Google Polywell Fusion Counter
Google Polywell Fusion Counter
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 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.
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
I just reconfirmed this figure by repeating the search, just before posting this post.
Regards
Polywell
The more I know, the less I know.
Search Variations
Other search queries provide the following
Polygirl[/b]
- 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
Polygirl[/b]
The more I know, the less I know.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
The guy doesn't express himself well and doesn't know what he's talking about either. Waste of time.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.
Art,Art Carlson wrote:The guy doesn't express himself well and doesn't know what he's talking about either. Waste of time.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location: grand rapids, MI
- Contact:
all one's eggs in one basket
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
Re: all one's eggs in one basket
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.StevePoling wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Re: all one's eggs in one basket
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
Re: all one's eggs in one basket
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.KitemanSA wrote: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.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.
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.
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.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.