Talk-Polywell.org

certainly not bad news; and certainly more news than i expected also.
the fact that Doc Parks got a raise, suggests to me that they want to keep him on for a while.
the next decision i think will be crucial - if they continue on with the/a next phase, that should surely be a signal to other researchers in the field that there really is something there to go after.
oh for a peek at their lab reports!

Ditto on Boyle interview. Seems as good a time as any, if it won't wait till 8.1 decision or some major peer review like the one at the end of WB7.

I wonder if after 500 shots they are starting to get some indication on how the Polywell is scaling?

As of 3Q/2011, the WB-8 device has generated over 500 high power plasma shots. EMC2 is conducting tests on Wiffle-Ball plasma scaling law on plasma heating and confinement.

Are they trying to say they are evaluating plasma thermalizing with changes in scale?

Since April there have been about 130 work days; presuming 10 hour work days, that puts us at about 1300 hours, divided by 500 that's about one shot per 2.6 hours.

Very rough math, sure.

Interestin number crunch.
I wonder what the battery bank charge time is? Or, if they have gone fully over to Caps, then they can cycle shots farily quickly, probably only dependant on pump downs.

I am sure a good measure of the work to date was without fuel. However, by now, they must have fueled it.

Given implications of successful scaling tests with D-D, I am thinking they will be reluctant to put out a yield statement, or possibly even that neutrons scaled per predictions. It would certainly cause a massive leap in visibility.

In any event, anything they say certainly seems to carry way more weight than the Rossi Circus. Whether or not Rossi has something, he certainly has gone out of his way to discredit himself IMO, where-as EMC2 remains quiet and on task.

So, who is going to write to Alan Boyle to ask him?

It all seems unnecessarily secretive to me, what are they hiding? If they are going to go public why bother withholding information? Maybe they are just deluded about what they hope to achieve, because it couldn't possibly be fraud, incredibly cheap energy they say?

How can anyone verify what they are claiming? Has there been any independent verification by a reputable source?

When will they have a commercial reactor available for heating and lighting buildings?

See, the spin can go either way.

icarus wrote:It all seems unnecessarily secretive to me, what are they hiding? If they are going to go public why bother withholding information? Maybe they are just deluded about what they hope to achieve, because it couldn't possibly be fraud, incredibly cheap energy they say?

How can anyone verify what they are claiming? Has there been any independent verification by a reputable source?

When will they have a commercial reactor available for heating and lighting buildings?

See, the spin can go either way.

Reasons to keep quit? almost anything could be a motive. First off it seems likely that the Navy has imposed an information embargo on them. as they did on Bussard's earlier research. Secondly, there is no active patent, the old one has expired and the new one has not been granted(to my knowledge) so there is a propitiatory reason to hold information close to the chest. On the opposite side, their results may be so dismal they do not want to reveal them and risk the cutoff of their funding. I don't think EMC2 ever committed themselves to releasing their results and procedures to the public domain. Bussard threatend to do so if he didn't get funding, yet he never released much fine details.
As far as others replicating their results, that is difficult to say. At least several have dome computer modeling, and at least several have done actual expirements, but with small setups that are problematic. Who knows what has been done privately.

Dan Tibbets

icarus wrote:It all seems unnecessarily secretive to me, what are they hiding? If they are going to go public why bother withholding information? Maybe they are just deluded about what they hope to achieve, because it couldn't possibly be fraud, incredibly cheap energy they say?

How can anyone verify what they are claiming? Has there been any independent verification by a reputable source?

When will they have a commercial reactor available for heating and lighting buildings?

See, the spin can go either way.

We watch and are cautiously hopeful, while remaining realistically skeptical. At least the ratio of published PhDs vs convicted felon's working on the Polywell is refreshingly much better than for, say, the e-Cat...

icarus wrote:It all seems unnecessarily secretive to me, what are they hiding? If they are going to go public why bother withholding information? Maybe they are just deluded about what they hope to achieve, because it couldn't possibly be fraud, incredibly cheap energy they say?

How can anyone verify what they are claiming? Has there been any independent verification by a reputable source?

