Talk-Polywell.org

First, please leave my father or my family alone.
Second, I have kindly asked information. Ladajo said that he holds an insider information. Thank you for link.

Now: Now if to admit that scaling R^3 is legit 50 MW power unit needed for warships will have D=5.52m. Is this is a size acceptable for vessels smaller than carrier? If to consider that size or reactor is much smaller than size of power plant. What people do think about size of direct energy conventor needed for pB11 fuel when they say "much smaller than TOKAMAK"?

Now I am asking once again: is Mr. Larry C. Triola a Navy's official spokesman or he is simply Polywell's fun inside Navy and the opinion of which may or may not condradict with Navy's position?
Can we obtain an e-mail of decision making people: larry.triola@navy.mil so easily in US?

And please don't perceive the criticism of certain device as an occasion for personal attack using moral categories as it "shame for you", etc.
When your son looks more like your neighbor than you. Yes, it’s a shame.
When plasma physicist is saying the nonsense such as “device runs at beta=1”. It’s a shame too.
But asking for information you have not but your opponent has -it's not a shame. I think.

Navy can't increase the funding to "100 missiles" that easily, that would make the project more visible on funding decisions in Capitol Hill, bring in the Department of Energy, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU&t=76m15s

No Joseph Chikva, I will not leave your father or your family alone.

Because you do not care for the opinions of people that post information on these forums in good faith. Because you accuse them, using weasel words, of being liars.

Because you accuse me, personally, of merely "speculating" as if what I thought, how I came to my opinions/hypotheses and the facts they were based on amounted to nothing. You judged me and said "sorry".

So if you will not care for and respect the opinions of others in good faith on this forum than I must appeal to people you do care and respect for. Your father who taught you and your family who raised you. They would expect better from you Joseph Chikva. I certainly do.

The link I pointed you to I found in 30 minutes of searching using Google.

I had no prior knowledge of the site it was on or the contents of the document.

You act as if people are holding back information from you. When they are not and YOU could easily find out more information yourself.

Instead you NOT so kindly ask for somebody to do your research for you or you will ignore or discount what they have to say. But you chose not to do the research yourself.

You've not even investigated the depth of information on the site I sent you to or you would not be questioning the veracity of Larry Triola's document.

Go to the root of the site the document was on. http://www.dtic.mil.

You'll notice the site is the Defense Technical Information Center for the US Department of Defense. All documents on that site have to go through an approval process in order to be made available on the site.

Consequently that means that Larry C. Triola was specifically authorized to place that document on the site and make it available to the public as is indicated in the document header "Approved for Public Release October 9, 2008".

Now, go to the search box on the dtic.mil site and type in Polywell. Amazing! Look at all the information the US Government will tell you about Polywell.

Now you ask, "is Mr Larry C. Triola a Navy's official spokesman...".

Did you bother to read that document in its entirety? It's a large document and explores a lot background, problems and possible solutions of which Polywell is ONLY a SMALL PART of the document.

It is not a document that's intended to "sell" Polywell. It's background document meant to inform people about a lot of different things.

Recall again, that the document went through an approval process before being released as a PUBLIC document. That means other people were involved in reviewing the content and authorizing its release as a PUBLIC document. It means the contents of the document were reviewed to ensure that the information was as correct as possible and that there was nothing in it that the Navy or Department of Defense would object to.

So if there's some "grand conspiracy" then there must be a whole bunch of people involved to get that document reviewed and approved for publication.

Does Mr. Larry C. Triola claim to be a spokesman in the document he authored? Does he claim to be a decision maker? You have the same information I do. Is that really his e-mail address? I have no idea. Why don't you write him and ask him?

For additional information and verification you could even Google his e-mail address. There's only two pages of results and they even look like clean, good reference results with additional, real, information about Larry Triola.

While you're at it you could go to the American Society of Naval Engineers website and order the symposium proceedings https://www.navalengineers.org/publications/symposiaproceedings/Pages/ASNELandingPage.aspx for the July 14-15, 2010 "Engineering the Total Ship" Symposium https://www.navalengineers.org/events/pastevents/ETS2010/Pages/ASNELandingPage.aspx for a mere $50 as a non-member.

Why might you do this? Well read this http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=44819

And note the name and title of the moderator of the session on "Technology for the Future Navy" -

Dr. John Pazik
Director, Ship Systems and Engineering Division, Office of Naval Research.

Who is mentioned by attendees as speaking favorably about Polywell.

Now go back to www.dtic.mil and search on Pazik.

Specifically:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008warfare/T6Pazik.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010navy/Pazik.pdf

Notice how in the first file dated 2008 he's just Dr. John Pazik on the initial page and in the second file dated 2010 he's moved up in the world and become the

"Director of the Ship System and Engineering Research Division of ONR"

and he is giving the presentation on behalf of

"Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr Jr., the Chief of Naval Research"


So if you really, really want to know what Dr. John Pazik said on behalf of Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, you might just shell out the $50 for those symposium proceedings. Of course the proceedings may only contain those slides so I'd advise you actually call the American Society of Naval Engineers first and determine just what you'd be getting for your money.


BTW the assistant moderator for that session was:
Ms. Sara Wallace, NSWC (Naval Surface Weapons Center) Dahlgren
"WallaceSE@nswccd.navy.mil"

Hey, will you look at that, Sara Wallace and Larry Triola both work(ed) at NSWC.

You might also be interested in what Captain Lynn Petersen had to say about "Next Generation Power and Energy: Maybe Not So Next Generation" in that same session.


All of this information I found through Google. Isn't Google wonderful!? I'm not a scientist, I have no background in physics. I'm a programmer. I know logic. I can type. And Google enabled even a lowly person such as myself to find all this information out.

Certainly you can use logic and can type to do your own research rather than being lazy and rude and asking people to do your research for you.

Will you do that much, for yourself? Will you make an effort to be extremely polite to people that you have differences of opinion with? Afford them some respect? Hold open the possibility that they may even be correct?

Are you going to be an intelligent man? Or a stupid old woman....

I see. As e.g. Cap. Petersen is not physicist, as may be other weapon systems professionals do not know plasma physics.
If you know logic very well. So, please answer me please how so many naval weapon professionals are going to install 5.2m diameter device on the warship together with direct energy converter the size of which will not be less than tens meters (all round)? Even in case of viability of concept.
"pB11 fuel".
Visionaries. Or may be they carry out the misinformation company of Chinese? Let they spend many resources on nonsenses.
Thanks Mr. Programmer.

- no problem - locks in Panama Canal are 33.53 meters wide

From the same document:
And yeah, 20' x 30' is plenty small to fit in most surface combatants. 200MW would thus be ~22' x 33', still quite managable. 400MW ~24' x' 36' which is about the same power but obviously WAY smaller than the RC+ER of a typical CVN (according to wikipedia). Yeah, I suspect the Navy would be pleased as punch to have one (or a hundred or 500)!!! If they work.

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

I saw a lot of designs of "commercal plants" on base of theta-pinch, TOKAMAK, Dense Plasma Focus, even Heavy Ions Fusion, etc.
What size direct energy coverter will have? Will that converter be inside of Ф6mx9m cylinder? Or outside?

Wouldn't a direct energy converter need to be an integral part of the reactor?

So you choose NOT to be an intelligent man
You choose to disgrace your Father and your family
You choose to be a stupid old woman.

Goodbye stupid old woman. No more free research. You have failed the class.

Goodbuy Madam.

No, reactor should consume a lot of energy and then scatter the high-energy alpha particles all around.
For neutronic fuel 0.7-1 m thickness blanket is considered for use. For aneutronic – direct energy converter. Can anybody say the aprox size of that converter? As I estimate that at least in tens meters.

I'm curious: What do you base your "at least ... tens [of] meters" on for the alpha collectors?

Not needed?

wow surprise, joe ruins another thread with name calling, lies, not listening, etc.

If you dont feed the troll, he will stop, just ignore him.

_________________
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

Please, ignore this: http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Dire ... actors.pdf