Talk-Polywell.org

alexjrgreen wrote:Prejudice based on limited experience. Politics, not Science.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is the operating principle here. It's not prejudice, it's called requiring the people making the claims to back them up with actual data.

Another reason for radio silence: if the thing doesn't work...

jwalding wrote:First and foremost, the data, what little has been released, has indicated that the #6 design made fusion at a rate almost unmeasureable against background.

And what is background radiation for neutrons?

There is many times as much thorium in the Earth's crust as there is uranium.

This site is getting overrun with cranks.

This guy's almost as crazy as that loon you found who thinks lightning strikes in water can create energy-positive fusion reactions. Oy.

TallDave wrote:I never got the impression he was even interested in a technical discussion. Lerner was eventually banned from editing Wikipedia, and fairly I think.

Burning question: if Lerner is so allegedly brilliant, why is he spending time at Wikipedia arguing with his (supposed) intellectual inferiors?

Looks like they want to build a fusion reactor, not as a way to get energy per se, but as a way to generate a lot of neutrons to process nuclear waste, or to process thorium to generate fissionable uranium fuel.

Not to mention the not-yet-available problem. (IIRC the thing holding back nanotube conductors is the difficulty connecting to everything else, and the problems of manufacturing.) Also, wouldn't the waste heat be a fairly substantial loss mechanism?

MSimon wrote:

Jeff Peachman wrote:or if EESTOR works

Very soon now.

Missing their deadlines (again) makes me think EEStor is done.

2) John McCain and the GOP selected someone as a VP candidate who was and is a complete ignoramus. Come on. You show your own ignorance by saying something that ridiculous. She is most obviously not an idiot or even close to it. She couldn't answer a simple question about what newspapers she read. ...

You cheated. You should have quoted the opening of the wikipedia piece which said that there were a number of evolving doctrines of which a few had been codified. I quoted Froomkin because he made that point clearer. So yeah. I had looked at the wiki first and Froomkin is not a revisionist. He refl...

A quick trip to Wikipedia indicates that Froomkin's revisionism is just a smokescreen. The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[5] This document is often cited...

1) If Obama's election were merely media bias, why didn't the Democrats think of that back in 2004? 2) John McCain and the GOP selected someone as a VP candidate who was and is a complete ignoramus. She didn't know about the Bush Doctrine, couldn't answer a simple question about which newspapers she...