10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Joseph Chikva]

Wrong. Once again you choose to ignore what folks post in repsonse to
you.

In any event, here is what I told EMC3 and also you on other occasions:

I think you should read the historical documents about previous work. And then rethink your questions and comments.

Historical document have nothing to do with existence or absence of certain effect. I believe that all people in EMC2 are very positive and smart. But only results matter. Where are results? History matters only when results are significant. And if not - sorry but history is less interesting.

[rcain]

Wrong. Once again you choose to ignore what folks post in repsonse to
you.

In any event, here is what I told EMC3 and also you on other occasions:

I think you should read the historical documents about previous work. And then rethink your questions and comments.

....erm.. actually... i too would be very interested to see the 'amassed' evidence of Wiffleball effect.

from what i recall, we have but:

1) (good) theoretical descriptions of it. (though by no means full 'complete' mathematical characterisations).
2) (good) simulation of 'various' aspects of its manifestation - from several different sources.
3) some 'various' experimental evidence of its 'effects' - in line with theoretical projections of 'confinement', etc - Sydney experiments? Plus similar 'inferences' made by Bussard himself iirc - maybe Tom or MSimon could shed more light on that.
4) (very) 'loosely inferred' evidence on the basis that US Navy + EMC2 have taken the experiments on at least two stages so far and will 'possibly' be taking it to the next - and that this would not have been likely if WB effect had not been observed -0 since it was 'theoretically/numerically critical' for Polywell to manifest the effect in order to work within/towards required Q (%).


i don't know of any 'definitive' study - either theoretical or experimental of the Wiffleball phenomenon as a main subject. though i would really love to see one.

thus, i'd be pretty sure (just from the basic maths of Bussard), that such an effect exists and occurs much as he has described. However, Bussard also made a lot of assumptions and approximations in his work, so it is not at all certain to me 'precisely' how WB effect manifests in nature/experiment - for example, does it 'scale' in the necessary way, or otherwise start to behave out of 'predicted envelope', how else can it be effected/controlled...?

none if this has really been addressed so far - to my knowledge either.

(albeit - there is already a separate thread for this ('off-Rossi-topic') which Joe has posted above - thus i insult the Rossi thread by sustaining 'morally justified' thread-drift - i spit in Rossi's face...ha).

[seedload]

In Rossiworld, it is sometimes fun to review history:

110 Rossi Quotes

Saw this reposted over at Ecatworld, and thought it was a fun review regarding some of the more funny Rossisaids.

Two of my favorites are the 'no-radiations detected in explosive testing', as well as the 'Ecat has a safety radiation monitor that will auto-shutdown the unit if any type of radiation is detected' quotes. But of course, we must remember he also told the Florida BRC investigator that there is no radiation of any kind produced and that there are no nuclear reactions of any kind.

I can't wait to find out about his new up and running secret USA Factory, as well as his new global multinational Hot-Cat partner and first purchaser.
H
I really hope the Secret Factory is in Florida.

Lol. I am the questioner for like five of those 'quotes' including the no radiation when it explodes one.

[rcain]

... when it explodes....

- that at least would be 'newsworthy'. if only.

[ladajo]

Seed,
I remember you spinning that one up and pushing launch. It was funny.

[ladajo]

rcain,
I would recommend you go back and review the history of WB 1-6, 7, then 8. Wiffleball was identified and settled fairly early on. It was validated with 6 and 7. As you know, 8 is about the scaling. And scaling does not mean just size.

They have clearly stated in public that confinement is proven. Confinement is Wiffleball.
What they have not done is released to the public the hard numbers, although we did get a peek with the WB6 report. Data in that report did indicate a confinement transient consistent with Wiffleball.
Re-read the WB6 report if you have it.

[rcain]

rcain,
I would recommend you go back and review the history of WB 1-6, 7, then 8. Wiffleball was identified and settled fairly early on. It was validated with 6 and 7. As you know, 8 is about the scaling. And scaling does not mean just size.

