Talk-Polywell.org

chrismb wrote:but it is hobbling now, out of breath and miles from the end of the marathon, not a strong candidate for finishing the race.

Bench race.

@ chrismb
Bummer, reads like you don?t like what is going on. So now what? What are your plans for the future related to this work?

@ Gallium
I?m right there with you, ?overanalyzing?. But it passes the time.
________
BUY VAPORIZERS

chrismb wrote:

ladajo wrote: The appeal will go after "Sole Source"(ie no competitor), Public Funded, No Patents filed(in fact dropped), and Peer Review(Not EMC produced) points, as well as the data sought is not design secrets based, but performance based.

Are you going to include that quote about EMC2 not wanting to possess commercialisation? This must be pertinent to their funding and viability, if they have attracted public donations.

Maybe that is why they have a two hat set up. One for taking money for the Navy and the Not For Profit for commercialization.

TallDave:

I'd like more, but periodically talking to Alan Boyle covers his "keep you informed" pretty well.

Except Boyle admits he knows not much about the science so Nebel talking to him is safe from asking real science questions.

Let's get Nebel to do an interview with Carlson. It's past time EMC2 put up something tangible or shut up, I mean completely. No more Boyle articles, shut down their web site with requests for public donations and tantalising few pretty pictures that promise oh-so-much (no less than end of fossil fuels).

They don't publish in peer-reviewed journals and are claiming no less than some new physics for commercially viable fusion. It is the worst kind of scientific behaivour (open inquiry science) from a discipline that has gained a terrible reputation for not producing tangible products, fusion physics.

Unless the internal peer-review board is willing to say something publicly, from the outside it looks and smells bad, without further information. It's the last thing EMC2 needs right now, the bunker mentality can only get you so far in science. Transparency is key. IMHO.

icarus wrote:TallDave:

I'd like more, but periodically talking to Alan Boyle covers his "keep you informed" pretty well.

Except Boyle admits he knows not much about the science so Nebel talking to him is safe from asking real science questions.

Let's get Nebel to do an interview with Carlson. It's past time EMC2 put up something tangible or shut up, I mean completely. No more Boyle articles, shut down their web site with requests for public donations and tantalising few pretty pictures that promise oh-so-much (no less than end of fossil fuels).

They don't publish in peer-reviewed journals and are claiming no less than some new physics for commercially viable fusion. It is the worst kind of scientific behaivour (open inquiry science) from a discipline that has gained a terrible reputation for not producing tangible products, fusion physics.

Unless the internal peer-review board is willing to say something publicly, from the outside it looks and smells bad, without further information. It's the last thing EMC2 needs right now, the bunker mentality can only get you so far in science. Transparency is key. IMHO.

Replication is cheap enough. So do what was done with Cold Fusion. Replication.

Replicate what?

In a usual scientific process of experimental replication and validation a peer-reviewed article is published that describes the techniques and results. I could build something that looks like a Polywell and turn it on but what am I expecting to measure?

What are EMC2 and the Navy claiming to have done exactly?

1 neutron, 2 neutrons or maybe more?

icarus wrote:Replicate what?

In a usual scientific process of experimental replication and validation a peer-reviewed article is published that describes the techniques and results. I could build something that looks like a Polywell and turn it on but what am I expecting to measure?

What are EMC2 and the Navy claiming to have done exactly?

1 neutron, 2 neutrons or maybe more?

Confinement time. Electron circulation. Density variations. Natural frequencies. etc.

Given the bucks I'm rather confident that I could build a Polywell. In fact other folks are confident enough of my abilities that I have been approached more than once. No deal yet. But I have time. And there are enough people confident enough in my abilities that I would have no trouble attracting help. So far WRT every proposal I have worked on I have been able to get people to commit to follow through if the funds are there.

The concept is rather simple. A fusor with magnetically shielded grids and electron gun drive.

Start in with a continuous operation WB-6 (LN2 cooled coils) and work from there.

The voltages are not high - 50KV to 200KV. The apparatus is not large. The vacuum requirements are not excessive. Except for a few items the whole shebang is built from off the shelf parts.

So let me put it to you: why aren't you raising funds for an open source test?

MSimon

Confinement time. Electron circulation. Density variations. Natural frequencies. etc.

Oh sorry, I didn't know EMC2 had published that data for the WB-7, do you have a link or point me towards where I could start looking?

So let me put it to you: why aren't you raising funds for an open source test?

You may have noticed, I'm not a people person. I can run numbers and theories, simulations, etc. You come up with the funds and I have no problem open sourcing the results ... wasn't that the implicit suggestion underlying Bussard's "we're saving humanity" Google talk?

icarus wrote:MSimon

Confinement time. Electron circulation. Density variations. Natural frequencies. etc.

Oh sorry, I didn't know EMC2 had published that data for the WB-7, do you have a link or point me towards where I could start looking?

So let me put it to you: why aren't you raising funds for an open source test?

You may have noticed, I'm not a people person. I can run numbers and theories, simulations, etc. You come up with the funds and I have no problem open sourcing the results ... wasn't that the implicit suggestion underlying Bussard's "we're saving humanity" Google talk?

Bussard is dead.

Oh sorry, I didn't know EMC2 had published that data for the WB-7, do you have a link or point me towards where I could start looking?

And why exactly is the data needed if open source plots its own course?

"I can't do anything because I don't know what others have done" sounds lame to me.

And people skills? That is the first time I have gotten even a left handed compliment of mine. I may have to frame it. And tell my mom.

"I can't do anything because I don't know what others have done" sounds lame to me.

Well besides calling me lame, I didn't say those words you have put into quotations (into my mouth?)

You asked for replication, replication is impossible without data is the precise point before you twist it any further. Sure I could go off on the same wild goose chase, raising funds, making magnets and vacuum tanks but why if there is nothing to look for? There has been no solid data in a published article by EMC2, or the Navy, for which to test, verify, i.e. replicate.

As far as I'm concerned, at this stage, Polywell is a nice idea, pretty pictures, dreamy outcomes ... but let's not get carried away with replicating null results, eh?

icarus wrote:

"I can't do anything because I don't know what others have done" sounds lame to me.

Well besides calling me lame, I didn't say those words you have put into quotations (into my mouth?)

You asked for replication, replication is impossible without data is the precise point before you twist it any further. Sure I could go off on the same wild goose chase, raising funds, making magnets and vacuum tanks but why if there is nothing to look for? There has been no solid data in a published article by EMC2, or the Navy, for which to test, verify, i.e. replicate.

As far as I'm concerned, at this stage, Polywell is a nice idea, pretty pictures, dreamy outcomes ... but let's not get carried away with replicating null results, eh?

I can replicate the device and generate open source (or commercial) data.

I do not see why data from EMC2 is required. Explain it again why data generation without EMC2's data is not possible.

Why is EMC2's data required to show that a net power device is possible?

MSimon:

Why is EMC2's data required to show that a net power device is possible?

I'm a little embarassed for how silly, and wrong, this quote sounds. You are getting yourself all pretzled up in false logic now that you've taken to wearing the apologist hat, I feel a bit sad since you struck me as a bastion against such rubbish rife in many other areas, like losing a comrade in arms.

At present, there are NO results to replicate. It is really just that simple. The official line is that EMC2 have no data that they want to make public. Publicly, they have a website claiming they are building the answer to replace fossil-fuels and would like donations to further the cause.

Your false premise is that there is a positive result somewhere to be had from this charade. Why build without establishing that fact? Your question assumes that a net power device is possible, big leap of faith for someone who hasn't seen the data.

I don't believe - other than some people's initial misunderstanding - that I ever was talking about verifying results.

I was ALWAYS talking about replicating the device in order to determine how it functions. Reverse engineering if you will.

So let me ask a simple question - again - why is it necessary to have EMC2's results to determine how the device functions?

You know - build it - take measurements. Which should speak for themselves. I don't get the obsession with EMC2 results.

Now I admit things would go faster if we had them. But if we don't. So what?

I could replicate CP-1 without knowing anything more about it than the carbon blocks need to be Boron free to 6 nines or better and that the U chunks need to be distributed in the pile. I get a smart physicist and a good mathematician, throw in a hot desk top (the original work was done with slide rules and "calculators") and just build it. Now I would be ahead of the game because the cross sections are known and instrumentation is available. So a lot of prior research is eliminated. But I'm confident that I could do it.

Now how is Polywell any different?

And where did I claim that there was a positive result? All I said was replication could determine what the result was.

I dunno. Ever since the FOIA was denied I see a lot of people getting nuts. And I do understand it. For about 24 hours I was not too sane either. But I'm over it.

So as I see it I can just wait for EMC2 to fire up WB-D or fold. Or I can build my own research device and get my own data. I kinda like the second option. But I have the first as a fall back. But then again my ambition always did exceed my grasp. But I'm used to accomplishing the far beyond impossible.

Reminds me of the time I worked on a big aerospace project. The test eqpt. wasn't due (according to traditional schedules) for a year and a half. The project needed something in 3 months. Or else disaster. I designed, built and tested the first one in two months. While the finishing touches were being put on that one (at the two month mark) I built and TESTED a second one in four weeks. Money was no object (given a burn rate of at least a million a week). The first one came in at 1/2 mil. Including parts, labor and engineering. The second came in at 100K.

My motto? The impossible I do immediately. The totally out of the question takes a little longer.

MSimon, if you start to feel a bit itchy and want to actually start bending wire, I'm not that far away for a few trips to assist.

I don't think I'm alone here with some free, moderately skilled labor to offer. But, where would you get the power supplies and vacuum hardware?

(Yes, for the gearheads who understand, this is "bench-racing")