Patent App. 11/527906; Filed 2006, published yesterday...

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:08 pm

chrismb wrote:viewtopic.php?p=66543#66543

Hehe. I forgot Oppenheimer-Fisher
I did not read the whole text.
Only this "masterpiece":

he thinks that it is OK to declare anyone who wishes to discuss Polywell to be devoid of knowledge of magnetics, or mostly anything else,

But you say lies. As I am declaring that only about Crismb and some other persons.
As he really does not know how magnetic field can be created and how moving charges interact each other.
I can not say the same for example about mister whose nick begins from 9.
Who tried to defend you (very weakly I think) when I said that scattering cross section is an integral and does not considered on certain angle.

PS: Polywell by my opinion is a good device for heating plasma. As particle declined as result of scattering event will scattered again and again getting absolutely random direction. There are not any forces in Polywell preventing this mechanism. And what is a random chaotic motion? That is thermalization. This heating mechanism should be more effective than even injection neutrals' beam into TOKAMAK.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:24 pm

The funny thing about your comment, Chikva, is that the polywell might have a mechanism for particle recovery, whereas yours doesn't. You can claim it does, but it doesn't. If you want to be particularly stupid about it, which you seem to want to be, I can state categorically that your device cannot have it BECAUSE NO SUCH DEVICE EXISTS.

For polywell, I also do not believe that annealing will do the trick. But it might. That's the point, it is a live discussion. Whereas your lack of intellectual capacity fails to realise that your posts are all dead. Dead, flat, devoid of life. No-one is interested. It is a rotting corpse, now beaten to a bloody pulp of nonsense. It is the writings of a mad person who thinks everyone else is just too plain stupid to recognise he is a Genius God.

If you remotely bothered to read any other older post on annealing, other than your blithering endless garbage of verbal spew, you would know all the arguments that have gone through for and against this. But as you would always refuse to read something which you did not write yourself, so you will remain forever ignorant of the many erudite posts on why or why not annealing may occur. Again, I point out to you (probably utterly pointlessly, because your thick-headed response is to reject whatever else anyone else says) polywells exist and data is being extracted, so whether annealing does or does not work, at least someone can be bothered to find out, whereas you, being an ignorant peasant, cannot afford to experimentally determine that you are wrong. Therefore, you should simply stop talking about your device because it is simply a pile of dead words that no-one gives a crap about. Better still, just stop posting anything at all. I'm sick and bloody tired of hearing you throw trivialising comments at people and try to belittle anyone whom you disagree with condescending titles.

Go away, and be a freak somewhere else.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:35 pm

...and never forgetting this classic..

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: No, I need not.
Do some readings.
Joseph, unless you have a different definition for "pinch" chrismb is perfectly right.
You need to have both, current and charge neutrality if you want to obtain pinch.

Care to link us to some paper stating the opposite?
No another definition of pinch. You are wrong similar to Chris.

brought to you by the freak that doesn't know about beam emittance, and thinks all beams pinch!....

Nice one, Mr. Net-Currents-Pinch

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:41 pm

chrismb wrote:recognise he is a Genius God.

c.f. patent # 11/161,345

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:52 pm

Well, seeing as this thread is now shot to hell....

That's a lovely bit of nonsense, B!

Godly Powers

Abstract
Christopher Anthony Roller is a godly entity. "Granters" had been given my powers (acquired my powers) (via God probably). These "granters" have been receiving financial gain from godly powers. These "granters" may be using their powers without morals. Chris Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth. The design of godly-products have no constraints, just like any other invention, but the ethnic consideration of it's use will likely be based on a majority vote of a group, similar to law creation. The commission I require could range from 0-100% of product price, depending on the product's value and use.

But the examiner clearly was having fun and gave it a precise and accurate rejection, including gems like;

The specification has not described how one of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed godly powers.

Claims 1-15 a rerejected under 35 U.S.C 102(b) as being anticipated by Barlow (US 3989251). With respect to claims 1-15, Barlow discloses a magic game wherein users are given the ability to perform illusions of Godly powers.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:06 pm

chrismb wrote:You need BOTH charge neutrality AND a directed unbalanced net current for a pinch.

Nice one, Mr. Net-Currents-Pinch

Yes, that is classic.
As better for you together with Georgio to discuss e.g. psychology or conspiracy than fusion. And this is only advise – kind advise.
As for example Z-pinch is the following:

In fusion power research, the Z-pinch, also known as zeta pinch or linear pinch, is a type of plasma confinement system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate a magnetic field that compresses it.

If you wish here told about net-current.
And where here about "BOTH charge neutrality"? Especially if beams are highly relativistic relative to each other. You are not only an ignoramus but do not wish to study. And it is diagnosis.
And whence such opinion that I do not know what emmitance is?

