You don't seem to understand. I'm agnostic. You have a distinct anti-polywell bias, and even say black on white that you think there's only 10% chance that the polywell will deliver net power. Unlike Dr Carlson, your downplaying of the polywell is getting old - because you don't know any more about the polywell than anyone else outside of the small circle of people centered around the Navy lab but argue as though you did, without providing novel insights like Dr Carlson does. There's plenty of evidence to support that Polywell is a worthwhile endeavour with good chances of success. e.g. like TallDave says, it's possibly the only project with a contract for a net power model. It's a better project in that it promises to take only 2-5 years to conclude. Not 50 years.chrismb wrote:I said 10% for credibility [on my own personal rating scale], not viability.Betruger wrote: You said 10%; are you reconsidering?
But if you're taking 10:1 odds on Polywell reaching break-even, yeah, sure, where do I sign?? I'd be over the moon either way - if I pay you $1,000 but we've ended up with fusion power OR if I win $10,000 off you, either is good for me! (You might be a bit down in the dumps with the latter outcome, though!)
So when you deflect a simple harmless token wager into a 1-10 k$ show-off, it seems like more of the same. I've said my piece and this argument is going nowhere - you'll keep snubbing the polywell project every chance you get and steer things towards partisan politics that're never worthwhile - so I'll shut up now.