Talk-Polywell.org

Giorgio wrote:

DeltaV wrote:Maybe theorist Nebel didn't really leave, but is on "sabbatical" until experimentalist Park collects a complete data set.
Once complete, Nebel may return to compare the data to his math model.

It wouldn't make much sense to split a theorist and an experimentalist in the moment when they are finally collecting some real data.
That's when the synergy between the two figures can give the best results.

On the other hand, the theory-data comparison would carry more weight if Nebel was not involved in collecting the data used to validate his theory.

I thought it was Dr. B's theory, not Dr. N's.

On the other hand, the theory-data comparison would carry more weight if Nebel was not involved in collecting the data used to validate his theory.

Dr Bs theory and Nebel is not even at EMC2 anymore.

icarus wrote:name-calling

Figure this out: everytime you, Icarus, show up in a conversation, the odds of name calling and other gratuitous and unprovoked smack talk multiply. Is there a correlation?
A rhetorical question. Last time you got your knickers in a twist over me "name calling" you.... In fact it was you that name called me outta the blue.

Get a grip.

A way to look at the secrecy and Nebel retiring. One, you don't want to get lumped in with the cold fusion fiasco of the past. Two, if it works the publicity could turn your personal life upside down. It Doesn't help that if you publish results now you're not saying its a net gain reactor, you're only saying its a potential net gain reactor. The press doesn't make that kind of fuzzy distiction, when they finally do they dump all over you as a fraud.

KitemanSA wrote:I thought it was Dr. B's theory, not Dr. N's.

I'm sure Dr. N refined Dr. B's theory based on WB-7 results. You don't go from the WB-5 --> WB-6 "eureka" moment (magrid case rounding and spacing) to a final theory in just one iteration.

Interesting.
I was under the impression that Dr. B had been working for YEARS, with frustrating lack of success, to demonstrate the validity of his theory. WB6 was just that "Eureka" moment that told him he had been right all along. WB8 was just to clear up some questions on the part of the review panel that reviewed the WB7 (ruggedized WB6) data.

At this point, aren't all the tests just validations of hypotheses, not theory generating?

At this point, aren't all the tests just validations of hypotheses, not theory generating?

That was my impression also. It was about validating the science. After that the remaining issues are of the engineering kind, not the science kind.

Skipjack wrote: That was my impression also. It was about validating the science. After that the remaining issues are of the engineering kind, not the science kind.

IIRC, that is pretty much what Dr. B. said.

KitemanSA wrote:Interesting.
I was under the impression that Dr. B had been working for YEARS, with frustrating lack of success, to demonstrate the validity of his theory. WB6 was just that "Eureka" moment that told him he had been right all along. WB8 was just to clear up some questions on the part of the review panel that reviewed the WB7 (ruggedized WB6) data.

At this point, aren't all the tests just validations of hypotheses, not theory generating?

There are many knobs to be turned to optimize Polywell.
I said "refined", as in tuning, tweaking of constants and parameters in the model to capture most of the nonlinearities in the real data, not a major revision.

I dont think that you need to refine the theory in order to refine the details of the actual device. That is only science as far as it goes to confirm the theory. The rest is all engineering.
I dont think that anything had be changed about Dr Bs theory.

But we should also recognize that with any theory to practice test using a complex machine, in order to isolate actual data, machine revisions will be neccesary and occur. This is what I think we have been seeing, and more than likely what is going on in the ECM2 lab.
They are not adjusting the theories as much as adjusting the measurement tool to ensure accurate data.

Skipjack wrote:I dont think that you need to refine the theory in order to refine the details of the actual device.

That would imply that the equations describing Polywell operation are exact, using only fundamental physical and mathematical constants and no "fudge factors", and that they can be implemented without any change in a computer simulation.

I take the position that any mathematical model involving something as complex as the plasma dynamics of a Polywell will contain fudge factors, constants which subsume various nonlinearities and have to be tweaked to get a close match to experimental data.

Dr N said that to simulate Polywell you need the full, bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck equations. That statement alone implies that the computer model contains some non-fundamental constants. Then there's the issue of numerical integration stability.

This doesn't mean the theory is bad, it's just a reflection of the complexity of the physics involved.

DeltaV wrote: ...
Dr N said that to simulate Polywell you need the full, bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck equations. That statement alone implies that the computer model contains some non-fundamental constants. Then there's the issue of numerical integration stability.

This doesn't mean the theory is bad, it's just a reflection of the complexity of the physics involved.

Ok, seems to be a slight difference in language usage. You seem to be saying improved model = different theory. Others seem to be segregating the model from the theory.

Different strokes?

seedload wrote:Some how "3 shots, confirmed scaling" would make me more optimistic than "500 shots, confirming scaling." Just saying.

500 shots seems like they have some pretty nasty question to deal with.

My concern is that I thought this device would be able to run continuous. Was I wrong in that? Does 500 shots mean 500 pulses, or does it mean shots that last for a few seconds or more?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd fear the grey area discovered is one where pulses still have net gain potential but continuous run has been ruled out or is still elusive.