Talk-Polywell.org

Fourteen.

MSimon wrote:

kunkmiester wrote:I'd love to have the info for a school paper, or probably rather an interpretation of it--I'm no scientist yet. Isn't it about time? I can send paypal so you get it faster.

paper's due in about a week though, so unless you can get it to me quick...

Another evil of school. Real time is not the same as school time.

I owuld not count on getting any of it in time for your paper. It is still under review process for proprietary info by EMC2. The current release extention runs out on 18March10.

Cheers to Kiteman for the ominus daily countdown.

ladajo wrote: Cheers to Kiteman for the ominus daily countdown.

Oh. I thought that was a reference to the preceeding comment - how many years waiting. I thought the year-waiting count was around the 30 mark now, anyway.

chrismb wrote:

ladajo wrote: Cheers to Kiteman for the ominus daily countdown.

Oh. I thought that was a reference to the preceeding comment - how many years waiting. I thought the year-waiting count was around the 30 mark now, anyway.

Thats for tokamak.

krenshala wrote:

chrismb wrote:

ladajo wrote: Cheers to Kiteman for the ominus daily countdown.

Oh. I thought that was a reference to the preceeding comment - how many years waiting. I thought the year-waiting count was around the 30 mark now, anyway.

Thats for tokamak.

Actually, if you read Bussard's letter to Congress, you'll notice that he says he and Hirsch basically started the Tokamak program to try to treat the Tokamak the way Congress treated Sputnik: As political motive for a massive program. However, the unspoken purpose of getting the massive program going was to fund things like the Farnsworth Fusor on which Hirsch had worked as a grad student.

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

PS: The best homage to Bussard this group could do is focus any political energy expended toward passing that legislation. It would ensure the most rapid development of Polywell Boron-11 energy -- if passed that is.

krenshala wrote:

chrismb wrote:

ladajo wrote: Cheers to Kiteman for the ominus daily countdown.

Oh. I thought that was a reference to the preceeding comment - how many years waiting. I thought the year-waiting count was around the 30 mark now, anyway.

Thats for tokamak.

Tokamak is 60. Polywell 30.

Bussard though Tokamak was a dead duck with the logic that it had already taken too long with little to show, and that was when tokamak had had 30 years.

Polywell is as tokamak was, when polywell started up. So it is time for a new thing to come along and say of polywell what polywell was to tokamak.

And Polywell was funded for those 30 years as Tokamak was?

Betruger wrote:And Polywell was funded for those 30 years as Tokamak was?

It's not just a question of time and money. Ask these questions first, in this order:

• Is the configuration in equilibrium?
  • Tokamak - check
  • Polywell - check
• Is the configuration MHD stable?
  • Tokamak - check
  • Polywell - check
• Are energy loss rates due to classical collisions tolerable?
  • Tokamak - check
  • Polywell - NO! Stop here.
• Are energy loss rates due to "anomolous transport" (micro-instabilities) tolerable?
  • Tokamak - marginal at best, spending billions to find out for sure

That's pretty concise, thanks. And time and funding are irrelevant to point 3b, where Polywell stops?

Art Carlson wrote:[*]Are energy loss rates due to classical collisions tolerable?

• Polywell - NO! Stop here.

As far as I know this has not yet been proved experimentally, so it might be a little to early to say NO.

Betruger wrote:That's pretty concise, thanks. And time and funding are irrelevant to point 3b, where Polywell stops?

Giorgio wrote:

Art Carlson wrote:[*]Are energy loss rates due to classical collisions tolerable?

• Polywell - NO! Stop here.

As far as I know this has not yet been proved experimentally, so it might be a little to early to say NO.

The first three questions can be answered with 99% certainty without an experiment, i.e. cheap and quick, because they are based on best-case assumptions and well-understood physical processes. The fourth one is a computational grand challenge, and even with massive theoretical effort, you are likely to get it wrong. So that's where you have to start spending money, time, and brain power on experiments.

Art Carlson wrote: The first three questions can be answered with 99% certainty without an experiment, i.e. cheap and quick, because they are based on best-case assumptions and well-understood physical processes. The fourth one is a computational grand challenge, and even with massive theoretical effort, you are likely to get it wrong. So that's where you have to start spending money, time, and brain power on experiments.

Ah, so the "no, stop here" is not a show stopping stop, but really a starting place for the hard work (and money)?

taniwha wrote:Ah, so the "no, stop here" is not a show stopping stop, but really a starting place for the hard work (and money)?

There's still that 1% chance it'll work even though basic physics arguments say it won't. If you are out of investment opportunities with a 50-50 chance of success, or even a 1-in-20 chance of success, then go for the 1%!

Except that Dr. N. has already stated they have shown that the Polywell isn't subject to (maybe he said limited by) classic collision theory. So who am I to believe? You who repeatedly gripes that you have no data or the man who has the data? Dr. N., who has no axe to grind here (having a cushy job to fall back on) seems to think Polywell is worth pursuing. I think I'll stay on Dr. N's side for the nonce.

Thirteen days and counting!