Rick Nebel comment

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 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:27 pm

rcain wrote: 'we wouldnt be going this extra leg if it wasnt working, now would we'.

well, theres got to be some truth in that somewhere i suppose.

That logic would appear to provide the argument for Blacklightpower, eestor, distance seeing, &c, &c..

NOT convincing. VERY not convincing.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:28 pm

chrismb wrote:
Robthebob wrote:what do you guys think is the most probably amount of time for WB8 to once and for all confirm or deny if polywell works or not?
200,000 years.
It'll never be proven 'cos it won't work. "The cult of Polywell" will exist until we leave the planet. After that, "we" will then have total faith in whatever provided that energy source for propulsion, and finally the CoP will be discredited as a religion.
Seems chrismb thinks Dr.N. is a liar and will string this out forever, similar to "Tokamaniaks" (r). :lol:

But before the 200,000 years go by, the CoP will be absorbed into Scientology. After all, they are both about things sciento-logical, right?

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:36 pm

dnavas wrote:If so, it seems that the point he's making is that WB-7 did NOT validate everything that needed to be validated. In particular, if you are then going about testing scaling laws, the thing least likely to have been validated would seem to involve scaling, no?
Unless I missed something, WB7 was made to validate WB6, and only that, with a WB6 replica. So, scaling would remain to be tested no matter the results from WB7.

chrismb wrote:
Betruger wrote:Cult of pedantry
Do you wish to join?

One flaming pedant is already too many.

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

Postby rcain » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:38 pm

chrismb wrote:
rcain wrote: 'we wouldnt be going this extra leg if it wasnt working, now would we'.

well, theres got to be some truth in that somewhere i suppose.

That logic would appear to provide the argument for Blacklightpower, eestor, distance seeing, &c, &c..

NOT convincing. VERY not convincing.


very true, and a great shame.

dnavas
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:59 am

Postby dnavas » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:48 pm

Betruger wrote:Unless I missed something, WB7 was made to validate WB6, and only that, with a WB6 replica. So, scaling would remain to be tested no matter the results from WB7.


As RN points out, WB8 was not on the roadmap. The original roadmap was straight to the big guy, the thinking being that a medium-sized device was nearly as expensive anyway. Something was discovered that raised enough of a flag to do a WB7++. Such a device barely tests the scaling laws through enough of a range to verify that a WBD would work, but it's clear they're trying to verify something.

-Dave

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:12 pm

IIRC it was in major part because of Dr Bussard's early passing that EMC2 and others concerned decided to start with a fresh confirmation of the latest polywell research. Given a shoestring budget, it was probably the best thing to do. Better than testing scaling.

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:26 pm

rcain wrote:
chrismb wrote:
rcain wrote: 'we wouldnt be going this extra leg if it wasnt working, now would we'.

well, theres got to be some truth in that somewhere i suppose.

That logic would appear to provide the argument for Blacklightpower, eestor, distance seeing, &c, &c..

NOT convincing. VERY not convincing.


very true, and a great shame.
That's not logic but speculation. The funny thing here is that Chrismb has made his case on painting anyone who speculates on polywell working, its implications, etc, as some dogmatic cult. Which is itself a step beyond skepticism and impartial speculation, into partisanship. A cult of anti-polywell. Just because no data was released. If insisting things have to be a certain way (fake, vaporware) when there's no data to base that assertion on isn't ironic, I dunno what is.

Where is the comparison between EMC2 and BLP valid? Where has Dr Nebel & crew published wild theory like Mills' GUT? What pretentions has EMC2 made of new physics? When has EMC2 promised working reactors and failed to deliver?
EMC2 hasn't made any such kooky advances but instead has kept a skeptical approach (WB7 verification/validation instead of going WBD asap), has submitted to peer review, is sponsored by the Navy and tempered (or was for a while anyway) by pressures of competitors like DoE's, and still is only a dozen people working on relatively lean budget.
Their "sin" is keeping quiet. By that criteria, WB6 should have been vaporware after such a sinfully long embargo. Instead it was proven out by WB7.

If you're going to play the role of skepticism, do it right. Dr Nebel & cie have stuck their neck out for the first time by saying we'd know if PW is feasible or not in 2 years. You can spin some conspiracy theories or simply take it at face value. And consider the question - what would things look like to us if they were exactly as EMC2 have let on? Let's keep the cart behind the ox and actually wait for them to show a trend of untrustworthiness before condemning them of it.

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

Postby rcain » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:37 pm

also very true. well made point.

but we still have no potatoes.

so, back to the earlier question - 'what will it take for other researchers to start following up in this field'?

until we start seeing some real, verified data that knocks (eg.) Art Carlson's skeptisism/equations on the head, we are all in the dark.

ladajo
Posts: 5999
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:07 pm

WB6 (Completed, Positive(ish)) - Eureka Build by Dr. Bussard to encorporate "we've got it! ideas". Smoked during final desperation testing runs after money was turned off. "I swear, it made neutrons, see!"

Dr. Bussard passes away while marketing for funding.

WB7 (Completed, Positive(ish))- Funding provided to duplicate WB6 results <after lots of crazy grass roots interneters shook the trees>. "Did we really get it?" Answer was "we got something, but...". The but looks like it fell out as "Nub Heating" (duh moment), and "I still can't tell if there is a Wiffleball". Ohh look! Neutrons again...<how many remains secret, but can be assummed same or more as less would have been a round in the head>.

