Tokamaks now proven SUCCESSFUL!

[KitemanSA]

I want to see data. Measurements. Graphs. And the like. A graph of density/energy/well-depth profiles through the wiffleball, and confinement times would be a good start. Something tells me we're not really gonna be seeing reliable measurements of these things, if the [supposed] 'steady state' was a ms or two, but I'll hold out hope that there is such evidence around. I am not going to conceed that the entabulated hearsay of an enthusastic researcher is evidence, we need to see measurements and know how those measurements were taken. Anything less isn't evidence, it is hearsay.

And if you saw a plot, would you then say, "but I didn't see the plot as it was being recorded so it is still heresay"? After all, there was a guy on the fast-track to the Nobel prize that had a lot of pretty graphs and such "data" in his bogus papers. What good is fancy graphing if you don't have SOME trust in the purveyor? And if you DO have a degree of trust, why are you so intent on divorcing the statement about data from the graph about data?

My issue is that you stated that there is NO evidence that the ladajo's statements were correct. There IS evidence. It is pretty darn sketchy, but it is there. If your statement had been, "the evidence for that is pretty darn slim" or even "there is insufficient evidence for me to agree with your statement", I'd have said, "yup, the data are pretty sketchy. Wish we had some more!"

[Enginerd]

I want to see data. Measurements. Graphs. And the like. A graph of density/energy/well-depth profiles through the wiffleball, and confinement times would be a good start.

Yeah? I want that too. And I want a big house in the mountains. And I want a private jet. And I want my very own fusion research lab. And I want world peace.

Seems to me, until some private billionaire decides to finance some open source style fusion research, the best we can hope for are the crumbs that drop from the tables of those who are doing research and were able to find somebody to pay for it. So why not call up Bill Gates and ask him to fund your very own open polywell research project? Bill has been gushing of late about TerraPower, and thus clearly cares about the future of energy production and isn't afraid of nuclear. It is IMHO unfortunate he is funding a project using a uranium-plutonium cycle (rather than the more sensible IMHO thorium cycle), but since he is the one with the money (not me) he can spend his money on whatever floats his boat. So give him a call, talk him into it.

Or be happy to even get crumbs.

[rcain]

My goodness, we are so darn bored we have reverted to hair splitting and personal baiting. (not that I'm above it myself).

I totally agree with Chris, (and many others), the lack of data is incredibly frustrating, lamentable and even infuriating.

Our only 'crumb' of hope is that the US Navy seems not to have trashed the project yet, so there is most likely something there still worth pursuing. They are not idiots (I think).

I do agree however, that the time approaches, where parallel, independent (Polywell) research 'must' start to surface elsewhere, lest we become terminaly bored.

( I think Art went back to trying to determine the origin of the Cosmos he got so bored... waste of time if ever I heared one... )

[GIThruster]

I want to see data. Measurements. Graphs. And the like. A graph of density/energy/well-depth profiles through the wiffleball, and confinement times would be a good start. Something tells me we're not really gonna be seeing reliable measurements of these things, if the [supposed] 'steady state' was a ms or two, but I'll hold out hope that there is such evidence around. I am not going to conceed that the entabulated hearsay of an enthusastic researcher is evidence, we need to see measurements and know how those measurements were taken. Anything less isn't evidence, it is hearsay.

And if you saw a plot, would you then say, "but I didn't see the plot as it was being recorded so it is still heresay"? After all, there was a guy on the fast-track to the Nobel prize that had a lot of pretty graphs and such "data" in his bogus papers. What good is fancy graphing if you don't have SOME trust in the purveyor? And if you DO have a degree of trust, why are you so intent on divorcing the statement about data from the graph about data?

My issue is that you stated that there is NO evidence that the ladajo's statements were correct. There IS evidence. It is pretty darn sketchy, but it is there. If your statement had been, "the evidence for that is pretty darn slim" or even "there is insufficient evidence for me to agree with your statement", I'd have said, "yup, the data are pretty sketchy. Wish we had some more!"

The whole notion of what is "hearsay" is not germane to discussions of science. It's a legal term used to judge eye-witness testimony. Science does not use testimony but rather, direct observation, so the notion of hearsay, is irrelevant with regards the scientific process.

All science is based upon observation rather than testimony. The scientific process presumes veracity in reporting. When reporting is not trustworthy, then you have an instance of pseudo-science or pathological science, depending upon the kind of reporting error (deliberate or mistaken.)

In any event, anyone who understands the scientific process knows that the notion of hearsay is not germane to the discussion unless one has reason to suppose there's a problem with the reporting process and is thus willing to offer charges of such. Without evidence of this, it's only the very foolish man who makes such charges.

[icarus]

Wrong.

A rigourous scientific process is optimally based upon (some say demands) experimental repeatability.

Experimental repeatability is optimally achieved through clear reporting of data and methods.

Hypothesise, test, rinse, repeat.

It's really not that complicated, until the lawyers, admin. policy, accountants and the other jobsworths get involved. Lies, obfuscation, verbiage, errors and lack of progress then proliferate, it is not an unfamiliar picture.

[D Tibbets]

Well, repeatable direct observation is certainly useful, but not always the dominate factor in reaching 'scientific' conclusions. Case histories, interviews, etc. which are essentially hearsay are often used in medicine, especially psychiatry. It is also used to obtain descriptions of events like weather, Earthquakes, etc.
Hearsay, oral histories, etc can be very accurate. They can also be very inaccurate. The burden is on the investigator to wade through this data and justify its validity.
Also, hard data does not protect you from bad science. Consider resistance to dinosaurs, plate tectonics, big bang cosmology, etc. Initially they were opposed, based on what was claimed as hard data at the time.

Dan Tibbets

[Axil]

It is IMHO unfortunate he is funding a project using a uranium-plutonium cycle (rather than the more sensible IMHO thorium cycle), but since he is the one with the money (not me) he can spend his money on whatever floats his boat.

I have read the patents protecting all the TerraPower traveling wave reactors. Both uranium and thorium technology are covered.

Bill and his friends cover all the bases.

[rcain]

good posts on TerraPower - thx to Enginerd an d Axil - very nearly got 'Traveling Wave' (fission) - http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower- ... tor-works/ - (or better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor ) and 'Plasma Wakefield Accelerators' (fusion?) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration - mixed up for a second.

i'm not fully genned up yet on TeraPowers concept - is it likely that the Plutonium dependency you identify is already factord in to Bill's equations - that is, it better economically fits/transforms the exising nuclear fuel industry?

edit: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1077 - on further research - perhaps not.

[Enginerd]

I'm not fully genned up yet on TeraPowers concept

Some discussion of the concept:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs-ifr/

[GIThruster]

Well, repeatable direct observation is certainly useful, but not always the dominate factor in reaching 'scientific' conclusions. Case histories, interviews, etc. which are essentially hearsay are often used in medicine, especially psychiatry. It is also used to obtain descriptions of events like weather, Earthquakes, etc.
Hearsay, oral histories, etc can be very accurate. They can also be very inaccurate. The burden is on the investigator to wade through this data and justify its validity.
Also, hard data does not protect you from bad science. Consider resistance to dinosaurs, plate tectonics, big bang cosmology, etc. Initially they were opposed, based on what was claimed as hard data at the time.

Dan Tibbets

While I understand the point above, I should point out that technically, things like case histories are not science. Most medicine is not science, because it does not proceed from theory; it's based much more on pure observation and repeated experiments. We could get into a long discussion here of how medicine is not a real or pure science, but fact is, if you study philosophy of science (as I have) you come to understand that things like psychology do not fit the criteria of science at all. They're still considered a "soft science" and should be, because they do borrow heavily from scientific method at times, but many psychiatric models, like Jungian theory, don't fit any of the criteria for science.

In any case, the term and notion of "hearsay" is not germane to the subject of science. It certainly is germane to the subject of fact finding, but is wholly outside scientific method, as is almost everything that happens in the court room.

As far as veracity in reporting: this is why scientific method entails repeatability, not just by the researchers themselves, but by other, "third party" participants. The endeavor of science is therefore first and foremost a social, group activity and relies upon experiments repeated by more than one party.

[Brian H]

GITThruster;
Just to quibble slightly, Jungian theory is is part of the psychoanalytic sub-section of the psychiatric tradition, not psychology. Psychiatry is "medical"; psychology is academic/"scientific" (by its own lights).

[GIThruster]

Quibble noted and I stand corrected.

[Brian H]

Quibble noted and I stand corrected.

That's good! We should all be clam, clue, and corrected.

[GIThruster]

You are dead on, Brian. I should mention though, that one of my closest friends is the chief psychologist in the CA State juvenile correction system. He's an extremely accomplished psychologist, and he'd be the first person to tell you, what psychologists do is not really science. There's a great deal of art involved.

Just as you say, psychiatry and psychology are not the same, but psychiatry includes pharmacology, and pharmacology is nothing like science. Most often, drug researchers have no idea why a specific compound has the effects it does. They just know it has the effects.

That's not science.

Despite this, my twin brother the lawyer and chemist at J&J is a "research scientist".

How the hell does that work?

[Brian H]

Science is a way of trying to make statements that have the lowest possible chance of turning out to be wrong. Good scientists try to pre-empt later challenges by making and suggesting them up-front, themselves, and getting them checked out. The other kind, like "climate scientists", try to prevent any challenges being made at all.