PS:

The Bennett Relation
Consider a cylindrical column of fully ionized plasma, with an axial electric field, producing an axial current density, j, and associated azimuthal magnetic field, B. As the current flows through its own magnetic field, a pinch is generated with an inward radial force density of j x B

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:26 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:As better for you together with Georgio to discuss e.g. psychology or conspiracy than fusion. And this is only advise – kind advise.

Discussing your psychology and attitude could indeed open a completely new branch of science

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:31 am

Giorgio wrote:Discussing your psychology and attitude could indeed open a completely new branch of science

My advise before starting to open a "new branch of science", learn old kind physics basics. Particularly magnetism.

Giorgio wrote:Joseph, unless you have a different definition for "pinch" chrismb is perfectly right.
You need to have both, current and charge neutrality if you want to obtain pinch.

Care to link us to some paper stating the opposite?

I linked you earlier and linked you now. How pinch occurs.
No comprehension? That is diagnosis too.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:05 am

chrismb wrote:The funny thing about your comment, Chikva, is that the polywell might have a mechanism for particle recovery, whereas yours doesn't. You can claim it does, but it doesn't.

For hammering to especially thick-headed’ foreheads:
Models of self-pinched ion beam transport
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_ ... ber=677711

The self-pinch transport (SPT) scheme utilizes the incomplete current neutralization of an ion beam propagating in a low pressure background gas to radially confine the beam.

So, Mr. Unbalanced Current, self-pinch occurs even in case of propagation of ion beam into gas. In my case instead of gas the usage of oppositely moving relativistic electron beam is proposed.
So, much more effective pinch (self-pinch) and consequently confinement.
Understand?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:28 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Discussing your psychology and attitude could indeed open a completely new branch of science
My advise before starting to open a "new branch of science", learn old kind physics basics. Particularly magnetism.

Oh, you see psychology as a branch of physics? This could explain a LOT of your comprehension issues!

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:45 am

Please hold back on the smiley faces in reply to the freak. It might encourage him.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:45 am

Giorgio wrote:Oh, you see psychology as a branch of physics? This could explain a LOT of your comprehension issues!

I thought that magnetism and not psychology is a branch of physics.
And kindly advised you to learn more on magnetism before discussing the correspondence of Patent Office of USA and Dr. Nebel. Or in the other words correspondence of two experts.
Have you or respectful Chris enough skill for discussing?
What can you discuss why Application was rejected except of conspiracy theory?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:47 am

chrismb wrote:Please hold back on the smiley faces in reply to the freak.

Now I see who needs psychiatry’s help.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:58 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:So, much more effective pinch (self-pinch) and consequently confinement.
Understand?

It's bolloks. For your stupid scheme to generate enough field to recover scattered particles shooting off at high angles, you'd need megaAmps. You still don't get the very very basics of fusion plasma physics, do you.

I have never said your scheme would not recover some particles. If you had an imbalanced current then of course you can achieve a pinch. But it would be only for small perturbations, not for full-on scattering events. You need lots of full-on scattering events for a fusion device.

I do not know what "self-pinch transport (SPT) scheme" means. It looks like the rebuttal I provided you on another of your completely erroneous links. You can only get a pinch in a beam if it is passed through a media with charges in it. Previously, your link was a beam through a plasma, this time through an excitable media, by the look of it.

IF YOU PASS A BEAM THROUGH A MEDIA WITH RELATIVELY STATIC CHARGES, IT MAY PINCH. A BEAM OF COHERENT PARTICLES ON ITS OWN CANNOT PINCH. INSTEAD IT UNDERGOES EMITTANCE GROWTH.

And you DARE to tell people here that they do not know what they are talking about. You are a patronising arrogant oaf who has nothing whatsoever to contribute. Even the likes of the LENR crazies are tolerable - at least they offer some form of argument, even on the occasions it is incoherent. You are right piece of work, your arrogance cannot prevent you from sounding off at anyone who dares cross your weedy inconsequential vacuous comments. You seek only to denigrate others personally. It is disgusting. Time for you to be moved on.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:06 am

chrismb wrote:IF YOU PASS A BEAM THROUGH A MEDIA WITH RELATIVELY STATIC CHARGES, IT MAY PINCH. A BEAM OF COHERENT PARTICLES ON ITS OWN CANNOT PINCH. INSTEAD IT UNDERGOES EMITTANCE GROWTH.

So, you are claiming that static plasma with no current can generate pinch.
And additional unidirectional current of relativistic particles – not.
Thanks, it is very new for me.
You are really a big "expert".
There is no bigger in the world.

But may be in conspiracy theory or psychiatry.