Fusion Deception

[KitemanSA]

Ha! Joey decries the power of belief. That is a laugh!

[Joseph Chikva]

Ha! Joey decries the power of belief. That is a laugh!

No if you have something worth for embodiment. And he had not.

[ladajo]

Joseph,
Bussard never believed in Tokamak. He said so himself all along. It has been quoted often. He never said it would not "work" and eventually produce "net" power. He did maintain all along that it was not worth the expenditure of resources. The return on effort made is not worth it.

It is the quintiessential Gold Tower. It will use up all the gold, and then you have one. yeah. Then what?

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph,
Bussard never believed in Tokamak.

If so he intentionally did scam offering TOKAMAK and asking 150 millions from Penthouse magazine publisher. Recall that taking into account inflation that time 150 millions equal not less than today’s billion and may be much more. So, if you are right that was a big scam.
But I think that you are wrong he was not a scammer and at least in 70s he believed in TOKAMAK concept.

[krenshala]

Dredging up an older post, but I've been catching up today ...

It may not work out, but it's silly to dismiss Polywell on the basis of long-known problems with IEC.

Did Polywell concept not have 7 or 8 generation of already built machines?

Um ... you appear to have a problem with the fact that the Polywell concept has grown up over 7 or 8 generations of devices. Why do you feel that is a problem?

Hasn't the tokamak gone through many more generations in a timeframe not much longer? Counting only those devices listed on the wiki page, and including "planned" devices (e.g., ITER and DEMO), I count 43 separate tokamak versions. The oldest is listed as 1963, and I'm pretty sure I remember that the design is older still, so there are more versions (generations) that aren't listed here.

For the Polywell, Bussard started in 1983 and we have the WB1-6 devices, WB7, the one (two?) worked up by Famulus, the Sydny Experiment, and the one in Iran. Thats 10 to 12 versions (generations) for the Polywell. 29 years for 12 versions (Polywell) versus 49 years for 43 versions (Tokamak).

I agree, the study of tokamaks is good science. I just don't think it should be the only fusion science. Especially since it is at least as far, if not farther, from being a production device as any other fusion concept.

[ladajo]

Joseph,
Bussard never believed in Tokamak.

If so he intentionally did scam offering TOKAMAK and asking 150 millions from Penthouse magazine publisher. Recall that taking into account inflation that time 150 millions equal not less than today’s billion and may be much more. So, if you are right that was a big scam.
But I think that you are wrong he was not a scammer and at least in 70s he believed in TOKAMAK concept.

Bussard was seeking in Riggatron a way to control costs for a Tokamak based device. It was never built. As for your blatant charge based on irregular (at best) reasoning that includes a couple of MAJOR false leaps. I would say you are completely out to lunch to say Bussard was "intentionally did scam offering TOKAMAK and asking 150 millions."

I think you are missing the point that Bussard, in knowing Tokamak as concieved was never going to be economically viable, he has seeking a potential way to reconceive it along possible economically viable lines with the Riggatron concept. Are you too stupid to see that?

Bussard has many quotes, all along, as well as official corrospondance saying Tokamak, while great science, would never be cost effective. So far he has been proven exactly correct. If you see a cost effective end to Tokamak, then you are the only one on the planet. Good luck with that.

I can levitate a city in Japan and make it earthquake proof. It is going to be expensive though...what do you think? Let's do it!!!

What are you trying to argue Joseph? You stopped making sense on this a long time ago.

[Joseph Chikva]

Dredging up an older post, but I've been catching up today ...

It may not work out, but it's silly to dismiss Polywell on the basis of long-known problems with IEC.

Did Polywell concept not have 7 or 8 generation of already built machines?

Um ... you appear to have a problem with the fact that the Polywell concept has grown up over 7 or 8 generations of devices. Why do you feel that is a problem?

Hasn't the tokamak gone through many more generations in a timeframe not much longer? Counting only those devices listed on the wiki page, and including "planned" devices (e.g., ITER and DEMO), I count 43 separate tokamak versions. The oldest is listed as 1963, and I'm pretty sure I remember that the design is older still, so there are more versions (generations) that aren't listed here.

For the Polywell, Bussard started in 1983 and we have the WB1-6 devices, WB7, the one (two?) worked up by Famulus, the Sydny Experiment, and the one in Iran. Thats 10 to 12 versions (generations) for the Polywell. 29 years for 12 versions (Polywell) versus 49 years for 43 versions (Tokamak).

I agree, the study of tokamaks is good science. I just don't think it should be the only fusion science. Especially since it is at least as far, if not farther, from being a production device as any other fusion concept.

43 ? versions with proved scaling law (real science) and 7 or 8 versions with no scaling (only promises).