WB7.1 (Completed, Positive(ish))- Let's take a look at that Nub Heating thing as a loss mechanism. Oh yeah and, use the tools at hand, to see if we have Wiffleball or what. Answer seems to have been, Ohh, the Nubs are Heating but we have an idea, and nope, we are still not clear with electron actual distributions and densities, but it looks what what we think it should, and while we are at it, Ion distros and densities are not fully vetted with the gear we have. But it seems to look like what it should, more or less(ish). ie: Is that really a wiffleball? Well it is certainly something...and ooh look! Neutrons again! Ummm, lets see 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, ...sshhhhssh!

WB8 (Inprogress, Design glimpses look promising, results due with-in the year (Mar11) Assumed testing to start within the next few months.) - Ok, lets get rid of these nub things, and go with wall mounts, here is a pretty picture of what that can look like. We can also explore coil cooling, improved higher volume vacuum system, and longer runs maybe, cause wall mounts certainly do make all that easier. While we are at it, we can up the power supplies and magnetics, to get a clearer picture on the math, is it right, is it mostly right, or is it wrong? To do that we will add some nifty cool diagnostics and analysis kit. This is the "Are we on crack tester", results to follow.

WB8.1 (Optional based on WB8 Results, Currently planning for accomplishment) - Coming into this we have not seen anything that says we are on crack. And, given that, if things go hopefully well, as indicators are so far(ish), we can even give a try for PB&J. tesing and results over 2011.

WB9 - (Navy Demo design 100MW) - Show us what this thing might look like, so we can figure out how much it would cost(ish).

WBD - EMC2 Civilian Demo design

To summarize:
Confinement = Yes, three times.
Electron Losses = Yes, but maybe not so bad, three times, and counting.
Plasma = Yes, three times, and counting.
Neutrons = Yes, three times, and counting.

And the root of all evil in ours minds: "But how many (fill in the blank)?"

The above sums up my take on where the program is at, based on compilations of ambiguous(ish) statements over the last few years.

And hat tip to Dr. Nebel for recognition of misconceptions. I am sure he aimed that comment at us.

Dr. Nebel, please clarify more.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1715
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:21 pm

MSimon and rnebel were both in agreement for an intermediate WB with the logic that too large of size changes will easily miss unforeseen issues. These issues are likely engineering issues not basic science issues and it is easily argued it is cheapest to solve them with smaller sizes. Hence the need to do detailed diagnostics to catch small issues that will become serious when scaled. That logic precludes jumping to early conclusions on WB-8 and would argue that the full program needs to be seen to its final conclusion. Unfortunately, I find no fault with this line of thinking.

Nub heating, static charge build up on nubs, gas injection methods, contaminant issues, vacuum exhaust design might be sources of surprises. Others here are more likely to point to small issues to watch for. I will point out however, rnebel thinks a few hundred thousand is justified expenditure for a WB-D preliminary design, so I would postulate the current issues are not large, but with scaling may need solutions researched before building WB-D.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

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

Postby chrismb » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:33 pm

Betruger wrote:If you're going to play the role of skepticism, do it right.
I wasn't trying to be a skeptic. I've gone from skepticism to trying to play the role of patronising cynic since nebel's blanket refusal to allow any information to be released.

Perhaps I am not being sufficiently patronising, or cynical, for you to notice. Should I try harder?

Betruger wrote:Dr Nebel & cie have stuck their neck out for the first time by saying we'd know if PW is feasible or not in 2 years.

Oh, yeah! Real neck-sticking-out! If we hear nothing after 2 years then half of the guys here will simply say "Ah! We've heard nothing after 2 years, which means Nebel must be on to something!", and he knows it.

...or is that a promise for real, honest to goodness "no B.S." release of evidential proof sufficient to demonstrate functionality within 2 years [of that statement], or otherwise the project stops?

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

Postby TallDave » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:51 pm

Eh, chrismb has devolved into mere trolling, I wouldn't take him seriously.

What we know is that Polywell has had a WB-7 run followed by a peer review process that led the Navy to fund WB-8. If WB-8.1 is not picked up or WB-9 is not funded by 2012, we can assume things were, at least, not as rosy as Bussard believed. If both those things do happen, then there is very likely something here. I imagine it will be hard to keep a 100MW fusion reactor under wraps if it works, so if WB-9 is picked up by ~2015 we should know a lot more about whether there is useful tech here.

You kids play nice now.
Last edited by TallDave on Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

mad_derek
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am
Location: UK (mostly)

Postby mad_derek » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:58 pm

TallDave wrote:You kids play nice now.


Yep, I was thinking along the same lines ... a lot of threads seem to be going that way at the moment!
Insanity Rules!

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

Postby chrismb » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:13 pm

TallDave wrote:Eh, chrismb has devolved into mere trolling, I wouldn't take him seriously.

In a way, that is my intent. The 'court jester' - the only court attendee who dared tell the King the truth [whilst trying to make fun of it].

(Sometimes they overdid it - some Kings got through a lot of court jesters!)

But a troll is a slightly different forum beast - trolls come out with nonsense, whilst I am highlighting nonsense.

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

Postby chrismb » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:16 pm

mad_derek wrote:
TallDave wrote:You kids play nice now.


Yep, I was thinking along the same lines ... a lot of threads seem to be going that way at the moment!

What can you expect if the, supposed, "adults" refuse to participate in an adult capacity.

It is a joke to pretend that all possible information about these tests is commercially confidential. Plasma density/size, neutron counts, drive voltage - these are the only things we really want to hear about and they AREN'T commercially confidential-type pieces of information.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], JoeStrout and 7 guests