Visit to Helion Energy Lab

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:25 am

MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Munchausen wrote:The Polywell has delivered indisputable evidens that speaking to the public on google video might result in funding. :roll:

Indisputable, you say. Please, do let me know what this indisputable evidence is, I am not sure I have come across it. Clearly, EMC2 haven't either, else would not be proposing another 2 years of experimentation to refine 'nuanced' results to some form of conclusion.


Dr. Bussard and Dr. Nebel both thanked bloggers for their contribution to getting EMC2 refunded. The basis of the blogger work for the refunding was the Google Video.

That is as close as I can come to evidence.

Ah! I see... sorry, I misunderstood the post..

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:28 am

TallDave wrote:That says WB confinement has been confirmed and now we're looking at how losses

Does it!!!?!?! What results are these, then? Not saying there aren't any - but I'd like to see 'em to believe 'em.

Munchausen
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:36 pm
Location: Nikaloukta

Postby Munchausen » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:02 pm

chrismb wrote:
MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Munchausen wrote:The Polywell has delivered indisputable evidens that speaking to the public on google video might result in funding. :roll:

Indisputable, you say. Please, do let me know what this indisputable evidence is, I am not sure I have come across it. Clearly, EMC2 haven't either, else would not be proposing another 2 years of experimentation to refine 'nuanced' results to some form of conclusion.


Dr. Bussard and Dr. Nebel both thanked bloggers for their contribution to getting EMC2 refunded. The basis of the blogger work for the refunding was the Google Video.

That is as close as I can come to evidence.

Ah! I see... sorry, I misunderstood the post..


Bussard did it. Eric Lerner did it. Why can't Art Carlson do it?

A shave, a haircut, a decent tie and a good idea on how to make this comprehensible to the layman is all you need.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Postby Torulf2 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:25 pm

Can it be a FRC forum at this site!

rcain
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:09 pm

Hi Art

Thats a really interesting account, thanks for that.

Must admit, potterring around fusion labs would be included in my ideal holiday schedule as well I think (if only I had such a thing as a holiday).

Very interested in the FRC concept, though the theory looks to be even more diabolical than IEC Polywell, what with novel plasma instabilities to take into account on top of everything else. However, the engineering implementation 'seems' if anything simpler, certainly elegant.

Love to find out more about it. In particular,
- theory papers,
- results to date (obviously), and
- who else is pursuing similar work and with what success/lack of.

?

(though I did do a trawl a year or so back, didnt come up with too much)

Agree with you on the continuous Vs pulsed mode issue, everything, including common sense would seem to indicate that's currently our path of least resistance and greatest hope of arriving at a 'useful' machine in our (remaining) lifetimes. I'd hope to see Polywell and POPs variants included in there also.

As to enlarging our forum here to include an FRC-corner (and similar), that can only be a good thing. It doesnt look like we'll have a lot to talk about for some while anyway on the Polywell front. A greater meeting of greater minds and further cross-fertilisation of ideas that is likely to bring has got to be beneficial all ways round.

VC capital for John Slough's venture - all power and success to him - the greater critcal mass, interest and debate we gather here the better. For John and Rick of course and all other teams working seriously in this arena.

Frustrating that the sums involved here are, relatively speaking, tiny. I know its been suggested before, but it'd be wonderful to see some sort of X-prize (a quarterly 'neutrons per dollar' prize perhaps). Surely we dont have to wait for another world war to break out before we summon the collective political will to crack this.

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:40 pm

chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:That says WB confinement has been confirmed and now we're looking at how losses

Does it!!!?!?! What results are these, then? Not saying there aren't any - but I'd like to see 'em to believe 'em.


We'd all like to see them, but by now you should know there's a nondisclosure agreement.

In the meantime, we have Nebel's statements. If you don't trust Rick, it's also reasonable to infer an expert panel of reviewers convened specifically to determine whether WB-7 substantiates Bussard's WB-6 results would not have recommended a larger commitment if WB-7 hadn't performed as expected.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Postby Art Carlson » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:45 pm

TallDave wrote:In the meantime, we have Nebel's statements.

