Any love for Polywell from Obama?

[jmc]

The Polywell is a fusion idea with no proof that the principles under which it operates will work. $2 million dollars is twice as much as they got the last time which gives scope for learning more about the technology.

It's enough wriggle room to work with. I personaly would have advocated 3 to 5 X as much funding, but probably not 10X. I don't think this shows the Obama administration is against it, if they were they would have axed the programme rather than increased its level of funding.

Considering the Polywell is still in the highly conceptual stage of its development $2 million is a reasonable ammount of money (only slightly on the low side)

[jmc]

I hate debating with you, it's like we start off with different first principles, as if two physics were arguing over some inductive effect and used a different value for the charge of an electron, all the logic is fine on both sides but they can't come to anything resembling an agreement, and one of them is a tremendous dick about it.

OK. Jimmy Carter tried the Obama way. And Ford and Nixon before him. It didn't work.

In fact the most successful government policy for getting us out of economic difficulties is to reduce taxes on production. Historically. However, you might very well be correct. This time it will be different.

What we do know is that Carter's policies produced the misery index and stagflation. Typically it takes 12 to 18 months for a government spending bubble to have an economic effect. So the inflationary pressures will hit just in time for the 2010 elections. Certainly they will be in full force by Nov of 2012. Heh.

But look at it this way: taxes on producers lowers production. With a relatively constant money supply that has to produce inflation because you have a given quantity of dollars chasing a reduced quantity of goods. With the inflation of the money supply going on it will be worse.

Or look at another sector of the economy. Before the Government got seriously involved in the medical sector - prices in the medical sector were rising at an unconscionable 5% a year rate. Once government got involved in a big way it rose at a much more reasonable 10% a year rate.

But not to worry. This time it will be different.

Carter eliminated the economic stupidity of the nation for a generation. Obama will be educating another generation. Thank the Maker.

Okay, you've given many examples of where a recession happened and a government tried to spend its way out and things didn't get better.

Now what about the control? Where is a historic example of a situiation where there was a recession and the government lowered taxes and reduced government spending andeverything became hunky dory again?

From my very limited understanding of the 1929 crash, the original problem was that the government took a laisez faire attitude to the collapse of the banking system, only intervening when it was too late.

[jgarry]

Let's try a little different angle.
Why hasn't Polywell been funded by a private philanthropist, or an entrepenuer?
Let me just say, if I had a few billion floating around, I'd jump in with funding. Why didn't the folk at Google? Wouldn't you think that Gates would? Why feed the hungry when you can give them enough electricity to raise their standard of living?
And if that nasty old government which never created a job (except in military spending in certain states) is the only entity that is in fact far-sighted enough to come up with funding, how then is it that we find fault therein?

[MSimon]

Let's try a little different angle.
Why hasn't Polywell been funded by a private philanthropist, or an entrepenuer?
Let me just say, if I had a few billion floating around, I'd jump in with funding. Why didn't the folk at Google? Wouldn't you think that Gates would? Why feed the hungry when you can give them enough electricity to raise their standard of living?
And if that nasty old government which never created a job (except in military spending in certain states) is the only entity that is in fact far-sighted enough to come up with funding, how then is it that we find fault therein?

Two reasons that I am aware of.

1. Polywell got a better deal from the Government.
2. Dr. Bussard was worried that if it was in private hands before it got proved it might get bottled up.

And #1 and #2 are interconnected.

And if that nasty old government which never created a job (except in military spending in certain states) is the only entity that is in fact far-sighted enough to come up with funding, how then is it that we find fault therein?

Well you have a point there. Except that we got (for illustration purposes) 99.9997% waste to get .0003% of goodness. That is rather low efficiency.

And of course you know the story of Dr. B. starting the government into tokamak projects in the in the hopes of getting 20% of the budget for "unconventional" designs. So he was hoping for 20% efficiency.

And then there is the bribery problem. People with objections have to be bought off. Vote buying. We see this in military contracts all the time. Some Congressman's district has a factory producing goods the military doesn't want. The government orders the stuff any way in order to keep the factory running.

Now some times that can be a good thing. i.e. the political pressure that got Polywell restarted. Mostly it is just waste.

Private companies waste a lot less. And the profit incentive and the fear of going out of business has them continually working to reduce waste. Government has no such incentive (or it is a whole lot weaker). After all they can just raise taxes.

BTW what got us out of the great depression was FDR reducing restrictions and extractions on companies in order to encourage war production. Supply side economics.

[StevePoling]

From my very limited understanding of the 1929 crash, the original problem was that the government took a laisez faire attitude to the collapse of the banking system, only intervening when it was too late.

Sorry for perpetuating OT discussion, but Herbert Hoover wasn't a free-market libertarian. He was a big government Republican, sort of like GWB. (You can read about it in Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism) This stands in sharp contrast with Mr. Reagan's assertion that government isn't the solution, but that government is the problem. IMO statist Republicans are worse than Democrats b/c when they fail, they discredit laisez faire and give Socialists opportunity to engage in trickle-up poverty. FDR was right to scorn "me too Republicans."

I'd better say something Polywell related: I would be a lot happier if non-government funding for Polywell could be found. If there is a Polywell breakthrough, it'll be nice to have naval ships powered thereby, but I'd rather see it replacing those CO2 and radiation-belching coal-fired power plants. (Coal-fired electrical generation releases radiation in fly-ash.)

[TallDave]

Where is a historic example of a situiation where there was a recession and the government lowered taxes and reduced government spending andeverything became hunky dory again?

Well, the easiest examples are China, Eastern Europe, and Russia. China in particular has undisputably benefitted from reduced taxation rates.

More capitalism = more growth. More socialism = less growth.

