Talk-Polywell.org

I guess I haven't been doing my job. LOL

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/970 ... heard.html

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick.

Andrew Sullivan is at the top of the blogroll posted. Which gives you a clue.

How do we point out to the authors the numerous factual errors in the article?

Kite,

I've given up on that. It seems no one can write more than three sentences on this technology without mangling the fundamentals. I just try to remember my own very long learning curve.

You maybe surprised to know that electrons in a typical cathode TV are hot enough to theoretically fuse together.

/facepalm

MSimon wrote:I guess I haven't been doing my job. LOL

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/970 ... heard.html

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick.

Andrew Sullivan is at the top of the blogroll posted. Which gives you a clue.

Whats funny is that just about everything he said about how fusors work is wrong. The grids on a fusor don't soak up so much energy that they inhibit the fusion reaction. The fusion reaction at higher energy densities puts out so much energy that the grids melt.
As for why fusors were not pursued in the past, well the period of the last decades of the 20th century was the period of big science and empire building. Nobody was going to build an empire with machines the size of a basketball. Read Heppenheimer's "man made sun" for that story.

Jccarlton wrote:

MSimon wrote:I guess I haven't been doing my job. LOL

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/970 ... heard.html

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick.

Andrew Sullivan is at the top of the blogroll posted. Which gives you a clue.

Whats funny is that just about everything he said about how fusors work is wrong. The grids on a fusor don't soak up so much energy that they inhibit the fusion reaction. The fusion reaction at higher energy densities puts out so much energy that the grids melt.
....

Not quite. In fusors the grids melt due to the ion bombardment- the fuel ions (and fast neutrals (mostly (?)from recombined ions), not the fusion ions or neutrons. The fusion power of a good fusor may be around the microwatt level. Not much heating from that. The heating from fuel ions- Ii there is good focus of the accelerated fuel ions past the grids and these ions hit the grid ~ 1 to 5 percent of the time and give up most of their kinetic energy, then in a 1000 watt fusor ( 20 mA at 50,000 volts) the wires would be heated by ~ 10-50 watts of power. Because the wires are small and in a vacuum, they will quickly heat up. The remaining kinetic energy would find its way to the shell through upscattered ions, electrons and in glow discharge fusors probably alot of fast neutrals [edit] and some x-rays if the voltage is high enough.

Dan Tibbets

MSimon wrote:I guess I haven't been doing my job. LOL

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/970 ... heard.html

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick.

Andrew Sullivan is at the top of the blogroll posted. Which gives you a clue.

If it works.

You maybe surprised to know that electrons in a typical cathode TV are hot enough to theoretically fuse together.

He's right. I am surprised.

JohnP wrote:

You maybe surprised to know that electrons in a typical cathode TV are hot enough to theoretically fuse together.

He's right. I am surprised.

I ROFLed.

I would take it further to risk a statement that with a proper magnetic confinement and a $ 2million dollar budget, over 3 years we could reach the point where the TVs themselves would fuse, leading to a first class holographic entertainment systems. And that, my friends, would be a game changer!

pbelter wrote:I would take it further to risk a statement that with a proper magnetic confinement and a $ 2million dollar budget, over 3 years we could reach the point where the TVs themselves would fuse, leading to a first class holographic entertainment systems. And that, my friends, would be a game changer!

:D

You missed out by about 12 years. The dot com era is over.