Patent App. 11/527906; Filed 2006, published yesterday...

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:23 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:What can you discuss why Application was rejected except of conspiracy theory?

This is getting more funny at every post you make.
Just because I said I did not understand why it was rejected you immediately thought that I saw a conspiracy theory?
If you really think what you are writing than Psychology could really be helpful.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:25 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
chrismb wrote:IF YOU PASS A BEAM THROUGH A MEDIA WITH RELATIVELY STATIC CHARGES, IT MAY PINCH. A BEAM OF COHERENT PARTICLES ON ITS OWN CANNOT PINCH. INSTEAD IT UNDERGOES EMITTANCE GROWTH.
So, you are claiming that static plasma with no current can generate pinch.
And additional unidirectional current of relativistic particles – not.
Thanks, it is very new for me.

Why don't you simply admit that you didn't understand what he wrote?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:17 am

Giorgio wrote:Why don't you simply admit that you didn't understand what he wrote?

Please correct me if I wrong.
He wrote that the beam propagating in static plasma may pinch.
By the way he makes some progress as earlier he claimed that pinch occurs only in case of presence of some mythical unbalance current or metallic plate. And using only "net-current" (his term) pinch impossible.

I am asking now: If beam propagating into media with no current can pinch what would be its behavior if instead of static plasma we will create additional unidirectional current of oppositely charged high relativistic particles.
Emmitance growth?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:21 am

Giorgio wrote:Just because I said I did not understand why it was rejected you immediately thought that I saw a conspiracy theory?

Have enough skill for discussing any others?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:35 am

chrismb wrote:I have never said your scheme would not recover some particles.

You did. As you said many times that particles moving in beams do not experience magnetic force.

chrismb wrote:It is self-evident that coherent charges have no pinching magnetic effect on each other. Charge distributes itself evenly across an isolated metal plate!

viewtopic.php?t=3091&sid=8e2ace0425ee7e ... de17ea2bea

chrismb wrote:If you had an imbalanced current then of course you can achieve a pinch.

What a miracle the imbalanced current is?

I do not know what "self-pinch transport (SPT) scheme" means. It looks like the rebuttal I provided you on another of your completely erroneous links. You can only get a pinch in a beam if it is passed through a media with charges in it. Previously, your link was a beam through a plasma, this time through an excitable media, by the look of it.

You do not know a lot.
Dear Mr. Unbalanced Current, the beam propagating in plasma can be considered as two beams: one with non-zero current and the second - with zero.
No any mythical imbalanced current. And you need only partially compensation of space charge. The calculation of required compensation you have seen in my thread.

So, you know nothing regarding magnetism. And that is fact.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:16 am

Ah. The pissing match.

Mr.Chikva - a bit more civility would be useful. Arrogance is not an unknown commodity around here. Show me an engineer who is not arrogant and I'll show you a failure. Of course the arrogance may be unearned. When in which case all you are left with is the arrogance without any useful engineering to back it up.

My Dear chris,

Why such a large investment with so little potential for return?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:56 am

MSimon wrote:Ah. The pissing match.

Mr.Chikva - a bit more civility would be useful. Arrogance is not an unknown commodity around here. Show me an engineer who is not arrogant and I'll show you a failure. Of course the arrogance may be unearned. When in which case all you are left with is the arrogance without any useful engineering to back it up.

Ok, sorry.
Further I will be even more polite.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:13 pm

MSimon wrote:My Dear chris,

Why such a large investment with so little potential for return?

I need to clear the space and understand that once Mr Arse has had his last word that I can then post up the 42 pages of Nebel's arguments advocating polywell as being viable, and get a decent discussion.

Mr Arse says "For what?" when I suggest I will be posting this up.

What sort of thread do you think it will turn into so long as someone like that insists on stating 'his opinion' [what opinion? it isn't opinions, it's just garbage to put polywell, and others, down] and going on to say "I would advise first of all to learn something basic.

Bottom line is this - if Mr Arse has the opportunity to post in a thread on the subject of (and to which I planned on linking to) more written material from Nebel than anyone has ever seen in one place before, then I am simply not going to bother because I know what I will get for those efforts.

If you want a forum with the likes of Mr Arse as the dominant voice, then leave him be and let him carry on his 'opinions', which amount to nothing more than condescensions throw at everyone on the board who wants to discuss polywell, together with all the polywell researchers.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:30 pm

Have to second that intentionally or not, Chikva is too often oblivious to reason.

Maybe there's a fair enough way around this dead end: Here and now J.Chikva could agree to respecting the forum's order as he found it on the day he joined regardless whether that conflicts with his habits or local culture, for at least the duration of this upcoming Polywell topic, or being removed.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:59 pm

chrismb wrote:If you want a forum with the likes of Mr Arse as the dominant voice, then leave him be and let him carry on his 'opinions', which amount to nothing more than condescensions throw at everyone on the board who wants to discuss polywell, together with all the polywell researchers.

It's appear he is writer.
Better than physicist.
At least I can not say more now. Than:
dominant voice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzRvisYb ... re=related

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:20 pm

The specification has not described how one of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed godly powers.

Okay, that was funny.

Lately I've been wondering how soon the annealing could be expected to show up in the data. I'm not sure we should have expected lack of annealing to prevent the short (quarter-millisecond) neutron bursts at beta=1 in any of the WB machines through WB-7, but it was implied WB-8 will be trying for something approaching a steady-state. Obviously if we're still getting good ion focus after a few seconds that bolsters the notion something's going on there. I wonder how good their density interferometry measurements are now?

On the patent, one could speculate this renewed activity is preparation for the 100MW reactor attempt (and I emphasize attempt) though I'm a little fuzzy on the exact timeline of the patent process here and what this actually means.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:01 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Why don't you simply admit that you didn't understand what he wrote?
Please correct me if I wrong.

Every single time I tried to make you realize that there was big issues between what you was understanding in respect to what one was writing, you never cared about it and resorted to name calling.

Given the past, why should I waste more time?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:44 pm

Giorgio wrote:Every single time I tried to make you realize that there was big issues between what you was understanding in respect to what one was writing, you never cared about it and resorted to name calling.

Given the past, why should I waste more time?

Certainly you should nothing.
As everything is clear without your confirmation.
Mr. C is a little fibber. "I never said" When he did.
Saying nonsenses "particles in beams not experience magnetic forces". Other nonsenses: e.g. Oppenheimer-Fisher.
My advice is the same - learn something basic before discussing.
But certainly you or my another very respectful opponent can also not waste a time on learning.
As Mr. Oppenheimer is already renowned “expert” in this community.

And do not worry that someone will put down Polywell or somewhat else.
As viable idea can not be put down by criticism. And discussion is not election in which the number of funs has a matter.
But if not viable - then sorry. Election will not be helpful in that case.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:00 pm

Gentles, may I suggest you just truly ignore him? Carry on your conversation and just don't read his stuff. Yes, I know from first hand knowledge that this can be hard when he posts nasty statements about you, but...

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:04 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Yes, I know from first hand knowledge that this can be hard when he posts nasty statements about you, but...

Hehe
Mr. Second Hand Informer knows from the first hand

And the hardest is that those "nasty statements" correspond to true.