We can afford a certain amount of socialism, of course, and it may be desirable to avoid having people starve or freeze in the streets -- and to fund basic research like Polywell. But it always comes at a cost.

From my very limited understanding of the 1929 crash, the original problem was that the government took a laisez faire attitude to the collapse of the banking system, only intervening when it was too late.

Yes, there were two problems: a liquidity crisis and a confidence crisis. The latter was solved with FDIC insurance, which pretty much everyone agrees was a good idea. The Greenspan-Volcker-Bernanke-Friedman school of economics says we could have solved the former by printing more money to keep the banks open through the panic.

Of course, starting a trade war didn't help either. And FDR tried some really bizarre things, like buying up gold to drive up commodity prices for farmers (some bright bulb noticed all commodity prices usually rose together). We were all a lot dumber and poorer then.

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, given your sig hasn't changed, do you realistically think the Obama admin, or any admin for that matter, would conspire to not fund Polywell if it actually proved to be a working device? I think it's obvious that there are still a lot of problems that need to be worked out. Work them out and anyone will fund it.

[Betruger]

The salient point might be why it got such a tiny portion of funding.. compared to many other items.

[Professor Science]

How do we appear to outsiders? I know i have a hard time not sounding crazy to other in my physics department. People are very skeptical of fusion that doesn't seem like it's magic/monolithic in scale. stupid gutting of science education funding for the last forever :grumble grumble:

[MSimon]

MSimon, given your sig hasn't changed, do you realistically think the Obama admin, or any admin for that matter, would conspire to not fund Polywell if it actually proved to be a working device? I think it's obvious that there are still a lot of problems that need to be worked out. Work them out and anyone will fund it.

I'd like to see faster progress. That comes at a cost. If we had two or three test reactors running at once the time to acquire the required knowledge would be considerably reduced. About $40 million a year for two or three years should do it. That is what I mean by fully funded.

[rj40]

="MSimon"I'd like to see faster progress. That comes at a cost. If we had two or three test reactors running at once the time to acquire the required knowledge would be considerably reduced. About $40 million a year for two or three years should do it. That is what I mean by fully funded.

1. What is the required knowledge? Would you give us the top 5 or 6 questions (in lay terms) that need answered (at least as you see it)?

2. What would be the dimensions of those two or three test reactors that you (and we!) hope would answer these questions?

[MSimon]

1. How does continuous operation differ from pulsed?
2. Does the wiffle ball really form?
a. loses
b. Plasma flows
c. Operational Magnetic fields
d. Operational Densities
3. Cusp loses?
4. Distribution of alpha velocities in an pBj reactor?
5. Cooling Rqmts. ?

===

6. Can POPS help?
7. Can geometry help?
8. Can we do experiments with used/surplus MRI magnets?
9. Is resonance peak operation with pBj feasible?
10. Arc breakdown curve for the device?

Any one want to add to the list? We can reprioritize once we get enough questions.


Dimensions of test reactors

1. .6 m dia coils - test scaling (geometric and magnetic) probably 4 m dia chamber.
2. .3 m dia Cu LN2 cooled coils - continuous operation with standard geometry.
3. MRI coils. Reaction space coils ~2 m dia. probably 6 m dia chamber.
1 to 10 uSec of 100 MWf power with D-D and 100 mSec of low power operation should open the floodgates. For the last a LN2 cooling plant capable of 10KW @ 77K. Although operationally I'd like to operate the device at about 66K by low pressure evaporation of the LN2 before pumping it through the circuit. That gives some reserve capacity re: heat transfer.

It could greatly reduce Cu losses vs (a 77K - 80K circuit) for the Cu continuous operation device. This means that higher fields are a possibility. I was assuming about .5T for a .3m diameter coil. Bitter Construction. Assuming 100 MW @ 6 m dia and 10 T then it is 160,000 down from that by field and 8,000 down by geometry. So you should get about .1 watt fusion. Plenty for measurements. Not enough heat to worry about. Or double the coil current for a few second pulsed test. That should give 1.6 watts of fusion. Maybe a 100 mS test at 4X continuous operation is possible. That should give about 25 watts rate of fusion. Or 2.5 joules for the whole .1 second.

I would love a chance to operate the LN2 Cu job. Of course the MRI device would be the history maker.

[Jccarlton]

As to why a venture capitol outfit would want the rights totally defined. Well I know of a case right now where rights issues have caused no end of grief. At my current job I had to sign an agreement that said that any inventive thought that I had while at work belonged to the company. The reason for this rather insane agreement was that the company has essentially been in litigation since it was founded over its core technology and as far as I can tell none of the parties got nothing but grief and a lot of wasted time over it. Patent and license litigation has wasted more inventors lives than just about anything else.

[rj40]

[quote="MSimon"]1. How does continuous operation differ from pulsed?
2. Does the wiffle ball really form?
a. loses
b. Plasma flows
c. Operational Magnetic fields
d. Operational Densities
.
.
.
quote]

Would that do it? Do you think an affirmative to each of these questions would convince enought money people to build a net power device?

[MSimon]

1. How does continuous operation differ from pulsed?
2. Does the wiffle ball really form?
a. loses
b. Plasma flows
c. Operational Magnetic fields
d. Operational Densities
.
.
.
quote]

Would that do it? Do you think an affirmative to each of these questions would convince enought money people to build a net power device?

Who can say for sure what moves a man? A lot may depend on what kind of help the new admin plans for VC.

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles ... 7949387991

And I'm sorry as hell for bringing politics into this.

Back a little closer to on topic. Such information would move me to pitch harder with more cogency.

A machine with MRI coils would be 1 T and 1 M. Cheap and very close to net power if not equal to it. It could probably be done for around 5 or 8 million (most of that going to power supples, the vacuum vessel, pumps, and shielding). If that looks good - upgrade to 10T and let 'er rip.