Major Electronics Magazine Picks Up On Polywell

[Stoney3K]

...If it were otherwise, then one pound's weight of sterling silver would still be worth 'One pound sterling' and we'd never have seen a world financial crisis.

And we'd be breaking our backs trying to pay at the grocery store!

[chrismb]

But the problems are not primarily physics problems for ITER. Other than ELMs etc. they are engineering problems. Physics may be used to solve them (you would be surprised at how much engineers use physics) but they are not physics problems. They are engineering problems.

You've clearly been believing all that the tokamak-crowd has been preaching!

There is still no physical evidence that a self-driving current can be induced. It's all theory and speculation. Some tokamak physicists don't even believe continuous operation can be achieved and are simply hoping for pulsed operation.

There's still no real idea or understanding on how H-mode forms. It was a surprise when it was first seen - and still is!! You can only 'do' engineering [optimisation, scaling, deisgning, etc.] when you understand the mechanisms, and tokamak is far-far away from being understood.

They are, are, are still primarily physics problems else we might as well just build DEMO.

[gblaze42]

ELMs? ITER? There are no working prototypes of any fusion device.

Of course Polywell has its loss problem. And B11 is a proposal at this stage. No tests.

Still. Today - I'd put more money on Polywell delivering economical power to the grid than toks.

I would say there are working prototypes, none that reach q=1 though.

[MSimon]

Don't be daft! Show me the working prototype that shows the physics is nailed down!!!...

ELMs? ITER? There are no working prototypes of any fusion device.

Are you supporting my statement, or trying to contest it?

Not enough published neutrons for confidence.

What can I say? ITER is way ahead on neutrons and way behind on engineering. (the test program on ITER has been cut back due to setbacks) DEMO will lead to a functioning power plant post 2040. If everything goes according to plan. But you have to admit that toks currently have the neutron advantage. That has to count for something.

By 2011 Polywell will be a go or the money will get redirected into some other approach or something else entirely.

[MSimon]

Engineers are the realists. If we we're to just revel in the scientific pursuit of knowledge and not worry about the cost, why don't we pursue making antimatter via particle accelerators? it's easier than fusion, since we can already do it.
Could it be the cost that prevents us?

If fusion were to costly to produce a working power plant, there would little point in going for that as well.

I think most engineers are so because they like to turn dreams into a physical reality. But they are generally prevented because they are employed by a class of people who are predominantly accountants.

I'm not picking on your response particularly, but this whole thread makes me really angry because money is the EXCHANGE MEDIUM, it is not THE THING BEING EXCHANGED. It is such a fundamentally mis-conceived notion of our modern age that it's got our Governments making preposterous statements that our financial centres are 'wealth-creators'. They might be 'wealthy-people creators' but the only points of wealth creation are mining, farming, and production engineering. The more you do of any of those, the more wealth you create.

People have become brain-washed slaves to the idea that money is King. Money is the representation of captial and therefore cannot be King - it is a figment of the accountant's creativeness.

Build a 20GW fusion reactor and it will 'cause' money to flow as it is a piece of capital. C'mon engineers!! We CAN sieze back humanity from the accountants - it is only in recent times that 'international money', as we know it, was invented. If it were otherwise, then one pound's weight of sterling silver would still be worth 'One pound sterling' and we'd never have seen a world financial crisis.

Accountants and buyers have always been my friends on any engineering project. I have never considered them an impediment.

Cost is part of the engineering equation.

Give me $40 trillion this year and I can guarantee you 20 GW of continuous fusion power in less than 5 years. Of course we might do much better on a $/w basis with windmills and batteries. The way around that is to kill the accountants and buyers.

Costs are meaningless any way. Every one knows costs are just the evil capitalists ways of denying humanity what it really needs. Just ask the folks running the USSR. If you can find it or them.

Yes. If you build a $40 trillion fusion reactor that produces power at the cost of $1 million a KWh the world will be beating a path to your door. With 60 ft of good hemp rope and directions to the nearest suitable lamp post.

[chrismb]

Accountants and buyers have always been my friends on any engineering project. I have never considered them an impediment.

Cost is part of the engineering equation.

Give me $40 trillion this year and I can guarantee you 20 GW of continuous fusion power in less than 5 years. Of course we might do much better on a $/w basis with windmills and batteries. The way around that is to kill the accountants and buyers.

