In regards the video that I've just watched, linked to in that text, at the end it shows Mr Lerner holding up a dosimeter with around 40 bubbles in it. Earlier, the dosimeter that one of the chaps walked out of the chamber with says 29 bub/mrem on it.
If a 29bub/mrem dosimeter was placed 1 metre from the reactor, then 40 bubbles would be a neutron output of 2x10^9 neutrons. If it had been 50cm from the reactor then it'd've been 5x10^8 neutrons. It'd be nice to know whereabouts that was located. 10^9 neutrons is a nice number, but I got the impression from the links to that video that it showed a 10^11 run?
The bubble dosimeters come in different sensitivities, which may account for an order of magnitude (?) difference from you conclusions. As far as distance from the reactor, from the video, they are probably limited to perhaps ~3 meters maximum. There was a desk and wiggle room on one side, but not much room beyond that.
D Tibbets wrote:The bubble dosimeters come in different sensitivities, which may account for an order of magnitude (?) difference from you conclusions.
It might, but the one the guy walked out of the lab with said '29bub/mrem' on it. (There is a single frame in the video where that is legible.)
chrismb wrote:Can anyone point out when the last NEW EXPERIMENTAL DATA has been pinned up on this board [I mean, actual data. Y'know... numbers and stuff....!]
If my memory does not play tricks on me I think the only meaning Fusion experimental data that have been posted in this board up to date are FF related.
For Polywell we (unfortunately) just have speculations or dataless newsfeeds.
I personally do not see your posts as an attack or a way to discredit FF work.
They posted some results and you asked clarifications for these results. I believe this is what the board is useful for.
I like to think that GIThruster just misinterpreted the reasons of your post, but let's see what he will have to say about it.
The size of the room is important (and/or an extended sampling tunnel) for two reasons. The bubble count is depenant on the inverse square law. At 0.5 meters from the plasmoid, if the count was 40 bubbles, then at 3 meters the count would be ~1 bubble. It is critical to know this distance to calculate the actual neutrons produced. The other effect of distance is the time of flight measurements they are apparently collecting. Two very short sampling time electronic neutron detectors at two seperate distances to the reactor apparently allows them to determine the location of the neutron production within the chamber and possibly(?) more tightly measure the time dependance related to the plasmoid formation(?).
D Tibbets wrote: It is critical to know this distance to calculate the actual neutrons produced.
Or, you can just take them at their word they produced 10^11 neutrons. After all, if you're willing to take them at their word that they have 40 bubbles, the only investment of faith you're making to get to 10^11 neutrons is they know how to do high school math.
Nothing against you, Dan; but I am just worn out with the above sophmoric stupidity masquerading as critical thinking.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:Nothing against you, Dan; but I am just worn out with the above sophmoric stupidity masquerading as critical thinking.
Who is positing 'critical thinking', GIT?
Not me... I simply asked if this was the 10^11 run, or not, because I would've expected a different outcome to a 40 bubble-filled BTI [which I counted myself, I took no one's word for it]. But it might've equally been a BTI with a different cal to the one shown earlier in the piece.
...I'll just go ask them, because tossing this with GIT feeding in comments is just too tedious.
I am just worn out with the above sophmoric stupidity
Oh dear, we've worn out the intellectual giant in our midst.
Perhaps if you concentrated more on the numbers, data, experiments, physics, equations instead of the personal attacks and politics you'd have brain-power to spare?
D Tibbets wrote: It is critical to know this distance to calculate the actual neutrons produced.
Or, you can just take them at their word they produced 10^11 neutrons. After all, if you're willing to take them at their word that they have 40 bubbles, the only investment of faith you're making to get to 10^11 neutrons is they know how to do high school math.
Nothing against you, Dan; but I am just worn out with the above sophmoric stupidity masquerading as critical thinking.
Indeed- High School math (or earlier). If you screw that up , anything derived from that is bogus. But, so what, Who cares about the level of the math. I responded to CrisMB's calculation, to point out the range of neutron production that would be likely given their experimental setup, The number of the bubbles and the calibration of the bubble dosimeters is data, the standoff distance is uncertain within the limits I estimated. I also expanded on another aspect of their experiment. Why you find this defining of the situation offensive is beyond me.
Giorgio wrote:For Polywell we (unfortunately) just have speculations or dataless newsfeeds.
Heh, the dearth of data is certainly trying. I think some are cracking under the frustration. Maybe if we're really, really, really lucky Rick will share some WB-8 neutron counts in Japan. That would be exciting. I'm guessing nothing till April, though, and slim pickings then.
And then we have Lerner, who trumpets his data, and whose site is still predicting (last I checked) net power by the end of the year. Hehe.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
TallDave wrote:And then we have Lerner, who trumpets his data, and whose site is still predicting (last I checked) net power by the end of the year. Hehe.
I'll love if he actually was the first one to reach this goal.
He deserves it for the open attitude he kept from the start of his project until now.
It will also be a big slap in the face of everyone who went secretive, which is an added bonus
