Ebay or ..

[Zixinus]

Actually any reasonably competent Naval Nuke Operator could design the test reactor and WB-100. Especially given the collected instructional material and spread sheets.

Still, measured data on all previous experiments would still give us a more solid basis and argument.

At this stage there are way more engineering questions than physics questions.

Yes, but those lots of engineering questions and few physics questions would be clear in the light of the underlying science.

pB11 only requires that you go from 5 to 15 KV drive to 50 to 60 KV drive.

And solve various other issues, such as controlling losses. I want p-b11 too, but let's start of with something more simple. If we can do breakeven with D-T or D-D first, we can move on to p-b11. There are losses in IEC devices that are minor with D-T and D-D, but may be overwhelmingly significant with p-B11.

Now whilst most of them will only go for projects which look very promising, you can find the odd one whose willing to give it a go, even if its very high risk, just in case it works out.

I'd rather have more sane investors along with the oddballs, for the argument alone that if some investors change their minds and bail out, there would be still some that could follow the project trough. With the oddballs, there is the chance that they either go bankrupt due to being scammed by yet another perpetual motion scheme (thus recalling the money now so they won't end up on the street), or finding a perpetual motion scheme more promising.

So I do think its possible, just very difficult to find the right person.

Finding investors would be easier if we have the science backing up everything.

High school kids burn D-D. I see no reason to even bother with D-T. Besides you have to get all kinds of permits and stuff.

The reason why I see doing D-T worthwhile, if for nothing else, but to show how powerful Polywell is in front of the scientific community. I would pay money to see their faces when the calculated Lawson criterium is shown.

Also, D-T has no variability of products, thus the results will be harder to debate. You get neutrons alone, which while have many problems when it comes to actual power production, gives you clear results. Also, losses are the most negligible with D-T.

Although, I'd purchase allot of lead-reinforced glass. And some hazmat suits. And run the Polywell relatively low, say one watt.

Before you say "lithium shield" know that we won't be using "lithium shields". We'll be using boron shields, that are more efficient neutron-killers. We have no need to produce additional tritium in-operation as Polywell does not work that way, thus a complication is avoided.

[MSimon]

Actually any reasonably competent Naval Nuke Operator could design the test reactor and WB-100. Especially given the collected instructional material and spread sheets.

Still, measured data on all previous experiments would still give us a more solid basis and argument.

Sure. Why not. Anything you want coming right up. As soon as you get it let me know. I'd like to have a look.

At this stage there are way more engineering questions than physics questions.

Yes, but those lots of engineering questions and few physics questions would be clear in the light of the underlying science.

The questions and how to answer them are clear to me. What is it exactly you are unclear about?

pB11 only requires that you go from 5 to 15 KV drive to 50 to 60 KV drive.

And solve various other issues, such as controlling losses. I want p-b11 too, but let's start of with something more simple. If we can do breakeven with D-T or D-D first, we can move on to p-b11. There are losses in IEC devices that are minor with D-T and D-D, but may be overwhelmingly significant with p-B11.

If we are going for break even we need superconducting coils. If we are going superconducting we need aneutronic fuels. pB11.

D-D is just to verify machine operation. The real work will be done at 50 to 60KV with pB11.

For a test reactor losses are not a concern. We need to find out what they are before doing WB-100

Now whilst most of them will only go for projects which look very promising, you can find the odd one whose willing to give it a go, even if its very high risk, just in case it works out.

I'd rather have more sane investors along with the oddballs, for the argument alone that if some investors change their minds and bail out, there would be still some that could follow the project trough. With the oddballs, there is the chance that they either go bankrupt due to being scammed by yet another perpetual motion scheme (thus recalling the money now so they won't end up on the street), or finding a perpetual motion scheme more promising.

Nice to see you have investors lined up. Have you determined who the flakes are yet?

So I do think its possible, just very difficult to find the right person.

Finding investors would be easier if we have the science backing up everything.

Sure. All you have to do to get WB-7 built is show the results from WB-7. Perhaps before WB-7 we should start work on a time machine.

High school kids burn D-D. I see no reason to even bother with D-T. Besides you have to get all kinds of permits and stuff.

The reason why I see doing D-T worthwhile, if for nothing else, but to show how powerful Polywell is in front of the scientific community. I would pay money to see their faces when the calculated Lawson criterium is shown.

Also, D-T has no variability of products, thus the results will be harder to debate. You get neutrons alone, which while have many problems when it comes to actual power production, gives you clear results. Also, losses are the most negligible with D-T.

You want to show the power of Polywell? Make lots of neutrons with a "hard" fuel like D-D. Better - make lots of alphas with pB11.

You are saying - let me show you how powerful our machine is: it runs on gasoline.

I'm saying - let me show you how powerful our machine is: it runs on water.

In my lab tritium will be verboten. A waste of money. Too much paper work. Too much security.

Although, I'd purchase allot of lead-reinforced glass. And some hazmat suits. And run the Polywell relatively low, say one watt.

Before you say "lithium shield" know that we won't be using "lithium shields". We'll be using boron shields, that are more efficient neutron-killers. We have no need to produce additional tritium in-operation as Polywell does not work that way, thus a complication is avoided.

Simpler way to avoid the complication. NO TRITIUM. We will not be making any intentionally. We will not be using any intentionally.

I think using D-D I can get WB-7x up to at least 60 watts. If POPS works several hundred watts should be possible. Maybe a few kilowatts.

BTW Hazmat suits will not shield you. What you want is about 6 or 8 ft of concrete. Shielding is included in my design. No compromises with safety. As much power as we can squeeze out of the machine on a continuous basis. I'm not planning on any windows. Lead glass or otherwise. TV cameras are cheaper. One periscope as backup and verification for the TV cameras.

[Zixinus]

Nice to see you have investors lined up. Have you determined who the flakes are yet?

No one until we have solid science behind us. I do believe Polywell works because I believe on what Dr.Bussard speaks is true. Other people may not be so easily-believing as I am and want more solid and official evidence.

Sure. All you have to do to get WB-7 built is show the results from WB-7. Perhaps before WB-7 we should start work on a time machine.

How about WB-SIX that actually produced fusion and is proof of how powerful Polywell is?

We have nothing to prove Polywell works, but a google video and a few forum posts. Not something you can convince a billionaire with need with his/her pocket burning with money and who can invest in something else that is also promising, like solar cell technology.

In my lab tritium will be verboten. A waste of money. Too much paper work. Too much security.

In your lab you do what you want. My suggestion was in-general, not specifically aimed at you.

BTW Hazmat suits will not shield you.

I know. It will prevent however, me breathing in radioactive dust.

[MSimon]

Nice to see you have investors lined up. Have you determined who the flakes are yet?

No one until we have solid science behind us. I do believe Polywell works because I believe on what Dr.Bussard speaks is true. Other people may not be so easily-believing as I am and want more solid and official evidence.

The science is pretty solid. High school kids do it. Fusion is not in doubt. D-D or pB11. What is needed is a better definition of the loss mechanisms.

Sure. All you have to do to get WB-7 built is show the results from WB-7. Perhaps before WB-7 we should start work on a time machine.

How about WB-SIX that actually produced fusion and is proof of how powerful Polywell is?

We have nothing to prove Polywell works, but a google video and a few forum posts. Not something you can convince a billionaire with need with his/her pocket burning with money and who can invest in something else that is also promising, like solar cell technology.

Do you have access to WB-6 data? I'd like to see it. Although four 250 uSec pulses is not going to prove a lot.

We have lots proving Polywell works. We know the well forms and that the electron/ion distributions are as claimed. See the Yoshigawa paper. We have Hirsh, We have Farnsworth, We have Elmore, Tuck, and Watson.

In my lab tritium will be verboten. A waste of money. Too much paper work. Too much security.

In your lab you do what you want. My suggestion was in-general, not specifically aimed at you.

I want D-D to make neutrons. I want pB11 to make energy.

BTW Hazmat suits will not shield you.

I know. It will prevent however, me breathing in radioactive dust.

Where is the radioactive dust going to come from?

[Zixinus]

The science is pretty solid. High school kids do it. Fusion is not in doubt. D-D or pB11. What is needed is a better definition of the loss mechanisms.

Yeah, the science is solid, it is just not viewable by everyone. In fact, the underlying science cannot be accessed by anyone.

Do you have access to WB-6 data? I'd like to see it. Although four 250 uSec pulses is not going to prove a lot.

Well it would certainly prove more then nothing. If nothing else, we might have something to dismiss the claims that the neutron measurement of inaccurate or flawed. I've seen it numerous times.

We have lots proving Polywell works. We know the well forms and that the electron/ion distributions are as claimed. See the Yoshigawa paper. We have Hirsh, We have Farnsworth, We have Elmore, Tuck, and Watson.

But nothing proving that Polywell works! IEC fusion is dismissed as a toy, and in order for Polywell not to have the same fate, we need proof. We don't have that.

