Focus Fusion news story

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:49 pm

ladajo wrote:The funders (ONR) matter, and so far they are happy enough to increase funding and continue the project.

Yes, this is an argument. But who is ONR?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:53 pm

Robthebob wrote:(i didnt know what polywell means by radius, because it's like a cube machine, so I just made it a sphere, vs a torus.)

Do you want to become plasma physicist?

Netmaker · Post by **Netmaker** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:07 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:The funders (ONR) matter, and so far they are happy enough to increase funding and continue the project.
Yes, this is an argument. But who is ONR?

US Government/Department of Defense/Department of the Navy/Office of Naval Research (ONR)

Their specific needs for Polywell are to:

power naval ships electric drive systems,
power directed energy weapons (Optical and Free Electron Lasers),
power electro-magnetic assisted launch systems (EMALS program),
power magnetic rail guns.

These are all active development programs with the drive systems and EMALS definitely being deployed, Solid State Optical Lasers probably being deployed and the Free Electron Laser/Magnetic Rail Guns possibly being deployed.

One of the biggest hurdles they have to overcome for the weapons systems is having enough spare ship power for continuous use/to power multiple instances of multiple weapons on the same ship.

So, Polywell's success is extremely important to them and the reason why it is being watched/shielded so carefully to ensure it doesn't become a target for the politicians play with.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:16 pm

Netmaker wrote:Their specific needs for Polywell are to:

power naval ships electric drive systems,
power directed energy weapons (Optical and Free Electron Lasers),
power electro-magnetic assisted launch systems (EMALS program),
power magnetic rail guns.

Really? I thought that such systems can work being fed from any type of power source.
Ladajo said "so happy - increased financing". From 2 missile to 2.5? As by my "internet driven knowledge" (that's true) one missile used by US Navy costs not less than 1-2 or more millions. Money spent on Polywell by Navy does not exceed as I know 7 millions. What "increased financing" mean?
How much?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:54 pm

Well Joseph, if you bothered to read any of the links and hisotry stuff we have spoon feed you lie a baby, you would know that the navy (ONR) has spent a whole lot more than $7 million on Polywell.

Also, the issue with the current upgrade plan for ship systems is that the ship designs do not support sufficient power density to run it all, and drive themselves around at speed. Polywell is a possible answer to the conundrum.

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:13 pm

Man I have to stop reading this thread, too now?

Why do you have to ruin my experience on this forum, Joe? I guess it's your job to insult people for no apparent reason.

Netmaker · Post by **Netmaker** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:49 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Netmaker wrote:Their specific needs for Polywell are to:

power naval ships electric drive systems,
power directed energy weapons (Optical and Free Electron Lasers),
power electro-magnetic assisted launch systems (EMALS program),
power magnetic rail guns.
Really? I thought that such systems can work being fed from any type of power source.
Ladajo said "so happy - increased financing". From 2 missile to 2.5? As by my "internet driven knowledge" (that's true) one missile used by US Navy costs not less than 1-2 or more millions. Money spent on Polywell by Navy does not exceed as I know 7 millions. What "increased financing" mean?
How much?

Such systems can be fed from any electrical power source that can fit on the ship and not compromise the ship's mission - ie it has to provide sufficient continuous power, not require large amounts of space for fuel storage (coal would be a poor power source for example), not drive the ship's production costs beyond what is acceptable, not sink the ship by weighing too much...

Yes, the amount of money being spent by the Navy on Polywell is pocket change for them. They are however spending what is needed and can be supported by the results/contract milestones. They do not want a repeat of the Pons & Fleischmann debacle by hyping it up.

Current Naval shipbuilding plans call for nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers and submarines where smaller class ships will be driven by gas turbine engines. The gas turbine engines are the issue with respect to not supplying sufficient power to meet the Navy's needs.

Success with the Polywell project will allow them to upgrade/replace the gas turbine power plants and obtain the additional electrical power for the new weapons systems. Absent that the new weapons systems either won't be built, will have their development schedule stretched out to reduce their power requirements or will be deployed at lower power ratings than are desired.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:40 pm

ladajo wrote:Also, the issue with the current upgrade plan for ship systems is that the ship designs do not support sufficient power density to run it all, and drive themselves around at speed. Polywell is a possible answer to the conundrum.

