10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[D Tibbets]

........electron-ion 2-stream instability - dunno. but Jesus (sorry both Bussard AND Nebel) have estimated that if and when it does occur, it is not 'foreseen' to have a significant negative impact on overall performance. they were both 'aware' of and 'familiar' with the phenomenon and both judged it to be a 'lesser' concern (than many other open questions/issues).

they might be totally wrong.............

I do not know from where you get such their statement.
As that is totally wrong.
As mentioned I've seen paper of Dr. Nebel in which he states that electron-electron 2-stream is not issue for Polywell due to big angular velocity component of background electron spice.
Initially ions will not have big angular velocity component. So, at the expense of what instability damping will occur? I assume that this type of instability was not considered at all.
But I’ve seen also the statement of Dr. Nebel that scaling law is not legit for small size Polywell due to some factors. E.g. due degassing. I can weakly imagine what "degassing" is, but assume that may be scaling law does not work due to non-foreseen instabilities.
What is "degassing"?

Concerning possibility of beta to be equal to 1, I only can say that absolutely static case is considered in beta definition (ratio of plasma pressure and ma-field pressure). And plasma is dynamic system and not static. And really achievable number of beta is dependent on how energetic there dynamic processes. More intense instabilities cause less achievable number of beta. It's simple. Regardless to that what Drs. Bussard-Nebel said.

Some points from my understanding. The swiming pool analagy may fit a Tokamak that has macro instabilities- it sloshes alot. Therefor it may tolorate Betas of only ~ 0.1 Beta befor the sloshing becomes prohibative. Polyweelis advertized as not having instabilities, therfor no/ minimal sloshing. It can be filled to the top (Beta=1, before fluid starts leaking (not sloshing) over the top.

As for any restoring forces to reduce build up of angular momentum. It has not been widely discussed when "edge annealing" is presented. My take on this is because angular momentum increase is less of an issue than up scattering in terms of containment and possibly performance. If edge annealing controls up scatter, it will also control/ restore radial domanance of ion flow. Coulomb collisions near the center/ core will add little angular momentum as all directions are radial to the center in this quasi sphwrical machine. Velocity scattering will occur in the center, which may make up a large portion of all collisions , thus velocity scattering (including up scattering) will exceed angular momentum scattering, possibly by a large amount.
Edge annealing is the simple Coulomb scattering around a low energy level- eg: perhaps 10-100 eV average will reduce velocity scattering AND angular momentum scattering to the thermalized spread around that low energy. This compared to the potential well induced central / radial acceleration will reverse and /or significantly slow the thermalization issues in the mantle and core of the machine. Accepting that edge annealing occurs (which is basic physics) both the up scattering and angular momentum progression is slowed significantly.The real question in my mind is if these restoring forces can keep up once the density and energy and machine radius is to full scale machines. Issues of MFP in different parts of the machine, density , energy, and machine radius all enter into the equation. Also, as the density and energy increases the likelihood of the fuel ion consumption by fusion reactions places an upper limit on the ion lifetime and thus the available thermalization time that is significantly slowed by the restoring forces (edge annealing).
Other issues includes ions that penitrate beyond the Wiffleball border and enter the magnetic field dominate regions, they will gain angular momentum as they complete ~ 1/2 of a gyro radius or more, before scattering back into the Wiffleball space. Again annealing in this relative low ion energy range may help . Also, those ions that have managed to gain enough radial (and possibly to a lesser extent angular momentum velocities may completely escape the potential well, and upon entering a cusp, gain enough distance from the center that they are outside the magrid, and immediately are accelerated by the Magrid and hit the vessel wall.
This is useful as it places a hard ceiling on how much up scattering can occur and this is good from a thermalization perspective, It is bad from a energy confinement perspective, but as the electron losses are perhaps 10-100X higher, this loss is only a small consideration compared to the electron losses.