Edited: I answered on your post above but only now I've seen why I mentioned 7 or 8 generations of Polywell.
Answering on TallDave's "It may not work out, but it's silly to dismiss Polywell on the basis of long-known problems with IEC." I meant that nobody recalls long-known problems with other IECs as Polywell has its own history with 7 or 8 generations machines built. So, Polywell's problems hiden as long as first Polywell was built and nobody dismisses that because of others concepts. As its problems also well seen.

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph,
Bussard never believed in Tokamak.

If so he intentionally did scam offering TOKAMAK and asking 150 millions from Penthouse magazine publisher. Recall that taking into account inflation that time 150 millions equal not less than today’s billion and may be much more. So, if you are right that was a big scam.
But I think that you are wrong he was not a scammer and at least in 70s he believed in TOKAMAK concept.

Bussard was seeking in Riggatron a way to control costs for a Tokamak based device. It was never built. As for your blatant charge based on irregular (at best) reasoning that includes a couple of MAJOR false leaps. I would say you are completely out to lunch to say Bussard was "intentionally did scam offering TOKAMAK and asking 150 millions."

I think you are missing the point that Bussard, in knowing Tokamak as concieved was never going to be economically viable, he has seeking a potential way to reconceive it along possible economically viable lines with the Riggatron concept. Are you too stupid to see that?

Bussard has many quotes, all along, as well as official corrospondance saying Tokamak, while great science, would never be cost effective. So far he has been proven exactly correct. If you see a cost effective end to Tokamak, then you are the only one on the planet. Good luck with that.

I can levitate a city in Japan and make it earthquake proof. It is going to be expensive though...what do you think? Let's do it!!!

What are you trying to argue Joseph? You stopped making sense on this a long time ago.

Cost effectiveness of very expensive but viable technology in comparison with cheap but unviable is uncountable.

And it is less interesting to me real Dr. Bussard's intentions when he asked money Mr. Gucchioni. The fact is only one - he asked money for building of TOKAMAK. And person paying money after that should become on 150 millions more poorly.

[ladajo]

Well, I guess it is a good thing then that Bob did not give Bussard $150 million. But I guess you missed that as well.

In any event that is not the point.

No Joseph, your statement again is completely out to lunch.

Cost effectiveness of very expensive but viable technology in comparison with cheap but unviable is uncountable.

First consider what reasoning and definition you use to think that Tokamak is to be considered viable? As I said, it is viable that I can levitate a city to protect it from earthquakes. It will be ungodly expensive, but is it cost effective? Viable in this context is not about if it works. It is about the utililty of the expense of doing it. I think the concept of "Cost - Benefit" is beyond you to some degree.
I would also argue that one does not knowingly spend money on even "cheap" things if they know they will not work. However, in some cases, that action is taken because it can present a derived benefit for something else.
Will we learn useful stuff from building ITER? Yes.
Will we mass produce ITER derivatives as commercial power plants? No.
Will we build even one "commercial" tokamak? Probably not. It would never be able to pay for itself.
Is it possible we may one day figure out how to build much cheaper Tokamaks that can produce net power at a viable cost? No. Not given what we know today about Tokamaks and how to make them work.
Are there other technologies that are cheaper and less resource intensive than Tokamak that may produce net power from fusion? Yes. There are a number of efforts that, given magnitudes less expenditure than ITER and Tokamak, may yet prove out. None of these as of yet have been proven as dead-ends. In fact, if one were to stop ITER and re-allocate those resources to these other efforts, it is entirely feasible to think that they would prove out an answer (yes or no) for much less money and effort than what would be used to take ITER to completion. And there yet remains a decent chance that they will succeed. The proven dead-ends have been left behind. That is what science is about. Learn from mistakes and successes.
So in closing, we have allowed most of the fusion resource eggs to be placed in the ITER basket, fully knowing that it will never manifest as an economically viable commercial result. What it will do is employ a metric butt ton of folks in careers that will reward pretty much only them. I love to see public money spent for the benefit of few.

Edit: Fixed some typos in case Joseph Google Translates.

[Skipjack]

Well, I guess it is a good thing then that Bob did not give Bussard $150 million. But I guess you missed that as well.

In any event that is not the point.

No Joseph, you statement again is completely out to lunch.

Cost effectiveness of very expensive but viable technology in comparison with cheap but unviable is uncountable.