They have clearly stated in public that confinement is proven. Confinement is Wiffleball.
What they have not done is released to the public the hard numbers, although we did get a peek with the WB6 report. Data in that report did indicate a confinement transient consistent with Wiffleball.
Re-read the WB6 report if you have it.

ah, well there we have it - experimental evidence/data 'might' exist but it isn't published or public. hence, as i said, we don't actually know very much about the WB effect itself - merely inferences. which is also Joe's beef.

But thanks for the WB6 report reminder - i will re-read it (if i can find it again). but as i recall, that report had little if nothing in the way of actual numbers, as you too point out.

one could argue that the WB effect by or in its self is less interesting than the (presumed) resulting Polywell performance - but that the link is 'so' critical, surely it deserves some additional scrutiny?

it is also an 'accessible' field of study for other researchers to undertake - that can only benefit - particularly when at this stage we have next to nothing by way of public data concerning it.

[ladajo]

My thought here is that a lot of the argument over wiffleball has been semantics.

Maybe the argument should not be "is it?" but "is it good enough?"

They have made neutrons three times. They have confined electrons three times. Confined electrons sufficient to attract ions dense enough to make fusions.
So the fundamental question is "are there enough electrons confined to attract enough ions with enough energy and density to provide meaningful neutrons from fusion?" The corrolary question has always been, do we have to feed it more energy in electrons than we get in neutrons? So far the answer is yes, but argued primarily as a function of size. Bigger device means less loss according to those in the know. Less loss to the point that in a full scale, it was theorized that one might not need to feed electrons, as sufficient will be stripped from fuel.

I am very encouraged by the recent positive review board commentary. This I base in the noted improved instrumentation package to analyze the plasma makeup. If they were not seeing good enough stuff, that corresponded with what was seen in previous machines, then they would not have pressed forward.
Fundamentally it makes no sense to up your electron drive if you are bleeding electrons stupidly. You would only increase the problem. The phase they are in now smells to me like let's shove them in there and see how deep a well we can drive.

[rcain]

i certainly agree with all of that.

and i do also think Joe is being slightly disingenuous or mischievous in suggesting there is 'zero' observational evidence of WB effect. but then again Joe also denies all possibility of viable fusion power technology, ever, period. (I hope i do not overstate your position Joe ).

but i must object to Bussard's work and the work of Nebel, others relating to Polywell, as being somehow in the same 'category' of evidence as the 'wurx' of Rossi (I spit!). too far Joe!

i do desperately want to see better, more detailed and focused experimental work on all these 'aspects' being carried out, published and made public. we should all want that i think.

perhaps we might 'suggest' some experiments to Mark Supps or Joe Kachan - give them some numbers to test perhaps, accessible to their machines and instrumentation, that could help us quantify and isolate the phenomenon. Ditto with cusp plugging issues perhaps.

give us all something useful to do..

[Joseph Chikva]

and i do also think Joe is being slightly disingenuous or mischievous in suggesting there is 'zero' observational evidence of WB effect.

So, you are agreed too that WB effect is not described well. Or not described at all.
And be noted that existence of WB effect is only one of my questions and criticism is much wider.

but then again Joe also denies all possibility of viable fusion power technology, ever, period. (I hope i do not overstate your position Joe

Wrong. I am only saying that today only TOKAMAK is the most mature experiment. And standard phrase here: “this is not TOKAMAK”, meaning that this is much better than TOKAMAK is quite funny in my eyes.
But calling TOKAMAK as “mature experiment” I do not like that too as I mean that in its today’s form TOKAMAK has not a future. But if we are all fusion funs I think we should be thankful to its developers as they gave us a wide knowledge on magnetized plasma behavior.

So, I am sure that new ideas (concepts) are needed. Please, anyone answer on my questions and I will become Polywell’s fan too.
Sorry, but this is not “disingenuous or/and mischievous” phrase - I am quite frankly saying all above.

[Betruger]

The review with Hirsch & co in 2007/2008 never happened.

[MSimon]

and i do also think Joe is being slightly disingenuous or mischievous in suggesting there is 'zero' observational evidence of WB effect.

