seedload wrote:
No, even to Rossi. Start with an open mind, digest the evidence, and then draw conclusions. As the BS piles up, consider abandoning ship.
I guess that is the distinction. I "consider" it all the time but feel no abiding NEED to "decide" on it. Or more accurately, I have decided not to believe it to the tune of not sending him any of my money. But that is caution, not belief.
I kind of feel like I am on a jury and every day my fellow jury members are hounding me to decide one way or the other... while the trial is still going on. I am somewhat shamed of my fellow jurors for their inappropriate actions.
Sorry, off topic and I will not respond beyond rudeness to any further discussion on this diversion.
Sorry, but I've got to ask when the trial is going to be over?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Ok, so they are a bit tooo sparse with technical details for my taste. They only talk about deuterium and not D+T. So would it be correct to assume that they are going to burn D2 only? If so, that would probably reduce some of the problems with DT reactors. They would still produce a lot of neutrons that will have some implications on the burn chamber and potentially also the rest of the reactor.
Lots of other open questions. Still, it does look interesting and I wish them the best of luck.
I was curious if there would be any indication of why the thing was a spiral. I didn't see anything that indicated that a spiral was necessary rather than just a long tapered tube. Yet, they don't seem to be making claims for the 'passageway' in any other configuration than a spiral which I found odd.
paperburn1 wrote:I guess I just do not get it, the design seem to add unusual complexity and goes against what I would think be best practices for working with plasma.
I am not disagreeing with you in that it feels "wrong", but I dont know enough about this to effectively disprove their claims.
paperburn1 wrote:I guess I just do not get it, the design seem to add unusual complexity and goes against what I would think be best practices for working with plasma.
I am not disagreeing with you in that it feels "wrong", but I dont know enough about this to effectively disprove their claims.
I am in the same boat.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Sorlox has a 6 min 17 s video on their homepage showing a simulation of their device, but without a description of how it works. http://www.sorlox.com/company.html
The spiral design is to get a compact size of the device. The same video has been uploaded on Youtube on the 20th of August: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suxCnnkQM5Q
Really Kite? Because if you scroll up like 4 posts you'll see that both Skip and Paper both state they don't feel it is right. I'm with them on this and if you agree on that part, great.