Talk-Polywell.org

It was mentioned in one topic that we should try to wash off the snake-oil smell off of us the best we can.

I believe that scepticism is an important thing, and it is a sole defence againts false belief and charlatanism. Charlatans and the like avoid sceptics, and only deal them in such a manner that they cannot defend themselves.

I therefore believe that the topic of answering sceptical inquires and questions should be discussed.

Here are my initial suggestions:

- Make a section where we upload and allow free access to all papers and similar documents regarding Polywell, along with anything that is relevant to the topic, within the limits of copyright. Make the this section quite obvious (ie, downloadable documentation with a big, shiny button that is obvious to notice). Categorizing papers according to their status and relavence is a good idea, ie peer-reviewed papers have

- We don't wait for the sceptics to come. We invite them! Write e-mails to various active sceptics and assure a proper debating ground. If necessary, appoint a judges. We can find faults and possible problems this way, as well as verify our own knowledge. Invite people from ITER forums, and so forth.

- Publish data from experiments at all costs! They are the true deciders of any scientific debate.

Zixinus wrote:I therefore believe that the topic of answering sceptical inquires and questions should be discussed.

I agree.

Zixinus wrote:- Make a section where we upload and allow free access to all papers and similar documents regarding Polywell, along with anything that is relevant to the topic, within the limits of copyright.

I've tried to do this already at my Polywell Fusion page. I've even gone so far as to type in the abstracts, outline, and lists of tables & figures of all the major papers. I can't post the entire paper, though, because that would blatantly violate the publisher's copyright. (AskMar treads on that dangerous ground, but I don't want to go there.)

Zixinus wrote:- We don't wait for the sceptics to come. We invite them! Write e-mails to various active sceptics and assure a proper debating ground. If necessary, appoint a judges. We can find faults and possible problems this way, as well as verify our own knowledge. Invite people from ITER forums, and so forth.

This is reasonable, but we should make sure we have our ducks lined up first. For example, I don't think there is anyone here yet who could make a cogent argument against even the already-voiced criticisms. Tom Ligon probably could, but it doesn't look like he's joined us here just yet.

Zixinus wrote:- Publish data from experiments at all costs! They are the true deciders of any scientific debate.

What experiments? The data would of course have to be ours to publish.

What experiments? The data would of course have to be ours to publish.

Experiments done by EMC2. They are a non-profit organization, so they have nothing to lose by it.

I agree whole heartily, if we (proponents of polywell fusion) draw enough credible arguments it will actually help define our argument and better sell it to the public.

I'm not sure if you guys do or do not have a relationship with Dr. Bussard and EMC2 but it may help them if this forum can be a launch pad for their work. They definitely have an upward battle, so do whatever you can to get the idea out.

A healthy degree of sceptism is a good thing so long as both parties have a genuine deep seated desire to uncover the truth. Inviting people who don't like polywells and fringe fusion, who couldn't be bothered reading up on it and are just going to launch an aggressive propaganda campaign to trash it will not further any cause.

You might say that they just make themselves look like idiots if they criticise it while ignoring papers that they are pointed to, but from the point of view of an ignorant bystander who finds all the science way out of his depth, it will be very hard for them to tell whose right and whose wrong.

There are questions that can only be answered by further experiments.

There is what we know.
There is what we don't know.
There is what we suspect.

I've done a fair job with sceptics by keeping the above in mind.

At this stage we must not present Polywell as a done deal.

We must not over promise. Such a reserved attitude disarms sceptics.

jmc wrote:A healthy degree of sceptism is a good thing so long as both parties have a genuine deep seated desire to uncover the truth. Inviting people who don't like polywells and fringe fusion, who couldn't be bothered reading up on it and are just going to launch an aggressive propaganda campaign to trash it will not further any cause.

Those are the very people you must learn to handle well.

We are in fact in the realm of politics.

We will get trashed.

If we stick to what we absolutely know we will be fine.

Here is our base for the ignorant.

High school kids know how to make fusion. Polywell is an experiment to determine if we can use that knowledge to make useful energy.

MSimon wrote:Here is our base for the ignorant.

High school kids know how to make fusion. Polywell is an experiment to determine if we can use that knowledge to make useful energy.

But for a listener slightly less ignorant, it makes us seem like the ignorant ones — as though we think the sort of fusors high-school kids have built can produce net power. We don't think that's the case. The polywell approach is only superficially similar to fusors; we believe it avoids the very serious problems that prevent fusors from producing net power.

So that might be OK as a starting point, but facing anybody who knows anything about fusion, it would have to be followed with what would look like rapid back-pedaling.

Of course the details are different. However, the general idea remains that you can get fusion using electrostatic forces alone.

In any case it is a political slogan not a definitive explanation of how it all works.

Politics works different than science. You need simple ideas simply expressed.

BTW my other hobby is politics.

It would be nice if we could compress the idea further so it could be expressed in 3 to 5 words.

======

Here is an example.

The CO2 is our doom folks call the atmosphere a green house. To counter that and introduce the idea of the water cycle I say the atmosphere is a heat pipe.

To reach people who are not paying attention you really need to keep it very simple.

Zixinus wrote:It was mentioned in one topic that we should try to wash off the snake-oil smell off of us the best we can.

I believe that scepticism is an important thing, and it is a sole defence againts false belief and charlatanism. Charlatans and the like avoid sceptics, and only deal them in such a manner that they cannot defend themselves.

I therefore believe that the topic of answering sceptical inquires and questions should be discussed.
<snip>

Great idea, if we didn't know what the general objections to polywell were.

However, we DO know what the objections to polywell are. And until they're answered competently, with rigorous analysis or a robust physical proof, they'll remain a big damper on getting polywell off the "crackpottery" list and on to "physically possible" list.

I'll list them below in order of importance:

Main Objections to polywell:
1. That breakeven is physically impossible to acheive in any IEF machine due to coulomb interactions which cause thermal spreading of fuel particles(Maxwellianization) at a faster rate than fusion will occur.
- first detailed by Rider, "proven" analytically, with equations, by both Rider and Nevins in 2001-2003.
- Bussard through second sources (Tom Ligon) claims the analysis Rider did is too generic to be useful and not a good model of how a polywell actually works. However, these are assertions, not rigorous mathematical physical arguments.
- "disproving" this requires providing an alternate mathmatically true thermodynamic analysis, as Rostoker et al did for CBR. Bussard would rather disprove it physically with a working WB-8, however he can't get the funding since anybody with money reads Nevins and Rider and figures, they're right, he's wrong.

2. That even if a method of solving (1) above is found, bremstrahhlung losses would exceed power out. Disputed in some papers by Bussard, but there are not enough real numbers on either side to draw a real conclusion, so this one's a draw.

3. That several of the recommended way of overcoming (1) are thermodynamically not possible. However, this argument is circular and dependent on (1), so it only actually acts as a rebuttal to solutions of (1), so it can't be considered as a separate objection (although Nevins and Rider both treat it as such).

Anyway, my point is that the problem with polywell isn't one of finding out what the objections are and knocking them down one at a time --we know what the objections are, there just hasn't been a rigorous mathmatical answer to either Rider or Nevins' arguments, except for by Rostoker. until this happens or Bussard comes up with more rigorous physical data that blows the thermodynamic approach out of the water, polywell will remain in the pseudo-science limbo into which it's slipped ever since the original publishing ban started in 1995.

Tom, well said.

After reading your post I had this thought:

I wonder if, under the Doc's new project in NM, it will be conducted under a publishing embargo too.