Costs are meaningless any way. Every one knows costs are just the evil capitalists ways of denying humanity what it really needs. Just ask the folks running the USSR. If you can find it or them.

Yes. If you build a $40 trillion fusion reactor that produces power at the cost of $1 million a KWh the world will be beating a path to your door. With 60 ft of good hemp rope and directions to the nearest suitable lamp post.

So complete is the brain-washing by the financial institutions of our day (that seek and demand your fealty) that you actually think that [your sentiment] is true.

[gblaze42]

I think most engineers are so because they like to turn dreams into a physical reality. But they are generally prevented because they are employed by a class of people who are predominantly accountants.

I would say predominantly business oriented, true, but then who else is going to make it happen? Governments? Well we're still waiting on that to happen.

I'm not picking on your response particularly, but this whole thread makes me really angry because money is the EXCHANGE MEDIUM, it is not THE THING BEING EXCHANGED. It is such a fundamentally mis-conceived notion of our modern age that it's got our Governments making preposterous statements that our financial centres are 'wealth-creators'. They might be 'wealthy-people creators' but the only points of wealth creation are mining, farming, and production engineering. The more you do of any of those, the more wealth you create.

I agree with you mostly. Money is more than an exchange medium, it's a great equalizer as well, allowing wealth to be brought to more people than those who own land, or buildings. It also allows for people to gain wealth from ones abilities.
Your taking this more of a early and pre 20th century view of materials equals wealth. We live in the Information age now where ideas are just as valuable, if they can be used in the real world. Example, Microsoft has not created anything in it's entire existence, it's wealth is derived from esoteric bit's and bytes of information recorded on a media, whatever it maybe at the time.
All though what your saying sounds almost like Ayn Rand-ish , I like that.

People have become brain-washed slaves to the idea that money is King. Money is the representation of captial and therefore cannot be King - it is a figment of the accountant's creativeness.

Well to a degree yes but some people who actually are wealthy know money is just a tool. And oddly enough it's because of that distinction that they are wealthy.
In the Information age currency is actually more bit's and bytes than physical, but it doesn't take away that it can be just as real.

Build a 20GW fusion reactor and it will 'cause' money to flow as it is a piece of capital. .

I have to disagree, if we created a 20GW fusion reactor that let's say takes a $100 million a year to run, and with the massive cooling this thing would need thats a conservative guess, but only brings in $50 million in revenue, it probably wouldn't last long and would most likely prevent fusion from ever catching on, as most would say it just costs to much.

C'mon engineers!! We CAN sieze back humanity from the accountants - it is only in recent times that 'international money', as we know it, was invented. If it were otherwise, then one pound's weight of sterling silver would still be worth 'One pound sterling' and we'd never have seen a world financial crisis

That's what happens when we got off the Gold standard.

Like your Chutzpah! Whatever anyone says keep to your guns.

[MSimon]

chris,

I guess we could use square inches of land as a medium of exchange. Provided you have a right of way it could have intrinsic value. Depending on location.

Or maybe board feet of lumber. Or grains of gold. I got it. How about grams of enriched uranium? That should scare away the ignorant and prevent the hoarders from keeping too much in one place.

Chris. Money is just as arbitrary as feet or volts or grams. It has its uses none the less. And what ever the medium of exchange we would still have book keepers. So how many board feet of Douglas Fir (C grade) for a bottle of Heinekins? I have a two foot wide by ten ft long four inch thick board. Just saw off what the beer costs and I'll keep the rest. Might come in handy if there is a fight in the bar.

It is a bit awkward having to have a truck full of lumber on market day. But I guess I'll manage.

BTW the value of things keeps changing as technology changes. The value of gold went down with the invention of the cyanide process. Aluminum used to be a very high value metal until the invention of electrical smelting. Spain had terrible inflation due to the arrival of stolen Inca gold.

And diamonds are more valuable than sapphires despite greater abundance. Why? Market manipulation.

[Tom Ligon]

Simon,

Bad example. Your board is worth more in one piece than cut up into scraps!

The same may be true of the community of small fusion efforts.

[TallDave]

So complete is the brain-washing by the financial institutions of our day (that seek and demand your fealty) that you actually think that [your sentiment] is true.