Is that their meaning? Or yours? As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker. But where is Polywell here? Has ONR's or any other serious organization's spokesman made any statement on Polywell? I see only your speculations. Sorry.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:51 pm

Yes Joseph, ONR has made comments about Polywell. Just not to you.

It would matter not to you if I said that the head of ONR, the Chief of Naval Research, has commented on Polywell or not. You would not believe it.

By the way, size has no real correllation to combat effectiveness or "strength".
I am really not sure what you mean or where you are trying to leap by saying:

everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker. But where is Polywell here?

I assure you that everyone does not know.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:13 pm

ladajo wrote:It would matter not to you if I said that the head of ONR, the Chief of Naval Research, has commented on Polywell or not. You would not believe it.

I am really interested. Can you provide the link?
Or that was a secret statement for narrow cicle? You, Kiteman and some others?

Netmaker · Post by **Netmaker** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:17 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Also, the issue with the current upgrade plan for ship systems is that the ship designs do not support sufficient power density to run it all, and drive themselves around at speed. Polywell is a possible answer to the conundrum.
Is that their meaning? Or yours? As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker. But where is Polywell here? Has ONR's or any other serious organization's spokesman made any statement on Polywell? I see only your speculations. Sorry.

As far as current ship designs not having sufficient power to drive the directed energy weapons and the magnetic rail gun to the degree the Navy desires, that is widely published information. The existing power plants and power plants for new design ships is widely published information. If you are ignorant of this information then it is your responsibility to become better informed. Should you choose not to become better informed, should you choose to remain willfully ignorant, then you are a disgrace to your Father who would expect much, much more from you.

You WILL take notice that I said "Polywell is a POSSIBLE answer to the conundrum". POSSIBLE as in Hypothetically. Do you not develop hypotheses? I care not whether you agree with a hypothesis that the Polywell is a POSSIBLE answer to the Navy's power conundrum but it is a valid hypothesis.

You WILL take notice that I said that the Navy was trying to avoid a recurrence of the Pons & Fleischmann debacle. That they were not looking to "hype" the project. You, Joseph Chikva, as a long time reader of this Forum are well aware of the non-disclosure agreements in place on this project. They have been mentioned numerous times. So no, there would be nobody speaking out publicly about this project.

"As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker." Absent context and specific references to what is smaller and stronger, what is bigger and weaker and why one is better than the other your statement, Joseph Chikva, is meaningless.

You see only my speculations and consequently you judge them with a "sorry".

I see Joseph Chikva as someone who wishes to close his mind to possibilities, to remain blind and ignorant and by willfully refusing to learn, by keeping his eyes closed, passes from ignorance into stupidity.

Is that the person you wish to be, Joseph?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:00 pm

Netmaker wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Also, the issue with the current upgrade plan for ship systems is that the ship designs do not support sufficient power density to run it all, and drive themselves around at speed. Polywell is a possible answer to the conundrum.
Is that their meaning? Or yours? As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker. But where is Polywell here? Has ONR's or any other serious organization's spokesman made any statement on Polywell? I see only your speculations. Sorry.
As far as current ship designs not having sufficient power to drive the directed energy weapons and the magnetic rail gun to the degree the Navy desires, that is widely published information. The existing power plants and power plants for new design ships is widely published information. If you are ignorant of this information then it is your responsibility to become better informed. Should you choose not to become better informed, should you choose to remain willfully ignorant, then you are a disgrace to your Father who would expect much, much more from you.

You WILL take notice that I said "Polywell is a POSSIBLE answer to the conundrum". POSSIBLE as in Hypothetically. Do you not develop hypotheses? I care not whether you agree with a hypothesis that the Polywell is a POSSIBLE answer to the Navy's power conundrum but it is a valid hypothesis.

You WILL take notice that I said that the Navy was trying to avoid a recurrence of the Pons & Fleischmann debacle. That they were not looking to "hype" the project. You, Joseph Chikva, as a long time reader of this Forum are well aware of the non-disclosure agreements in place on this project. They have been mentioned numerous times. So no, there would be nobody speaking out publicly about this project.

"As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker." Absent context and specific references to what is smaller and stronger, what is bigger and weaker and why one is better than the other your statement, Joseph Chikva, is meaningless.

You see only my speculations and consequently you judge them with a "sorry".