I want D-D to make neutrons. I want pB11 to make energy.

Like I said, you do what you want.

Where is the radioactive dust going to come from?

Wherever I might find the need to bring a Hazmat suit.

[MSimon]

The science is pretty solid. High school kids do it. Fusion is not in doubt. D-D or pB11. What is needed is a better definition of the loss mechanisms.

Yeah, the science is solid, it is just not viewable by everyone. In fact, the underlying science cannot be accessed by anyone.

Please tell me what you think is missing. I'd be happy to see if I could find it.

Do you have access to WB-6 data? I'd like to see it. Although four 250 uSec pulses is not going to prove a lot.

Well it would certainly prove more then nothing. If nothing else, we might have something to dismiss the claims that the neutron measurement of inaccurate or flawed. I've seen it numerous times.

The way to deal with the neutron problem (and a lot of others) is continuous operation. WB-6 was never capable of continuous operation. The machine I'm designing is capable of continuous operation.

We have lots proving Polywell works. We know the well forms and that the electron/ion distributions are as claimed. See the Yoshigawa paper. We have Hirsh, We have Farnsworth, We have Elmore, Tuck, and Watson.

But nothing proving that Polywell works! IEC fusion is dismissed as a toy, and in order for Polywell not to have the same fate, we need proof. We don't have that.

WB-6 is not good enough to convince sceptics. For that we need continuous operation. In fact there is no data from WB-6 that would convince me!

Which is why I started designing The Great Convincer aka WB-7x.

[gblaze42]

I agree with most of what your saying, except you need something to sell to get funding!

Ermmm...a promising fusion concept that with the right business can make one very, very, very, very rich?

How? who own's the patents? how much of share would an investor get? stuff like that.

If you had just 10 second pitch to sell the idea of polywell fusion technology to potential investor or supporter what would you say?

"Excuse me, there is a company that is working on a new clean, powerful and relatively cheap fusion concept that has been recently developed. If it works out, it can make you incredibly rich. I have several book-length documents regarding the underlying science, right here in my bag. Are you interested?"

I just need the "book-length" science documents, that is, theory, results from experiments, simulations, etc.

Again how can it make them rich? and I would condense the book-length documents to a couple of page document that covers everything, including how it will benefit the investor.

Mine would go like this.

"We have a company thats working on what could be a revolutionary technology, one that would produce clean renewable energy by cutting carbon emissions, it would also, if properly funded, lessen the dependency of the US on imported fuels. Take a look at this document when you have time."

This should lead up to the one question on all investors minds "whats in it for me?"

My response; "We are offering $3 dollars for every $1 dollar you invest, anything above $2 million gets a 20% interest in the company."

I'll cut it at that, we've all heard the grandiose promises, but what I would be happy with is just break-even power generation and ecstatic with net power production.


If Polywell works as it should, then we have every reason to believe that these promises could be fulfilled.

Maybe so, but I wouldn't push that as a selling point.

I think we are really saying the same things, I too want avoid a "to good to be true" feel about this, but from what I've seen Polywell has a novel approach that should work, whats needed is sell the idea to the public.

"Sell the idea to the public"? What does this mean anyway? The public does not control funding much. Politicians do. And politicians more-or-less listen to scientist, at least in some matters (usually they ignore them). If we can convince the scientific community, then we have something.

People can pressure governments, social pressures do a lot for politicians who want to stay in office. [/quote]

[Zixinus]

Please tell me what you think is missing. I'd be happy to see if I could find it.

Underlying plasma behaviour, theory calculations regarding fusion process, behaviour of magnetic field lines, theory regarding high-recirculation, etc.

The sort of stuff other nuclear and plasma physicist would be interested in.

The way to deal with the neutron problem (and a lot of others) is continuous operation.

You misunderstood: the argument (not mine, mind you) is that the neutron measurement in WB-6 was somehow flawed, thus the predictions from it are inaccurate.

WB-6 is not good enough to convince sceptics. For that we need continuous operation.

Then what convinced Dr.Bussard that his idea works?

Which is why I started designing The Great Convincer aka WB-7x.

And I support your cause! Will the words "The Great Convincer" be written on that thing?

How? who own's the patents? how much of share would an investor get? stuff like that.

I donnu, how is the company that makes hydroelectric dam generators rich? Or the company that makes turbines? Or the people that operate a power plant? Perhaps they are not rich, but I'm pretty sure that they ain't living in poverty.
EMC2 owns the patents. I think.
That is what is to be discussed.

Practical fusion has many applications, most obvious is power plant reactor manufacturing and servicing. Whoever makes the first thousand reactors may find himself a very good deal. Third world countries all over the map will want one reactor to replace the ones in their coal/oil/fission power plant (possibly burning D-T or D-D, the thermal cycle is already there, I wonder if you can get a good hefty amount of heat with p-b11). Fusion is above various limitations and regulations fission is under, most with good reason. With fusion the UN can shove it up their [censured], as Polywell cannot be used as a weapon, is clean and safe, thus any nay-sayer is going to have a difficult time.

Again how can it make them rich?

Having a part-time share of profits, having a share in the companies that manufacture the parts, even creating the company that manufactures parts. If you can sell a complete reactor, you will find that there is demand for three others.

Again, the potential is very large.

and I would condense the book-length documents to a couple of page document that covers everything, including how it will benefit the investor.

Good idea, but I still would have the science documents with me, to be presentable with them. If nothing else, the investor can ask for them and then check them with a third party company, like an university. I somehow don't think that many investors are interested in perpetual motion machines.

"We have a company thats working on what could be a revolutionary technology, one that would produce clean renewable energy by cutting carbon emissions, it would also, if properly funded, lessen the dependency of the US on imported fuels. Take a look at this document when you have time."

Let me try:

"There is a company developing a revulutionary energy source that produces ZERO carbon emissions and relies on mundane fuels, mined within the country. It's power capacities are equal, if not greater to that of any coal or nuclear source. It can be retrofitted to existing heat power plants. It's succesfull development would also open up a series of other technologies, all of them having a high possibility for profit. Please have a look here."

My response; "We are offering $3 dollars for every $1 dollar you invest, anything above $2 million gets a 20% interest in the company."

Keep in mind that EMC2 is a non-profit reseach orginization. The prize is the completed fusion machine and concept, that has many possibilities.

Maybe so, but I wouldn't push that as a selling point.

Dude, if "clean, non-carbon, fuels mined in-country, cheap, powerful, safe" isn't a selling point, then what the hell is?

[MSimon]

Underlying plasma behaviour, theory calculations regarding fusion process, behaviour of magnetic field lines, theory regarding high-recirculation, etc.

The sort of stuff other nuclear and plasma physicist would be interested in.

I can give you descriptions of all that. Books to read (have you read a good physics book on vacuum tubes lately?) Indrek has been doing just first class work on the magnetic fields. He has shown that the form factor of the coil (round or square or single turn) does not make much difference in the effectiveness of the coil. Search his stuff here:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IEC_Fusion/

In addition the purpose of WB-7x is to answer those questions that are still not solidly answered. You are asking for the results of the research before the research is done. At this point I personally would discount every thing in the Drs. lab notes. I take the sceptics position. I want independent open verification. A single neutron in .25 ms even if repeated 4 times is not much proof. With continuous operation that should go up to 3,000 to 5,000 neutrons a second per detector. I'd want at least 3 detectors.

The only way to settle these questions is to build a test reactor and run some tests.

What convinced Dr. B? I don't think he is convinced. Other wise why the need for WB-7? The best you can say is that the results were encouraging.

As to getting Dr. B's cooperation: that may not be possible. Unfortunate. It is what it is.

The proof will be in the pudding. WB-7x is a RESEARCH REACTOR.

Will the words "The Great Convincer" be written on that thing?

If I have a hand in it, Yes.

Talking about making money is way ahead of the game. What we need first is research. Aside from any thing else the research is good science.

[Zixinus]

Good points. Where do you get the money to build WB-7?

[MSimon]

Good points. Where do you get the money to build WB-7?

I am in contact with some people who are interested in funding WB-7.

Unfortunately the Dr. does not seem interested in them.

They are foundation/non-profit rather than venture capital.

So I don't understand the Drs. objection. I do not have any contact with the Dr. so I have no idea what his objections are. They may be valid. Or not.

[Nanos]

What level of funding are they talking about ?

1 to 5 mil ?

1 to 10 mil ?

1 to 50 mil ?

More ?

[MSimon]

What level of funding are they talking about ?

1 to 5 mil ?

1 to 10 mil ?

1 to 50 mil ?

More ?

Let me just say: sufficient.

[Zixinus]

Dear God, now it sounds like a gangster story. I just hope it doesn't end like one.

[Nanos]

Fingers crossed and good to hear of progress, if I may ask, was this through networking approach via friends of friends, or via cold calling ?