Seriously dude, you need to get out more. You've wandered deep into tinfoil-hat territory.

[KitemanSA]

Everyone agrees that (fusion) exists

By no means is that true. We're talking about 'controlled' fusion, and there is no indication yet that a solution exists.

Go outside on a cloudless day and look toward the bright part of the sky. Don't look too long, you'll burn out your eyes looking at what you aren't sure exists.
By analogy, the bottling is the controling. We are looking for a way to bottle it at a profit.

[pfrit]

Give me $40 trillion this year and I can guarantee you 20 GW of continuous fusion power in less than 5 years. Of course we might do much better on a $/w basis with windmills and batteries. The way around that is to kill the accountants and buyers.

Not to take away from your point, which I happen to agree with, but I wouldn't bet on you is this case. I am not sure that you could constructively spend 40 trillion dollars in 5 years. I am also unsure that 40 trillion dollars would get you a 20 GW output fusion power plant in ten years. While I am hopeful that polywell and some other fusion approaches MAY lead to profitable fusion, that does make it so. The problem may not be sovable at our current tech level. I am hoping otherwise, of course.

[KitemanSA]

Give me $40 trillion this year and I can guarantee you 20 GW of continuous fusion power in less than 5 years. Of course we might do much better on a $/w basis with windmills and batteries. The way around that is to kill the accountants and buyers.

Not to take away from your point, which I happen to agree with, but I wouldn't bet on you is this case. I am not sure that you could constructively spend 40 trillion dollars in 5 years. I am also unsure that 40 trillion dollars would get you a 20 GW output fusion power plant in ten years. While I am hopeful that polywell and some other fusion approaches MAY lead to profitable fusion, that does make it so. The problem may not be sovable at our current tech level. I am hoping otherwise, of course.

Please note, he didn't say one 20GW plant, nor did he say net 20GW. I'm pretty sure he could get close by building a whole series of smaller toks that use 200GW to produce 20GW.

[chrismb]

Everyone agrees that (fusion) exists

By no means is that true. We're talking about 'controlled' fusion, and there is no indication yet that a solution exists.

Go outside on a cloudless day and look toward the bright part of the sky. Don't look too long, you'll burn out your eyes looking at what you aren't sure exists.
By analogy, the bottling is the controling. We are looking for a way to bottle it at a profit.

Show me the controls!

[chrismb]

So complete is the brain-washing by the financial institutions of our day (that seek and demand your fealty) that you actually think that [your sentiment] is true.

Seriously dude, you need to get out more. You've wandered deep into tinfoil-hat territory.

I guess that might have been the response 2000 years ago if I'd suggested we could escape planet earth. 'Financing' only arose a few centuries ago from the 'need' to fund wars whilst not actually having the cash to do it.

As you wish. I'm happy not to progress the matter, but to leave my words to echo into the future. Perhaps, or perhaps not, those archaeointernetologists in the future who study these things will say "gee, chrismb could see what we know now, but how come these other guys were so blinded by the concepts of money they had in their age that it casued them to screw up their own capacity to build and create wealth, and to explore new ideas and avenues of development!?".

I always think of Faraday in the cases of such mindless discussions: Imagine Faraday had gone along to an accountant or fund mamanger "F: hey, I've got this idea for generating electricity", "A; what's that?", "errr. the displacement of electrons to send power from one place to another", "A: just live next to a water wheel. What are you going to power with this electricity", "F:err... not sure, but maybe in 50 years we'll have things that can help around the house, like lighting, and in 100 years we'll be able to transmit electrical energy through the air, and in 150 years we can use tiny devices to process information, but this is all speculation because I don't have the power of future retrospective hindsight, so all this would rely on some really inventive ideas that need to occur as well", "A: GEDDOUTDAHERE!! Where the hell is the profit in this crazy electricity idea of yours!! Forget it. Go back to your chemistry experiments. We don't want electricity. It doesn't make financial sense, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT, FARADAY, YOU DIM-WIT!".

Now, with you power of hindsight, answer me this question; what has the profit margin been on the use of 'electricity'? Y'see, the question doesn't even make sense, and one day, all transactions won't make sense, for the same reasons - because it is looked on as an economic enabler for mankind, and one day we'll come to look on ALL human activity as enablements.