Thermalization issues for the electrons are a different matter. There is no edge annealing (is there any central electron annealing?). The only thing that I know of that might slow electron thermalization (up scattering) is that those electrons that are up scattered travel faster, complete a pass (orbit) faster and thus find and exit a cusp faster. This preferential loss of up scattered electrons (and their replacement with mono energetic injected virgin electrons) on a time basis would limit somewhat the development of the high energy thermal tail of the thermalization process. I have no idea how significant this process may be and it was one of the issues that has been discussed before. Tokamaks try to hold onto everything, Polywells are completely different. Up scattered ions or electrons will leave the machine faster (and there is the annealing restoring forcew on the ions). This non thermal poputaion of the plasma is one of the primary elements of the Polywell and has been stressed by Bussard repeatedly. MHD considerations and conclusions do not apply (at least without significant modifications) to the Polywell. I think that FRC efforts are also based on this dynamic difference compared to thermalized machnes. Dense plasma focus machines are I think thermal , so other considerations like efficient X-ray conversions are necessary for consideration of adequate Q's for greater than breakeven output with aneutronic fuels..

Out gassing is a common concern in vacuum work. Water and other embedded molecules are ejected from the surface materials , especially as the vacuum level drops below the vapor pressure of the embedded materials. Also, any energetic particles (electrons, ions, fast neutrals) will accelerate this process through sputtering. Out gassing is dependent on the surface area. As machine size increases the ratio of volume/ surface area increases and thus out gassing becomes less significant. That is why Nebel said that testing smaller machines than WB6 would be a step backwards, due to more relative out gassing concerns and lower signal to noise ratios.

Dan Tibbets

[Joseph Chikva]

The theory behind spherical inertial electrostatic confinement is a fully scientific theory, even when someone like yourself who lacks the credentials decides to be abusive about it. It is published about in the very best scientific journals. It has empirical evidence in support.

I think that you are not familiar closely what is "fully scientific theory", what are the "very best scientific journals" (Phys Rew?) and what kind of "empirical evidences" were received if they till now have not the claimed scaling and everyone is agree that measurement technique in all Polywell experiments was quite primitive?

Be noted, that regardless to my overblown ego nobody during 60 years of fusion research history spoke about beta=1. Beginning from "very best scientific journals" and ending with less famous. Even for cusp machines.
Real beta varies from nil to e.g. 0.7 for casp machines and only Dr. Nebel and his followers speak here in this board and not in "very best scientific journals" about its constant value.

[Joseph Chikva]

The swiming pool analagy may fit a Tokamak that has macro instabilities- it sloshes alot.

That may fit any plasma device. If you have no waves (read instabilities), you can fill the pool with that volume of water that is equal to geometric volume of pool. Simply, you claim that Polywell should be absolutely instabilities free. And first of all this your statement is questionable.

[KitemanSA]

Yet again, the troll insists it knows what we mean while we do not. It knows the we mean beta = 1.00000000000000000000000000... when we say beta = 1 while we mere fools think we mean beta ~ 1; ya know, maybe beta is only .95 but still a LOT closer to 1.0000000000000... than a tok can ever get.

The troll is all knowing and never wrong.

Folks, PLEASE don't feed the troll!

[Betruger]

The review with Hirsch & co in 2007/2008 never happened.

who's ever claimed that?

can you quote anything from it that is definitive wrt WB effect? any 'peer reviewed' data available? i think not. yet that is what science demands. so far as we know, the Polywell project might just be a big US DOD conspiracy 'spoof' to wrong-foot the Chinese. (unlikely i know, but possible, for all the little we really know that is public).

Ok. It happened, but the review board's conclusion was that "WB" does not exist. Or they concluded that Bussard/Nebel were Jesus Christ.

[KitemanSA]

Ok. It happened, but the review board's conclusion was that "WB" does not exist. Or they concluded that Bussard/Nebel were Jesus Christ.

??? Is there a reason you are being so ridiculous?

[D Tibbets]

The swiming pool analagy may fit a Tokamak that has macro instabilities- it sloshes alot.

That may fit any plasma device. If you have no waves (read instabilities), you can fill the pool with that volume of water that is equal to geometric volume of pool. Simply, you claim that Polywell should be absolutely instabilities free. And first of all this your statement is questionable.

That is indeed the claim for Polywell devices. The convex B field surfaces relative to the contained plasma automatically restores from instabilities because as the charged particles climb up the surface of the B field they gain kinetic energy at the cost of decreasing the potential energy (in other words it takes kinetic energy input for the insatbility to progress. it is opposite in concave fields that always exist between the magnetic elements of a solenoidal type machine . This encourages return to the lower KE state. So, any instabilities are suppressed as they form. This is the reverse of Tokamaks, or any type of solenoid type machines like solenoid type mirror machines , etc. I reviewed this in two plasma / fusion texts and this is consistent. The reading is difficult because they generally consider magnetized plasma and talk about the plasma on the outside of a field line, but it translates to a Polywell once you recognize that the contained plasma is on the inside of the B field lines almost always (it is not a magnetized plasma- or rather the magnetic fields due to the moving charged particles are semi randomly distributed , cancel out and exclude the electromagnetic magrid fields to the Wiffleball border).

In the 2008 patent (and the earlier granted patent) Bussard spent considerable time explaining the failures of solenoidal mirror machines (which is what a tokamak is once the solenoid is closed into a circle), and the failure of adaptations to try to control the associated macro instabilities. He basically took a biconic mirror machine which does not have these concave fields towards the contained plasma and thus no macro instabilities, but the losses through the equatorial cusp was terrible. This loss could be reduced by moving the magnets closer together, but this also decreased the reaction volume in the center. Placing more than two magnets in a polyhedral shape allowed the edges of the magnets to be in close proximity- thus reducing the equatorial cusp loses, while maintaining reasonable reaction volumes.

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

....

Be noted, that regardless to my overblown ego nobody during 60 years of fusion research history spoke about beta=1. Beginning from "very best scientific journals" and ending with less famous. Even for cusp machines.
Real beta varies from nil to e.g. 0.7 for casp machines and only Dr. Nebel and his followers speak here in this board and not in "very best scientific journals" about its constant value.

A few links from a brief google search on "high Beta plasma confinement"
This is to counter J C 'sclaim that there is no credable high Beta plasma discussion outside of the Polywell comunity..

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=7136582

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976phbp.proc..381L

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 027056.pdf
This paper mentions several concepts different from tokamaks (which are reconized as being limited to low Betas). An example of a thoretical concept that uses cusp geometries to limit instabilities is the Tormac- see page 14. This is claimed to be capable of close to unity Beta performance and is outside of any Polywell fan club. I have not read the rest of the paper , but it appears to destroy any belief that only low Beta fusion reactors are possible, at least on theoretical grounds.

Dan Tibbets

[rcain]

do you have any numbers which show it WILL/IS a problem for Polywell? i do not think so.

There in Polywell are typical conditions for creation of this type of instability: electron beam enters into background plasma consisting from two spices: electron spice and ion spice.
Nebel in his article investigated electron-electron streams interaction and claims that electron-electron 2-stream instability is not issue for Polywell. This he says is due to big angular (so thermal) component of motion of electron spice.

I know three ways for softening of impact on plasma of this type of instability:
1. high relativistic factor of at least one stream
2. strong axial mag field
3. wide velocity spread of at least one stream

So, Nebel's conclusion about electron-electron 2-stream is well understood for me because large angular component corresponds to the third mentioned way.

But ions will not have wide thermal motion velocities spread initially.

Concerning scaling law, you always can say that your device is not big enough and only this is a reason of your negative result (absence of scaling). But in reality you have not constant beta but have beta as a function of many factors and beta's value varies from nil to not one but e.g. 0.7 in real working conditions. And no outgassing and degassing or influence of those are minimal and more significant are mainly instabilities observed in any size devices.

Hi Joe,

Unlike, some others, I do not dismiss your questions - they are good questions i think and I think you are right not to simply 'trust' the word of others quoting Jesus - I mean Nebel and Bussard.

I think you will only be satisfied when

a) you have worked through equations yourself - although equations for stability in particular are not easy, nor certain - I'm sure you know. Theoretical Two-stream, Weiebel, etc is just small part of it - manifestation in real machines whole different picture.

b) you (we) have seen good (repeatable and reviewed) experiments that show how instability can be avoided or corrected.

I cannot give you either of these. And I am not qualified in this field - very few people on the planet are.

However, I have being doing a little research, to try and satisfy my own curiosity as well as yours. Available published literature on this subject, applicable to IEC regimes is hard to find Here's what I have dug up so far as a little background reading:

viewtopic.php?t=593
- Tall Dave recounting Rick Nebel's response to Art Carlson's similar concerns about two-stream instability and other issues.

Here, Rick cites paper : L. Chacon, G. H. Miley, D. C. Barnes, D. A. Knoll, Phys. Plasmas 7, 4547 (2000) - on ion (stability) issue. But I think this might be mistake. Here is that paper:

http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v7 ... ypassSSO=1

Energy gain calculations in Penning fusion systems using a bounce-averaged Fokker–Planck model
L. Chacón1, G. H. Miley1, D. C. Barnes2, and D. A. Knoll2
2000

- but it seems to say nothing on those issues (though is generally interesting otherwise).

Here is paper I have found on simulation of electron-electron two-stream relating to attempt to maintain virtual anode in IEC POPS device:

http://pop.aip.org/phpaen/v13/i10/p1021 ... ypassSSO=1

Two-dimensional electron-electron two-stream instability of an inertial electrostatic confinement device
A. Marocchino1, G. Lapenta2, E. G. Evstatiev2, R. A. Nebel2, and J. Park2
2006

- though no mention of electron-ion instability, it does treat electron-electron in some depth.

However there are still some major dis-
crepancies between the theory and the data. The electron-
electron two-stream instability results would imply that the
POPS virtual cathodes would never have stability problems.
Experimentally observed virtual cathodes have 60% frac-
tional depths as opposed to ϳ90– 100% fractional depths
predicted by these results.19 Second, the simulations predict
that the nonlinear effect of the two-stream is to shed blobs of
plasma. The experiment indicates that occasionally the vir-
tual cathode disappears catastrophically.

This catastrophic disappearance appears to be correlated to the
buildup of ions in the potential well.19,20 This result would
suggest that the electron-electron two stream might also be at
play in the experiment. Future studies will address this issue.

also, I find this paper:

http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v9 ... ypassSSO=1

Equilibrium and low-frequency stability of a uniform density, collisionless, spherical Vlasov system
D. C. Barnes1, L. Chacón2, and J. M. Finn2
2000

- which I 'think' is the paper Nebel meant to cite in his reply to Carlson:

It is worth noting that the stability of related electron-ion
systems in which one species is electrostatically confined by
the other, and either or both species are not in local thermo-
dynamic equilibrium has been extensively studied previ-
ously. Rosenbluth et al.11 studied the stability of an arbitrary
electron distribution with fixed ion background of constant
density. They concluded that stability held only for thermal
electrons. Wang and Krall12 studied the case of spherically
converging ions confined by thermal electrons, concluding
that nonlocal, sharp density gradient effects tend to stabilize
the ion–ion streaming instabilities even when the electron
Debye length is small. Porter and Klevans13 studied the case
of cold beam electrons confining spherically converging
ions. They assumed that the ion distribution function was
fixed for the time scales of interest, and concluded that such
a configuration was marginally stable. Finally, Elmore, Tuck,
and Watson14 found that thermal ions confined by spherically
converging electron beams led to electrostatic instability for
ion densities of interest for thermonuclear applications. Re-
cently, equilibrium and stability of general collisionless
spherical systems has been studied by Miley and Momota.15
In contrast to earlier work based on various local expansions,
they obtained a formal solution of the Vlasov equation based
on a global expansion for such a case.

Also, I find on:

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn= ... 1294257902

- some discussion of 'possible' two-stream instability being observed in Fusor experiments. (Note, our own ChrisMB replies).

Similarly, I have found even Mark Supps (Prmethius) - observing instabilities in his experiment - though by no means certain two-stream:

Most other papers on subject either apply to astronomy (eg: dusty plasma's, etc), or to Toks - whole different ball game.

(ps. I have only quickly read over the papers above so far - i leave it to others here, better qualified than me to drag out more detail).

So, in summary, at this point, I would say, you are right to be 'concerned' about such effects, since evidently Nebel and other researchers in the field have also been very concerned about it - indeed have observed it and sought to model it and control it.

It is also true I think, that as we scale up, concerns for stability (or instability) must also grow.

But, as noted before, stability issues experienced to date have not been enough to prevent progress; if they had been major stumbling block, I think we would have seen research take totally different direction.

All best

[Joseph Chikva]

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=7136582

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976phbp.proc..381L

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 027056.pdf
This paper mentions several concepts different from tokamaks (which are reconized as being limited to low Betas). An example of a thoretical concept that uses cusp geometries to limit instabilities is the Tormac- see page 14. This is claimed to be capable of close to unity Beta performance and is outside of any Polywell fan club. I have not read the rest of the paper , but it appears to destroy any belief that only low Beta fusion reactors are possible, at least on theoretical grounds.

Dan Tibbets

Theory of mirror machines at high beta
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=7136582
Publication Date: 1976 Aug 06

Plasma containment in a toroidal bicusp /Tormac/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976phbp.proc..381L
Publication Date: 00/1976

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PLASMA CONFINEMENT
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 027056.pdf
sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics E "
Troy, New York, May 25-27, 1977

Dan, see publication days: 1976-77 yy.
I can only repeat to you and to others that advantage of convex fields observing in mirror machines particularly and so called "minimum B principle" commonly was widely discussed in that era. And all was logical from the first view. But was not experimentally approved by experiments.
On the contrary, Stellarators providing "minimum B principle" always gave worse results (temperature and confinement time) in comparison with comparable size and fields TOKAMAKs.
So, solving of stability challenge in plasma devices is more complex issue that satisfying of one separate principle and statement that convex field and therefore stable" is not correct.
This is not my opinion but I am only repeating the collective opinion of more trained in this field people with which I had long term discussions about my fusion idea.

[Joseph Chikva]

do you have any numbers which show it WILL/IS a problem for Polywell? i do not think so.

There in Polywell are typical conditions for creation of this type of instability: electron beam enters into background plasma consisting from two spices: electron spice and ion spice.
Nebel in his article investigated electron-electron streams interaction and claims that electron-electron 2-stream instability is not issue for Polywell. This he says is due to big angular (so thermal) component of motion of electron spice.

I know three ways for softening of impact on plasma of this type of instability:
1. high relativistic factor of at least one stream
2. strong axial mag field
3. wide velocity spread of at least one stream

So, Nebel's conclusion about electron-electron 2-stream is well understood for me because large angular component corresponds to the third mentioned way.

But ions will not have wide thermal motion velocities spread initially.

Concerning scaling law, you always can say that your device is not big enough and only this is a reason of your negative result (absence of scaling). But in reality you have not constant beta but have beta as a function of many factors and beta's value varies from nil to not one but e.g. 0.7 in real working conditions. And no outgassing and degassing or influence of those are minimal and more significant are mainly instabilities observed in any size devices.

Hi Joe,

Unlike, some others, I do not dismiss your questions - they are good questions i think and I think you are right not to simply 'trust' the word of others quoting Jesus - I mean Nebel and Bussard.

I think you will only be satisfied when

a) you have worked through equations yourself - although equations for stability in particular are not easy, nor certain - I'm sure you know. Theoretical Two-stream, Weiebel, etc is just small part of it - manifestation in real machines whole different picture.

b) you (we) have seen good (repeatable and reviewed) experiments that show how instability can be avoided or corrected.

I cannot give you either of these. And I am not qualified in this field - very few people on the planet are.

However, I have being doing a little research, to try and satisfy my own curiosity as well as yours. Available published literature on this subject, applicable to IEC regimes is hard to find Here's what I have dug up so far as a little background reading:

viewtopic.php?t=593
- Tall Dave recounting Rick Nebel's response to Art Carlson's similar concerns about two-stream instability and other issues.

Here, Rick cites paper : L. Chacon, G. H. Miley, D. C. Barnes, D. A. Knoll, Phys. Plasmas 7, 4547 (2000) - on ion (stability) issue. But I think this might be mistake. Here is that paper:

http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v7 ... ypassSSO=1

Energy gain calculations in Penning fusion systems using a bounce-averaged Fokker–Planck model
L. Chacón1, G. H. Miley1, D. C. Barnes2, and D. A. Knoll2
2000

- but it seems to say nothing on those issues (though is generally interesting otherwise).

Here is paper I have found on simulation of electron-electron two-stream relating to attempt to maintain virtual anode in IEC POPS device:

http://pop.aip.org/phpaen/v13/i10/p1021 ... ypassSSO=1

Two-dimensional electron-electron two-stream instability of an inertial electrostatic confinement device
A. Marocchino1, G. Lapenta2, E. G. Evstatiev2, R. A. Nebel2, and J. Park2
2006

- though no mention of electron-ion instability, it does treat electron-electron in some depth.

However there are still some major dis-
crepancies between the theory and the data. The electron-
electron two-stream instability results would imply that the
POPS virtual cathodes would never have stability problems.
Experimentally observed virtual cathodes have 60% frac-
tional depths as opposed to ϳ90– 100% fractional depths
predicted by these results.19 Second, the simulations predict
that the nonlinear effect of the two-stream is to shed blobs of
plasma. The experiment indicates that occasionally the vir-
tual cathode disappears catastrophically.

This catastrophic disappearance appears to be correlated to the
buildup of ions in the potential well.19,20 This result would
suggest that the electron-electron two stream might also be at
play in the experiment. Future studies will address this issue.

also, I find this paper:

http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v9 ... ypassSSO=1

Equilibrium and low-frequency stability of a uniform density, collisionless, spherical Vlasov system
D. C. Barnes1, L. Chacón2, and J. M. Finn2
2000

- which I 'think' is the paper Nebel meant to cite in his reply to Carlson:

It is worth noting that the stability of related electron-ion
systems in which one species is electrostatically confined by
the other, and either or both species are not in local thermo-
dynamic equilibrium has been extensively studied previ-
ously. Rosenbluth et al.11 studied the stability of an arbitrary
electron distribution with fixed ion background of constant
density. They concluded that stability held only for thermal
electrons. Wang and Krall12 studied the case of spherically
converging ions confined by thermal electrons, concluding
that nonlocal, sharp density gradient effects tend to stabilize
the ion–ion streaming instabilities even when the electron
Debye length is small. Porter and Klevans13 studied the case
of cold beam electrons confining spherically converging
ions. They assumed that the ion distribution function was
fixed for the time scales of interest, and concluded that such
a configuration was marginally stable. Finally, Elmore, Tuck,
and Watson14 found that thermal ions confined by spherically
converging electron beams led to electrostatic instability for
ion densities of interest for thermonuclear applications. Re-
cently, equilibrium and stability of general collisionless
spherical systems has been studied by Miley and Momota.15
In contrast to earlier work based on various local expansions,
they obtained a formal solution of the Vlasov equation based
on a global expansion for such a case.

Also, I find on:

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn= ... 1294257902

- some discussion of 'possible' two-stream instability being observed in Fusor experiments. (Note, our own ChrisMB replies).

Similarly, I have found even Mark Supps (Prmethius) - observing instabilities in his experiment - though by no means certain two-stream:

Most other papers on subject either apply to astronomy (eg: dusty plasma's, etc), or to Toks - whole different ball game.

(ps. I have only quickly read over the papers above so far - i leave it to others here, better qualified than me to drag out more detail).

So, in summary, at this point, I would say, you are right to be 'concerned' about such effects, since evidently Nebel and other researchers in the field have also been very concerned about it - indeed have observed it and sought to model it and control it.

It is also true I think, that as we scale up, concerns for stability (or instability) must also grow.

But, as noted before, stability issues experienced to date have not been enough to prevent progress; if they had been major stumbling block, I think we would have seen research take totally different direction.

All best

Hi rcain,
thank you. Interesting digest.
I need some time for reading and then answering.
Would you like this in another thread?

[rcain]

...
Would you like this in another thread?

Probably a good idea. (although i was quite enjoying spoiling the Rossi thread). Would you mind doing the honours?

[Joseph Chikva]

...
Would you like this in another thread?

Probably a good idea. (although i was quite enjoying spoiling the Rossi thread). Would you mind doing the honours?

Let's leave Rossi's thread to his lovers.
Because discussion is becoming more interesting, I'd like to continue that in another thread.
But now is the morning here in Georgia and I will be able to read provided by you links carefully only near to evening. I think that it would be a good time taking into account the 8-9 hours difference between Georgia and USA.

[Betruger]

Ok. It happened, but the review board's conclusion was that "WB" does not exist. Or they concluded that Bussard/Nebel were Jesus Christ.

??? Is there a reason you are being so ridiculous?

Is there a reason Joseph's being so ridiculous? Cause he doesn't seem to get that.

[Joseph Chikva]

Ok. It happened, but the review board's conclusion was that "WB" does not exist. Or they concluded that Bussard/Nebel were Jesus Christ.

??? Is there a reason you are being so ridiculous?

Is there a reason Joseph's being so ridiculous? Cause he doesn't seem to get that.

Some people having mental problems laugh without any reason, there are some means causing laugh: N2O, marihuana, etc.
So, I leave you with your beloved Kiteman (who transfers all rational questions into emotional plane) for investigation why I am so ridiculous. But your mutual discussion will have nothing to do with discussed conceptual problems of Polywell.