When will they have a commercial reactor available for heating and lighting buildings?

See, the spin can go either way.

Icarus, where's your fusion reactor? Where's your data and who is verifying your data? When will you have a commercial reactor available? How do I know you aren't defrauding us?

Oh...you're not making a reactor?....you never claimed to have solved the free energy problem?

You see the problem with your pathetic attempt at attacking EMC2 is that they haven't made a claim yet. Until they claim success, we can't exactly demand details on said success, nor critique it. I assure you if they do make a claim at success, we will demand the data and critique it furiously.

ScottL wrote:

icarus wrote:It all seems unnecessarily secretive to me, what are they hiding? If they are going to go public why bother withholding information? Maybe they are just deluded about what they hope to achieve, because it couldn't possibly be fraud, incredibly cheap energy they say?

How can anyone verify what they are claiming? Has there been any independent verification by a reputable source?

When will they have a commercial reactor available for heating and lighting buildings?

See, the spin can go either way.

Icarus, where's your fusion reactor? Where's your data and who is verifying your data? When will you have a commercial reactor available? How do I know you aren't defrauding us?

Oh...you're not making a reactor?....you never claimed to have solved the free energy problem?

You see the problem with your pathetic attempt at attacking EMC2 is that they haven't made a claim yet. Until they claim success, we can't exactly demand details on said success, nor critique it. I assure you if they do make a claim at success, we will demand the data and critique it furiously.

I'll await your furious critique of EMC2 with virtual gleeful anticipation! (never gonna happen)

I'm not attacking EMC2 directly, just pointing out the glaringly obvious double-standards most people are happy to live with ... EMC2 must have claimed something ... the idiotic tax-payers are on the hook for $10 million for research that claims to do nothing?

Throwing word like "pathetic" toward me do what exactly? besides except maybe make you feel less pathetic?

It's ok, US govt. research money is above being obtained fraudulently ... spin a good yarn ... hide your failures in the null result and its all good. We were told once that Polywell is just "an engineering problem" no science needed .... oh yeah, go back and read the archives, it is all there. A rich vein of hypocrisy I can assure you.

icarus wrote:I'll await your furious critique of EMC2 with virtual gleeful anticipation! (never gonna happen)

I'm not attacking EMC2 directly, just pointing out the glaringly obvious double-standards most people are happy to live with ... EMC2 must have claimed something ... the idiotic tax-payers are on the hook for $10 million for research that claims to do nothing?

Throwing word like "pathetic" toward me do what exactly? besides except maybe make you feel less pathetic?

It's ok, US govt. research money is above being obtained fraudulently ... spin a good yarn ... hide your failures in the null result and its all good. We were told once that Polywell is just "an engineering problem" no science needed .... oh yeah, go back and read the archives, it is all there. A rich vein of hypocrisy I can assure you.

You are off on so many points that is almost embarrassing.

1) Behind Polywell idea there is a theory. The experiment has been made to PROVE or DISPROVE this theory. Either way we will learn something valuable that can be applied to other fields/machines.


2) Behind Polywell theory there is a CLEAR experimental setup and CLEAR experimental parameters that will have to be met to get additional financing.


3) Behind Polywell financing there is a panel of scientist that will check analyze and scrutinize their results and that will CHECK if the research is going anywhere or not.


4) Behind Polywell scientist there are passionate people like the one of this board that will additionally discuss, dissect and stress test each single claim that is released, because a good and solid claim is what you need to keep financing flowing and science running.
If you never realized that this is what is going on in Talk-polywell it probably means you never read the Theory section.


Edited to fix spelling.

I'm not attacking EMC2 directly, just pointing out the glaringly obvious double-standards most people are happy to live with ... EMC2 must have claimed something ... the idiotic tax-payers are on the hook for $10 million for research that claims to do nothing?

EMC2 is being paid for research(!) not for an alleged product.
Research is a service. E-cat is a product.

Icarus, the previous two posts summarize perfectly how ridiculous and pathetic your arguments are again. If you're against the scientific process, I highly recommend you find elsewhere to dwell.