So, you are agreed too that WB effect is not described well. Or not described at all.
And be noted that existence of WB effect is only one of my questions and criticism is much wider.

but then again Joe also denies all possibility of viable fusion power technology, ever, period. (I hope i do not overstate your position Joe ;)

Wrong. I am only saying that today only TOKAMAK is the most mature experiment. And standard phrase here: “this is not TOKAMAK”, meaning that this is much better than TOKAMAK is quite funny in my eyes.
But calling TOKAMAK as “mature experiment” I do not like that too as I mean that in its today’s form TOKAMAK has not a future. But if we are all fusion funs I think we should be thankful to its developers as they gave us a wide knowledge on magnetized plasma behavior.

So, I am sure that new ideas (concepts) are needed. Please, anyone answer on my questions and I will become Polywell’s fan too.
Sorry, but this is not “disingenuous or/and mischievous” phrase - I am quite frankly saying all above.

Joe,

There was a report on the 'net for a few days that was pulled at the request of EMC2 that detailed the WB effect. As long as EMC2 has funding the release (to wide distribution) of the report is not important. What is important: does the Navy keep funding the project and will they scale up. I'm annoyed that the time line has been extended. But it happens. Some project's I'm working on which should (in my estimation) have taken one month look to be more in the three to four month range. Unanticipated difficulties are a very common refrain even in fields well known. In places where the data is sparse those kinds of hits are even more common.

There is nothing to do but wait and cheer or complain depending on attitude. The cheering or complaining can make no difference.

When I was stumping for funds for EMC2 I never promised definite results. All I ever said (well maybe I did exaggerate here and there) was that at the cost and given the potential it deserves a shot. That shot is being taken. I'm grateful.

[rcain]

and i do also think Joe is being slightly disingenuous or mischievous in suggesting there is 'zero' observational evidence of WB effect.

So, you are agreed too that WB effect is not described well.

agreed

Or not described at all.

no. it has been described in its most important aspects theoretically. and it has also been described 'by inference' (deduction) experimentally. to my knowledge.

And be noted that existence of WB effect is only one of my questions and criticism is much wider.

'wider criticism' i can accept. but i think there is a 'good' evidential case for WB's 'existence' - though 'the nature' of its existence has yet to be fully measured. so far as i know.

of course it could be (and is quite likely in fact) that US Navy/EMC2 are sitting on a whole heap of experimental data that would prove to you and me and any sceptic that it exists and behaves in the way we think. but i dont know that, therefore cannot claim it as fact.

but then again Joe also denies all possibility of viable fusion power technology, ever, period. (I hope i do not overstate your position Joe

Wrong.

gotcha!

I am only saying that today only TOKAMAK is the most mature experiment. And standard phrase here: “this is not TOKAMAK”, meaning that this is much better than TOKAMAK is quite funny in my eyes.
But calling TOKAMAK as “mature experiment” I do not like that too as I mean that in its today’s form TOKAMAK has not a future. But if we are all fusion funs I think we should be thankful to its developers as they gave us
a wide knowledge on magnetized plasma behavior.

indeed. agree with that.

So, I am sure that new ideas (concepts) are needed.

that's a relief

Please, anyone answer on my questions and I will become Polywell’s fan too.

i really wish i could. and not only for your sake.

Sorry, but this is not “disingenuous or/and mischievous” phrase - I am quite frankly saying all above.

do not worry - i was being 'mischievous/disingenuous' in baiting you - a joke.

i share your view that the current state of our 'real'/experimental knowledge is very unsatisfactory at present regarding many aspects of Polywell.

but where you just see dots and gaps, whereas i (and others here - Ladajo, et al ), see a line through them - we 'interpolate' that WB effect (or possibly some other phenomenon with 'similar' outcome - though i cannot think what), is in existence, in the lab.

but the lack of detail is far from satisfactory.

[rcain]

The review with Hirsch & co in 2007/2008 never happened.

who's ever claimed that?

can you quote anything from it that is definitive wrt WB effect? any 'peer reviewed' data available? i think not. yet that is what science demands. so far as we know, the Polywell project might just be a big US DOD conspiracy 'spoof' to wrong-foot the Chinese. (unlikely i know, but possible, for all the little we really know that is public).

[rcain]

...
Joe,

There was a report on the 'net for a few days that was pulled at the request of EMC2 that detailed the WB effect....

... dashed bad luck that.

got a copy by any chance?