Request to moderator, please ban 'Joseph Chikva'

Discuss the talk-polywell site itself, including appearance, policies, and help-wanted requests from the administrators.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

hanelyp
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:13 pm

Robthebob wrote:... just turns out at least 7 out 10 of what Joe's been saying about the subject is false.

In my observation, most of what he says is based on statements that are correct in a specific context, but then applied without understanding the context, leading to incorrect conclusions on his part. Then in typical net-kook fashion, he persists in his conclusions despite clear illustrations of his error.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:17 am

hanelyp wrote:
Robthebob wrote:... just turns out at least 7 out 10 of what Joe's been saying about the subject is false.

In my observation, most of what he says is based on statements that are correct in a specific context, but then applied without understanding the context, leading to incorrect conclusions on his part. Then in typical net-kook fashion, he persists in his conclusions despite clear illustrations of his error.
Do I remember correctly and you are the person speeking about uniform current distribution in TOKAMAK? If yes, I would say you: "never".
If no, sorry. But as a rule people saying about "lack of understanding", "incorrect conclusions", etc. should specify where opponent is wrong quoting wrong statements.
One example please showing that my statements that are correct in a specific context but but then applied without understanding the context".
Please also inform me your own background.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:49 pm

Off Topic! Please take it elsewhere.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:56 am

KitemanSA wrote:Off Topic! Please take it elsewhere.
What is offtopic? Request that instead of unreasonable: "he 7 times was wrong out of 10" to give though the one example of a my wrongfulness? As they can not. And I can to say where my opponents were wrong. But more interesting for me to discuss actual fusion problems and not to teach for example crismb that collision energy of particles should be considered only in their center-of-mass frame and opeenheimer-philips reaction is not likely reaction when collision energy is typical for fusion (e.g. 30-100 keV for DT reaction) or that unidirectional currents attract each other and beams suffer pinch even in partial space charge neutralization case. Or to teach robthebob that due to properties of plasma there is not any plasma device without instabilities. As for discussing of fusion some basic knowledge is required. And this basic knowledge everyone should get himself.

vernes
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby vernes » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:14 pm

May I point out that 'trolling' is in fact regarded as somewhat of a 'sport'.

And on occasion statements have been made that this forum strives to avoid banning people.
In other words, this forum is thing of magnificent beauty to trolls.

They get free reign to meticulously place posts that derail, enrage people actually trying to engage in discussions related to the Polywell.

This forum is a magnet (heh) to trolls.

Many tactics can be deployed here, defamation, alienation, misinformation.
I could register a domainname and build up an level of trust over the span of a year just to piss of someone on this forum.

It pays off if you are sure never to be banned.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:06 pm

vernes wrote:Many tactics can be deployed here, defamation, alienation, misinformation.
And were are “defamation” and “misinformation”?
Statement e.g. that for deuterium-tritium at 30-100keV collision energy (center-of-mass frame) Oppenheimer-Philips reaction probability (follows from cross-section) is neglectabaly small (near zero)?
What contribution in Polywell discussion can do the man who states on contrary position?
Recall that the same man stubbornly to dullness argues that on two charges moving in parallel magnetic forces do not act (in observer’s reference frame which velocities of both charges aren't equal to zero).
I understand that may be you like when he says “It is very interesting for me the shape of nuclones”. I have answered: “Certainly rectangular painted in blue metallic”. You are right the last really was trolling. But was funny.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:33 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:Statement e.g. that for deuterium-tritium at 30-100keV collision energy (center-of-mass frame) Oppenheimer-Philips reaction probability (follows from cross-section) is neglectabaly small (near zero)?


The ex-forum member, chrismb (who no longer posts here because of your trolling behaviour) has already previously pointed out that no-one has ever claimed this. This is merely a construction of your divisive trolling that vernes has so accurately called you out on. This is [to paraphrase vernes] "a meticulously placed post that derails".

If chrismb were here to post on the subject, he would point out that when challenged on your misguided notion that DT fusion can be guaranteed, providing there is enough collision energy in the reaction, you have previously replied;

Joseph Chikva wrote:
b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy.

Required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for D+T reaction is about 90 kEV in center-of-mass frame when cross section is maximum and equal to 5 barns.


and that in making this statement you make, as plain as day, that you have no comprehension of the difference between 'Coulomb barrier' and 'quantum tunnelling', because your claim in your original post was that every DT reaction above 90keV would result in a fusion event.

You demonstrate a knowledge of the physics discussed here that is extremely cursory and lightweight, as would be someone who has leafed through a huge book, occasionally stopping to collect a little information which, unfortunately, they have hopelessly misunderstood out of context. But some may think you must have read such a book as you can make a few statements from it that sound like you have.

It would seem that since chrismb left and pointed out that you are apt to make specifically disruptive posts aimed at derailing and enraging (and feel fully emboldened to do so because there is this stated position of not banning people), that others are slowly realising this reality. Perhaps one day a critical mass who understand this will be reached, and you will be 'ejected'. Perhaps, then, chrismb might even post again.

There are many here who disagree with each other, and many who may even say things which are wrong or right. But this is not the issue. 'Correctness' is not the issue. It is the meticulous intent you have to disrupt the discussion that others are having on subjects they have opinions on with comments that are not your opinion, but merely contradictions of others.

Most importantly, you have not one slightest hint of interest in arguing out the pros and cons of the Polywell concept. You wish, merely, to disrupt others when they try to do so.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:27 pm

chrismb wrote:If chrismb were here to post on the subject, he would point out that when challenged on your misguided notion that DT fusion can be guaranteed, providing there is enough collision energy in the reaction, you have previously replied;

Joseph Chikva wrote:
b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy.

Required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for D+T reaction is about 90 kEV in center-of-mass frame when cross section is maximum and equal to 5 barns.


and that in making this statement you make, as plain as day, that you have no comprehension of the difference between 'Coulomb barrier' and 'quantum tunnelling', because your claim in your original post was that every DT reaction above 90keV would result in a fusion event.

You demonstrate a knowledge of the physics discussed here that is extremely cursory and lightweight...
Also one more man demonstrates "cursory and lightweight knowledge". His name is Dr. Norman Rostoker:
http://www.patents.com/us-6611106.html
Controlled fusion in a field reversed configuration and direct energy conversion
Patent
Because atomic nuclei are positively charged--due to the protons contained therein--there is a repulsive electrostatic, or Coulomb, force between them. For two nuclei to fuse, this repulsive barrier must be overcome, which occurs when two nuclei are brought close enough together where the short-range nuclear forces become strong enough to overcome the Coulomb force and fuse the nuclei.
The energy necessary for the nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier
is provided by their thermal energies, which must be very high. For example, the fusion rate can be appreciable if the temperature is at least of the order of 10.sup.4 eV--corresponding roughly to 100 million degrees Kelvin. The rate of a fusion reaction is a function of the temperature, and it is characterized by a quantity called reactivity. The reactivity of a D-T reaction, for example, has a broad peak between 30 keV and 100 keV.
Where is the mention of your beloved quantum tunneling?
May be or not that not because quantum tunneling does not occur but because there is not any necessity to mention?
Would you like to consider tunneling? Ok, good luck.
But why not Higgs boson?
Does Higgs boson not participate in any nuclear reaction as that was proved recently? But do we need to consider that if cross-section is well known for already many decades?

And not collision energy allows to majority (not to all) pairs to fuse but confinement concept allows that. As millisecond is very long time for number density 10^24 m^-3 and collision energy let's say 90keV.


Return to “Administration”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest