Tokamaks now proven SUCCESSFUL!
Nebel's two year estimate doesn't come due til after the new year. But don't let me stop you from jumping the gun with your trashing and criticism.chrismb wrote:c'mon. lighten up guys! Just having a bit of fun.
It won't be long now before Polywell limps into line behind tokamaks in the 'flunked out fusion' queue. But I'll give it another.. how long was it now?... 12mths or so before assuming the worst.
chrismb's above quote sounds rather pessimistic. He says he will wait awhile before concluding the Polywell is a failure, but in the same quote he says it already is.
And in my humble opinion, it seams that Tokamaks could be a success IF macro instabilities can be controlled. At least from a physics standpoint they are almost there. The problem with Tokamaks, is that even if the physics works, possibly the engineering and probably the economics will be intolerable.
Conversely, the physics of the Polywell are more obtuse (at least to us outsiders) but the engineering and economics seem much more tolorable.
And the research costs and timescales are much reduced compared to Tokamaks.
DPF is another example. Some of the physics are contested or unproven, but the cost and time scales are small enough to speculate on short term progress rather than wondering if my grandchildren might see the completion (or advancement to the next stage) of the project.
And speaking of DPF, isn't it past time for an update from them?
Dan Tibbets
And in my humble opinion, it seams that Tokamaks could be a success IF macro instabilities can be controlled. At least from a physics standpoint they are almost there. The problem with Tokamaks, is that even if the physics works, possibly the engineering and probably the economics will be intolerable.
Conversely, the physics of the Polywell are more obtuse (at least to us outsiders) but the engineering and economics seem much more tolorable.
And the research costs and timescales are much reduced compared to Tokamaks.
DPF is another example. Some of the physics are contested or unproven, but the cost and time scales are small enough to speculate on short term progress rather than wondering if my grandchildren might see the completion (or advancement to the next stage) of the project.
And speaking of DPF, isn't it past time for an update from them?
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
.The first is hope for the best, the second is preparing oneself for the worst.D Tibbets wrote:He says he will wait awhile before concluding the Polywell is a failure, but in the same quote he says it already is.
It would seem wise to do both in any given situation, where possible, and it is surely possible wrt Polywell!!!
I have always wished Polywell well. Plenty of occasions where I have done excatly that, none I recall that have not supported it. Plenty of occasions that I have indicated why it is likely to fail, none I recall where I have wished it to fail.
I am a reliability engineer. It is our mantra to consider how things will likely fail. And in this way, we serve the final outcome for the better.
Supporting a thing is not mutually exclusive to thinking it is likely to fail.
He who cheers on a project without ever considering its weaknesses contributes disfavourably. He who has the courage to stand up to the majority and risk his reputation to point out weaknesses that need attention contributes considerably.
I can definitely agree with this. If the designers don't pick it apart during design, something will at a later point in time, usually when it isn't quite so easily (or cleanly) fixed.chrismb wrote:He who cheers on a project without ever considering its weaknesses contributes disfavourably. He who has the courage to stand up to the majority and risk his reputation to point out weaknesses that need attention contributes considerably.
Yep. I cut my engineering teeth in the nuke industry. Such prior work was looked on favorably when I was hired on in aerospace.krenshala wrote:I can definitely agree with this. If the designers don't pick it apart during design, something will at a later point in time, usually when it isn't quite so easily (or cleanly) fixed.chrismb wrote:He who cheers on a project without ever considering its weaknesses contributes disfavourably. He who has the courage to stand up to the majority and risk his reputation to point out weaknesses that need attention contributes considerably.
“Physicists dream of Nobel prizes, engineers dream of mishaps.” Hendrik Tennekes
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Man, they should *definitely* make an announcement on April 1. Then we'll be left wondering if it's a 'real' announcement, or an April Fool's gag.ladajo wrote:April.chrismb wrote:c'mon. lighten up guys! Just having a bit of fun.
It won't be long now before Polywell limps into line behind tokamaks in the 'flunked out fusion' queue. But I'll give it another.. how long was it now?... 12mths or so before assuming the worst.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks there will be an anouncement in April. I recall no promise of an announcement. I see no REASON for a positive announcement other than WE would like one. I doubt that is a good reason to make an announcement. I'm kind of hoping that there ISN'T an announcement since I fear the only good reason for an announcement is to announce the end of the project, i.e. failure.jsbiff wrote:Man, they should *definitely* make an announcement on April 1. Then we'll be left wondering if it's a 'real' announcement, or an April Fool's gag.ladajo wrote:April.chrismb wrote:c'mon. lighten up guys! Just having a bit of fun.
It won't be long now before Polywell limps into line behind tokamaks in the 'flunked out fusion' queue. But I'll give it another.. how long was it now?... 12mths or so before assuming the worst.
Maybe not. The contract is let and the "Sole Source" document already covers the total amount. There may not be any outward indicator and only an inward one to those who can delve the money trail.ladajo wrote:There may or may not be an annoucement, however, there will be a money trail. The 8.1 contingency will need to be decided on. That should be visible.
I may be mis understanding the law wrt such matters.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
They have not exercised the option, it is dependant on 8.0 results.
We should see an award notice of some sort for exercising of the option, not to mention something (albiet delayed) at recovery.gov. The other potentially more faster option, will be the mandated weekly/monthly DOD reporting to OMB.
I am thinking that if they get funding for 8.1 (PB&J) that means that they are entering the no kill zone. By definition, it would mean that the DD theory proved out to expectations, and it is viable to burn off another $4mil to go for PB&J validation.
At the end of 8.0 there should be enough evidence that it is a project kill or no kill event. Either will be evident given what happens to EMC2. The tenant all along has been meet the milestone or go home. The next major milestone after 8.0/8.1 is Net Power.
6 = Eureka! Nut cracked for confinement
7/7.1 = Yup, 6 was right, and darn those nubs...
8.0 = The $8 mil question, "Should DD scale?"
8.1 = The $4 mil question, "Since DD should scale well, will PB&J scale?"
We should see an award notice of some sort for exercising of the option, not to mention something (albiet delayed) at recovery.gov. The other potentially more faster option, will be the mandated weekly/monthly DOD reporting to OMB.
I am thinking that if they get funding for 8.1 (PB&J) that means that they are entering the no kill zone. By definition, it would mean that the DD theory proved out to expectations, and it is viable to burn off another $4mil to go for PB&J validation.
At the end of 8.0 there should be enough evidence that it is a project kill or no kill event. Either will be evident given what happens to EMC2. The tenant all along has been meet the milestone or go home. The next major milestone after 8.0/8.1 is Net Power.
6 = Eureka! Nut cracked for confinement
7/7.1 = Yup, 6 was right, and darn those nubs...
8.0 = The $8 mil question, "Should DD scale?"
8.1 = The $4 mil question, "Since DD should scale well, will PB&J scale?"
And that 'picking apart' usually leads to an expedited energetic self-disassembly and part fragments scattered hither and yon across the landscape...krenshala wrote:I can definitely agree with this. If the designers don't pick it apart during design, something will at a later point in time, usually when it isn't quite so easily (or cleanly) fixed.
Only with tokamaks and polywells, you shouldn't need remote handling equipment and lead suits w/double-strength jockstraps to pick 'em up...
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.