First consider what reasoning and definition you use to think that Tokamak is to be considered viable? As I said, it is viable that I can levitate a city to protect it from earthquakes. It will be ungodly expensive, but is it cost effective? Viable in this context is not about if it works. It is about the utililty of the expense of doing it. I think the concept of "Cost - Benefit" is beyond you to some degree.
I would also argue that one does not knowingly spend money on even "cheap" things if they know they will not work. However, in some cases, that action is taken because it can present a derived benefit for something else.
Will we learn useful stuff from building ITER? Yes.
Will be mass produce ITER derivatives as commercial power plants? No.
Will we build even one "commercial" tokamak? Probably not. It would never be able to pay for itself.
Is it possible we may one day figure out how to build much cheaper Tokamaks that can produce net power at a viable cost? No. Not given what we know today about Tokamaks and how to make them work.
Are there other technologies that are cheaper and less resource intensive than Tokamak that may produce net power from fusion? Yes. There are a number of efforts that, given magnitudes less expediture than ITER and Tokamak that may yet prove out. None of these as of yet have been proven as dead-ends. In fact, if one were to stop ITER and re-allocate those resources to these other efforts, it is entirely feasible to think that they would prove out an answer (yes or no) for much less money and effort than what would be used to take ITER to completion. And there yet remains a decent chance that they will succeed. The proven dead-ends have been left behind. That is what science is about. Learn from mistakes and successes.
So in closing, we have allowed most of the fusion resource eggs to be placed in the ITER basket, fully knowing that it will never manifest as an economically viable commercial result. What it will do is emply a metric butt ton of folks in careers that will reward pretty much only them. I love to see public money spent for the benefit of few.

Agreed!

[Joseph Chikva]

Well, I guess it is a good thing then that Bob did not give Bussard $150 million. But I guess you missed that as well.

In any event that is not the point.

No Joseph, you statement again is completely out to lunch.

Cost effectiveness of very expensive but viable technology in comparison with cheap but unviable is uncountable.

First consider what reasoning and definition you use to think that Tokamak is to be considered viable? As I said, it is viable that I can levitate a city to protect it from earthquakes. It will be ungodly expensive, but is it cost effective? Viable in this context is not about if it works. It is about the utililty of the expense of doing it. I think the concept of "Cost - Benefit" is beyond you to some degree.
I would also argue that one does not knowingly spend money on even "cheap" things if they know they will not work. However, in some cases, that action is taken because it can present a derived benefit for something else.
Will we learn useful stuff from building ITER? Yes.
Will be mass produce ITER derivatives as commercial power plants? No.
Will we build even one "commercial" tokamak? Probably not. It would never be able to pay for itself.
Is it possible we may one day figure out how to build much cheaper Tokamaks that can produce net power at a viable cost? No. Not given what we know today about Tokamaks and how to make them work.
Are there other technologies that are cheaper and less resource intensive than Tokamak that may produce net power from fusion? Yes. There are a number of efforts that, given magnitudes less expediture than ITER and Tokamak that may yet prove out. None of these as of yet have been proven as dead-ends. In fact, if one were to stop ITER and re-allocate those resources to these other efforts, it is entirely feasible to think that they would prove out an answer (yes or no) for much less money and effort than what would be used to take ITER to completion. And there yet remains a decent chance that they will succeed. The proven dead-ends have been left behind. That is what science is about. Learn from mistakes and successes.
So in closing, we have allowed most of the fusion resource eggs to be placed in the ITER basket, fully knowing that it will never manifest as an economically viable commercial result. What it will do is emply a metric butt ton of folks in careers that will reward pretty much only them. I love to see public money spent for the benefit of few.

For the person stating that Polywell is not beam machine and so that can not suffer two-stream instability you afford very courageous judgments. Sorry, but you have not enough skill for this.
As recall for example that then during one discussion it appears that Dr. Nebel wrote an article investigating electro-electron two stream instability. And only this fact should assure you that Polywell is a beam-plasma machine.
You advocating one fusion approach and person invented that? Ok. That's your right. But people knowing plasma physics better than you (DOE people for example who really are responsible people in this field ) state that another approach is more attractive. Even if you hate that approach.

[TDPerk]

Really folks, he is too emotionally involved to ever get the point you are trying to make. Don't waste your time.

Something I cannot conceive of, is how no one yet has made the joke--a la Pavel Andreievich Chekov--that Chivka is so enthusiastic for the Tokomak because, "it is Russian inwention".

Maybe they did and I missed it.

[Joseph Chikva]

Really folks, he is too emotionally involved to ever get the point you are trying to make. Don't waste your time.

Something I cannot conceive of, is how no one yet has made the joke--a la Pavel Andreievich Chekov--that Chivka is so enthusiastic for the Tokomak because, "it is Russian inwention".

I am not Russian. And we since 1992 to 2008 we had three war with Russian as result we lost 20% of our territory and 500 thousands people are refugees.
So, your argument is wrong.

In case of enough skill of my opponents we can talk about problems of TOKAMAK and other approaches. With no need of mention of Chekhov or Dostoevsky.

[quixote]

With no need of mention of Chekhov or Dostoevsky.

I can't tell if that's wit too subtle for me to recognize, but just in case it's not, he means this Russian caricature.

[Joseph Chikva]

With no need of mention of Chekhov or Dostoevsky.

I can't tell if that's wit too subtle for me to recognize, but just in case it's not, he means this Russian caricature.

Thanks.
I didn't pay attention on name but only to a surname and thought that he meant this writer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov

Also there is Anfisa Chehova http://www.jpgs.ru/persons/presenters/a ... p1152.html - by the way, now the wife of my fellow countryman Guram Bablishvili.