I see Joseph Chikva as someone who wishes to close his mind to possibilities, to remain blind and ignorant and by willfully refusing to learn, by keeping his eyes closed, passes from ignorance into stupidity.

Is that the person you wish to be, Joseph?

So, as I understand there is not such link where Navy's spokesman talks about Polywell.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:10 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:It would matter not to you if I said that the head of ONR, the Chief of Naval Research, has commented on Polywell or not. You would not believe it.
I am really interested. Can you provide the link?
Or that was a secret statement for narrow cicle? You, Kiteman and some others?

Well, I guess simply that you do not know the right people. Nor have you encouraged who you know to help you. I put what I know in the forum. I also put pointers so others can investigate on their own and provide critical commentary.

As far as I can tell Joseph, you do not encourage anyone with any "inside information" to share it with you. Really, your behavior tends to drive them away. If there is any "insider" stuff going on here, I will be bold enough to say you are not in the loop.

And, I say again, ONR has commented on Polywell. You just haven't noticed nor bothered to see where and how. Find it yourself if you are that interested.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:19 am

ladajo wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:It would matter not to you if I said that the head of ONR, the Chief of Naval Research, has commented on Polywell or not. You would not believe it.
I am really interested. Can you provide the link?
Or that was a secret statement for narrow cicle? You, Kiteman and some others?
Well, I guess simply that you do not know the right people. Nor have you encouraged who you know to help you. I put what I know in the forum. I also put pointers so others can investigate on their own and provide critical commentary.

As far as I can tell Joseph, you do not encourage anyone with any "inside information" to share it with you. Really, your behavior tends to drive them away. If there is any "insider" stuff going on here, I will be bold enough to say you are not in the loop.

And, I say again, ONR has commented on Polywell. You just haven't noticed nor bothered to see where and how. Find it yourself if you are that interested.

I guess that you are only the member of Polywell's promotional team. As your these words are very similar to Rossi's words about "secret and happy" US customer.

Netmaker · Post by **Netmaker** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:33 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Netmaker wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Is that their meaning? Or yours? As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker. But where is Polywell here? Has ONR's or any other serious organization's spokesman made any statement on Polywell? I see only your speculations. Sorry.
As far as current ship designs not having sufficient power to drive the directed energy weapons and the magnetic rail gun to the degree the Navy desires, that is widely published information. The existing power plants and power plants for new design ships is widely published information. If you are ignorant of this information then it is your responsibility to become better informed. Should you choose not to become better informed, should you choose to remain willfully ignorant, then you are a disgrace to your Father who would expect much, much more from you.

You WILL take notice that I said "Polywell is a POSSIBLE answer to the conundrum". POSSIBLE as in Hypothetically. Do you not develop hypotheses? I care not whether you agree with a hypothesis that the Polywell is a POSSIBLE answer to the Navy's power conundrum but it is a valid hypothesis.

You WILL take notice that I said that the Navy was trying to avoid a recurrence of the Pons & Fleischmann debacle. That they were not looking to "hype" the project. You, Joseph Chikva, as a long time reader of this Forum are well aware of the non-disclosure agreements in place on this project. They have been mentioned numerous times. So no, there would be nobody speaking out publicly about this project.

"As everyone knows that smaller and stronger better than bigger and weaker." Absent context and specific references to what is smaller and stronger, what is bigger and weaker and why one is better than the other your statement, Joseph Chikva, is meaningless.

You see only my speculations and consequently you judge them with a "sorry".

I see Joseph Chikva as someone who wishes to close his mind to possibilities, to remain blind and ignorant and by willfully refusing to learn, by keeping his eyes closed, passes from ignorance into stupidity.

Is that the person you wish to be, Joseph?
So, as I understand there is not such link where Navy's spokesman talks about Polywell.

No, As you SHOULD understand it you are willfully ignorant, unwilling to open your eyes and perform some simple searchs, a disgrace to your Father and family and no better than a stupid old woman.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009power/may6LTriola.pdf

Energy & National Security: An Exploration of
Threats, Solutions, and Alternative Futures
Larry C. Triola
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division
18444 Frontage Road, Building 1470
Suite 325, Dahlgren, VA 22448-5161
540-653-8903, larry.triola@navy.mil
Approved for Public Release October 9, 2008

Download the PDF, search on Polywell. There are 22 references.