also keep in mind that the tokamak, as the pioneer, had to spend a lot of money to understand the basic physics and technology of high-temperature, magnetized plasmas. If the tokamak had had less funding, then whoever the front-runner was would have had to make this investment. Either way, the results are there to benefit all concepts.

That's not to say that alternatives should not be funded. They should be, as they always have been. Setting priorities has always been a process of heated debate, and I understand and sympathize with the arguments for syphoning (even more) funds away from the tokamak for alternate concepts. On the other hand, I also understand the argument that the biggest waste of money is an underfunded experiment. I thought ITER should have been made twice as big or not at all.

So I'm out of steam now. On odd-numbered days I'm equally willing to expound on the shortcomings of tokamaks. It just seems to me some of the tokamak-bashing here is a bit un-nuanced.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: all one's eggs in one basket

Postby KitemanSA » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Art Carlson wrote: I don't know where the idea came from that tokamaks haven't been successful. The triple product has doubled every 3 years for decades. Breakeven (Q=1) has been achieved. That's impressive in my book. No other concept has come close.


Moore's law has the density of ICs doubling every two-ish years... at the same (or lower) price. Tokomak seems to double every 3 years at 10 times the price. It is not enough to be able to do it. The space program proved that. We need to be able to AFFORD to do it. It looks to ME that tokomak has proven it CAN'T do that.

Polywell may not have gotten to the same Q as tokomak. Yet, so far as my generalist education can guide me, it seems Polywell could get there, better, faster, and MUCH cheaper. Never-the-less, you are correct; there may be nuances that I just don't get.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: all one's eggs in one basket

Postby Art Carlson » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:55 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Art Carlson wrote: I don't know where the idea came from that tokamaks haven't been successful. The triple product has doubled every 3 years for decades. Breakeven (Q=1) has been achieved. That's impressive in my book. No other concept has come close.

Moore's law has the density of ICs doubling every two-ish years... at the same (or lower) price. Tokomak seems to double every 3 years at 10 times the price. It is not enough to be able to do it. The space program proved that. We need to be able to AFFORD to do it. It looks to ME that tokomak has proven it CAN'T do that.

Picking nits (on sick leave with too much time on my hands, obviously): If there had been any near-term profits in fusion, like there were in ICs, money would have been invested faster and the exponential would have been steeper. If you just look at the development of the cost of a tokamak with that of an IC fab, you'll see that both have increased sharply over the years. One portion of the progress in each field has been the result of better understanding, another portion has been simply economies of scale coming from building bigger installations.

Anyway, you're quite right, in the end it doesn't matter how fast you progress, but whether you land on target or not. Competitive tokamak power plants have always been within the extrapolation uncertainties. Now we're getting down to the wire and that attractive extrapolation scenario is getting thinner and thinner. Some people think it has already disappeared. Others think it is worth one more shot to know for sure.
KitemanSA wrote:Polywell may not have gotten to the same Q as tokomak. Yet, so far as my generalist education can guide me, it seems Polywell could get there, better, faster, and MUCH cheaper. Never-the-less, you are correct; there may be nuances that I just don't get.

What does "could" mean? That there is some conceivable universe where it would turn out to be so? Then you'd have to say tokamaks could be the energy source of the future. To say that the polywell could be a dud doesn't take much imagination at all.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests