Talk-Polywell.org

Is this new info to this group?

Sorry, if it isn't!

http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/ ... encies.pdf


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0710/0710.3149.pdf

Hey, it's NRL. What happened to ONR? Is ONR still funding, or is another part of the Navy?

Eric Lerner = crank.

Oh blast. Sorry.

Eric Lerner = crank.

Why?

Zixinus wrote:

Eric Lerner = crank.

Why?

Details. Like how does he plan to handle erosion from the pulses?

Why hasn't he repeated his experiments? If he had enough eqpt for one shot why hasn't he done 50?

What are the scaling laws?

He also has the little problem of thermalization. His machine is not a beam machine. It is a micro tokamak without the donut.

If the Bussard Machine shows promise I'd expect lots of ideas will get funded. Lerner can get in on the gold rush. Expect a fusion "bubble". If we get something that works out of the mess it will be worth it.

Lerner was actually kicked off Wikipedia after repeated disputes with Art Carlson.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Carlson, but Lerner was clearly being a bit of an ass.

/agree on the fusion bubble. We should see a lot of money flowing this way in 2009, if past correlations with oil prices are any indicator.

I posted on the Polywell that experiments were on going and that got pulled.

Carlson is anal in the extreme.

But I fooled him. I refused to get into a pissing match with a guy who controls the electrons. I have electrons of my own.

Zixinus wrote:

Eric Lerner = crank.

Why?

The basis of his machine's physics, from what I can tell, stems directly from his ideas about cosmology. Unfortunately, there you go into a long and twisted tale in which he is right and everyone else is wrong. People like that are cranks.

Moreover, he has gotten into some very long and ridiculous pissing matches at Wikipedia (which ultimately got him banned from editing his own page) about what should and should not be on his Wikipedia page (Eric_Lerner). People like that are too worried about their reputation; my question is, shouldn't he be publishing and gaining credibility that way rather than arguing over the nature of his appointments on a Wikipedia page?

Eric Lerner just screams crank.

I have noticed a few people get very upset about whats written about them or their organisation on wikipedia, they seem to forget they can just create their own website and have editorial control that way!

Sometimes I suspect people are just trying to get others to waste their time trying to defend themselves, rather than to get on doing the work they want to do.

Though I can understand why, as if you don't defend your reputation, you end up being called things like a 'crank'..

Why just the other day when talking quite reasonably with a group of people on another forum about housing costs, I got called a lier because I dared tell them they was all wrong about a particular law, and had spent a rather wasteful year of my life trying to sort it out, and knew rather more about it than they did, but would they listen, no.. I'd been tidying up my paperwork and had just shredded the day before proof which would have changed their mind (I think I might have proof elsewhere still, but am I going to waste days finding it, no I don't think so..), but because my reputation isn't one of a successful millionaire, I get called names.

(Even though I'm in 2,000 forums and regularly check to see whose talking about me and correct anything I see being said wrong about me, its harder nowdays to check everywhere on the web..)

So I get on with my projects and the results will speak for themselves, but I can see how it can easily get out of hand when your in an argument defending your reputation.

Nanos wrote:Though I can understand why, as if you don't defend your reputation, you end up being called things like a 'crank'..

His (former) Wikipedia page obsession is just part of the reason I call him a crank.

• He clings tenaciously to a cosmological model that he has been unable to successfully defend. This has led to a parallel issue that
• He has never received a PhD.
• His peer-reviewed papers were published long ago in theoretical journals; he has been able to get nothing into relevant refereed fusion journals e.g. Physics of Plasmas, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Fusion Science and Technology.

I don't understand how Lerner's dense plasma focus differs appreciably from Spheromaks and STP fusion, the latter methods have the benefit of actual research and experimentation.