As I have pointed out many times, Rick's pronouncements have been very sketchy. I would be willing to trust him quite a ways around the block, if he would only commit himself to a clear statement.

tombo
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:10 am
Location: Washington USA

Postby tombo » Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:28 pm

We don't need a full blown FRC corner.
An FRC thread (or two) under say theory (not under general because it really is a technical discussion) would do the trick easily and nicely.
I would certainly follow it.
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:49 pm

Art Carlson wrote:
TallDave wrote:In the meantime, we have Nebel's statements.

As I have pointed out many times, Rick's pronouncements have been very sketchy. I would be willing to trust him quite a ways around the block, if he would only commit himself to a clear statement.


I think the clearest we have so far is "We will know in two years."

What does it mean except the obvious? Well, there are theories.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:27 pm

Art,

As I said, if you don't trust Rick...

The reviewers have said even less. But they have taken certain actions...

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:46 pm

TallDave wrote:
chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:That says WB confinement has been confirmed and now we're looking at how losses

Does it!!!?!?! What results are these, then? Not saying there aren't any - but I'd like to see 'em to believe 'em.


We'd all like to see them, but by now you should know there's a nondisclosure agreement.


As said before, that excuse doesn't wash as any one of us could write to the USN and request the details. They may refuse, but as far as I'm aware, they've not been asked.

I say again, does anyone want me to ask the question, I've no compuncting not to do so, or maybe no-one wants to actually know the answer!?

Betruger
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:24 pm

IIRC it hasn't been done because it would add to EMC2 crew's workload. Definitive answers are coming, and giving them more work just to fuel debate on a forum doesn't seem worthwhile. Unless the WIP data such a request would make public would be of some use for new funding sources. But wouldn't those have gotten what info they needed and were allowed to know from EMC2 already?

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:41 pm

chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:
chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:That says WB confinement has been confirmed and now we're looking at how losses

Does it!!!?!?! What results are these, then? Not saying there aren't any - but I'd like to see 'em to believe 'em.


We'd all like to see them, but by now you should know there's a nondisclosure agreement.


As said before, that excuse doesn't wash as any one of us could write to the USN and request the details. They may refuse, but as far as I'm aware, they've not been asked.

I say again, does anyone want me to ask the question, I've no compuncting not to do so, or maybe no-one wants to actually know the answer!?


If you read the contract, the data is proprietary to EMC2 with the Navy having access and no release without EMC2 permission.

Feel free to go ahead. I don't give you very good odds.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

D Tibbets
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:06 pm

MSimon wrote:
Art Carlson wrote:
TallDave wrote:In the meantime, we have Nebel's statements.

As I have pointed out many times, Rick's pronouncements have been very sketchy. I would be willing to trust him quite a ways around the block, if he would only commit himself to a clear statement.


I think the clearest we have so far is "We will know in two years."

What does it mean except the obvious? Well, there are theories.



Actually, I think R. Nebel said "We will know in 18 months to two years" back in April, which now would be 13-19 months, not that I'm counting. :wink:


Dan Tibbets
Last edited by D Tibbets on Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To error is human... and I'm very human.

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Postby pfrit » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:44 pm

chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:
chrismb wrote:
TallDave wrote:That says WB confinement has been confirmed and now we're looking at how losses

Does it!!!?!?! What results are these, then? Not saying there aren't any - but I'd like to see 'em to believe 'em.


We'd all like to see them, but by now you should know there's a nondisclosure agreement.


As said before, that excuse doesn't wash as any one of us could write to the USN and request the details. They may refuse, but as far as I'm aware, they've not been asked.

I say again, does anyone want me to ask the question, I've no compuncting not to do so, or maybe no-one wants to actually know the answer!?

It would be a freedom of information act request and it would not affect EMC2 in the least. You could request copies of correspondance and I would not be surprised if you got a bunch. It takes ~2 months to get an answer. Sometimes less. It might be possible to get the whole report that way.

The only two reasons that I have not done so is that I am lazy and it strikes me as somewhat tacky.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests