after a long drought of news, the sleeper awakens...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKInjO4aXOY&t=1094s
youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
Old guys throwing down on new guys. Things just got interesting again.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
Copy and pasting the comment here to preserve for posterity:
I work with Dr. Nick Krall and he asked me to post this as he's not a user of social media.
In his video, Matthew Moynihan claimed to have spent 7 years investigating Polywell, and he has concluded that it will not work. This premise serves as the basis of his talk. However, having dedicated the last 30 years to studying Polywell and publishing a few papers on the subject, I am prepared to refute his statement. To prove it work, I believe we still have a significant amount of work ahead. However, nothing that has been done to date has proven that it will not work.
Before delving into the specifics, I would like to comment briefly on his depiction of the Polywell device WB-8 ( 2013 ). The image he presented is not, in fact, of the WB-8 device. The image Moynihan referenced is actually a photo of a smaller device known as the high beta cusp test device used for the experiments published in 2015 PRX paper - the reference is given below. This is one of many errors described in his Polywell concept discussion.
The first aspect of Moynihan's criticism that I would like to address is his discussion of the "quasi-neutral assumptions" regarding the heating mechanism. While I understand his perspective, I believe his criticism overlooks a critical point that is fundamental to both plasma physics and Polywell. The assumption of quasi-neutrality does not preclude the formation of a potential well. For example, in the derivation of plasma sheath and Bohm sheath criteria, which can be found in Chapter 8 of Francis F. Chen's plasma textbook, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, quasi-neutrality removes any static applied voltage from the plasma, but a non-zero electric field is still present over the length scale on the order of the system size, with a potential difference of e*phi/kite ( where e is the Coulomb constant, phi is the potential difference, k is the Boltzmann coefficient, and Te is the electron temperature ). In other words, there is no plasma theory that suggests quasi-neutrality would prevent the formation of a potential well on the order of the electron temperature. While I concur with Moynihan that it is impossible to form a 10 kV potential well when the electron temperature is only 1 eV, I would like to urge him to provide references or calculations demonstrating that a 10 kV potential well cannot form due to quasi-neutrality when the average kinetic energy of electrons is 10-20 keV. Despite my 60 years of research in plasma physics, I am not familiar with any such results and would welcome the opportunity to learn from him.
I was the first author of the EMC2 paper detailing our ability to create an 8,000 volt potential well in 1995 ( Physics of Plasmas 2, 146 ( 1995 ); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871103 ). I conducted a comprehensive analysis that explained why the potential well eventually collapsed. This collapse occurred because, at the time, our experiment could not regulate the neutral gas density infiltrating the central region of the potential well. However, if the plasma density had been high enough, on the order of 10^20/m^3 or higher ( a necessary plasma density for fusion reactors ), the penetration of neutral gas to the reactor's center could have been prevented. The low plasma density in the experiment was due to our inability to generate high-density, high-pressure plasma that could modify the magnetic field in the cusp from plasma diamagnetism in 1995. At low plasma pressure ( or low beta ), energetic electrons ( note that a 10 keV electron in the system is required to form a 5-10 keV potential well for fusion ) are not well confined in the cusp system. This phenomenon has been recognized since the 1950s by Grad and his team at NYU. Therefore, it is no surprise that we were unable to produce high-density plasma from a 10 keV electron beam injection in 1995.
Subsequently, I was thrilled when the EMC2 team was finally able to generate high beta ( beta ~ 1 ) plasma and demonstrate the enhanced confinement of energetic electrons ( 8 keV beam electrons ) in the Polywell test device in 2013. Their experimental work underwent a rigorous review process, with four reviewers, and was published in the open-source journal Physical Review X in 2015. EMC2 chose to publish the paper in an open-source journal so that anyone could read it. If you would like to read the paper, you can find the link here: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.021024.
In contrast, the University of Sydney team operated their magnetic cusp system in a similar manner to our 1995 paper, with low plasma pressure, and therefore it was not surprising that the injected electrons did not exhibit good confinement properties. The 2015 paper clearly states that high plasma pressure is crucial in order to have any chance of achieving fusion. Failing to heed the lessons of others in science can be costly. Nonetheless, in my opinion, he did not adequately follow the advice outlined in the 2015 paper, so the lack of success is not surprising. The same applies to Matt’s criticism that does not incorporate our findings in 2015 paper. As such, his criticism has no validity.
When I read through a paper titled "Electric potential in a magnetically confined virtual cathode fusion device" by Richard Bowden-Reid ( Ph.D. student mentioned by Matt ) and Joe Khachan, published in Physics of Plasmas in 2021, I found their analysis flawed. Although the paper presented good agreement between experimental data and theoretical results, such as in figures 8 and 9 compared to figures 12 and 13, I found that the gas pressure values differed by a factor of 10,000 between the two sets of results. Additionally, I noticed that the paper showed a potential hill, where the potential at the center is higher than the potential at the edge, in figures 8, 9, 12, and 13. However, the Polywell fusion concept relies on a potential well where the potential in the center is lower than the potential at the edge. Therefore, I am afraid that their analysis has no relevance to Polywell fusion.
Another criticism raised by Matt is that the Polywell magnet design creates significant forces that require an impractical structural support system. In the WB-8 experiments, EMC2 estimated that the coil mount system needed to handle a 24,000-pound force ( or 10 metric tons ) when the coil operated at 6.5 kG and appropriately designed the experimental system to handle that level of force. For a Polywell fusion reactor operating at 3-5 T, this force would increase by almost a factor of 100, requiring a structural support system capable of handling 1,000 metric tons of force. While this is a large force, it is not beyond the capabilities of modern fusion technology. In fact, the central solenoid, a small magnet segment in the center of ITER device, is expected to handle 6,000 tons of force in a compact package. https://www.iter.org/mach/Magnets
Therefore, Matt’s belief that the Polywell magnet design represents a critical flaw in the development of this fusion technology is incorrect.
In the video, Matt somehow claims that stagnant plasma is rarely ( if eve r ) diamagnetic. I am afraid that he is completely mistaken here. Plasma, whether stagnant or dynamic, has a fundamental property of diamagnetism. Diamagnetism is a property of materials that describes their ability to create a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field. This is a result of the motion of electrons in the material in response to the applied field. In the case of plasma, the charged particles ( electrons and ions ) in the plasma respond to the applied magnetic field in a way that creates a magnetic field that opposes the applied field, resulting in diamagnetism. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that stagnant plasma is rarely or never diamagnetic. It is a fundamental property of plasma that has been observed and studied extensively in plasma physics.
It's important for scientists to back up their claims with evidence and not rely on personal beliefs. Diamagnetism is a fundamental property of plasma, and it is not up for debate. Any claim that stagnant plasma is rarely or never diamagnetic needs to be supported by experimental results or theoretical calculations. So, his claim should not be taken seriously in scientific discussions.
By the way, the EMC2 team collaborated with scientists from KU Leuven to publish a peer-reviewed paper in 2019, detailing their extensive theoretical calculations that required millions of CPU hours. The paper can be accessed at this link: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00074/full. Note that this publication is in an open-source journal, making it accessible to anyone interested in reading it. In the paper, EMC2 provides a comprehensive explanation of how the high-beta boundary physics works, a topic that is not only relevant to Polywell fusion but also to Earth's magnetosphere as it helps to protect us from solar storms. The calculations presented in the paper are based on hard data and state-of-the-art computer simulations that are suitable for modeling the non-linear nature of plasma physics.
In one of his slides, Matt pointed out a few follow-up questions. EMC2 will review them and address them accordingly. In fact, EMC2 has described its own set of good follow-up questions in a few papers and lectures published as future works. However, it is not clear to me why he then raised the issue of publishing in peer-reviewed journals as the only way to do science. EMC2 has made significant efforts to publish its key scientific findings from the US Navy works in the past when possible. It is unfortunate that the lessons learned were not well heeded, as was the case with the University of Sydney's work. It is not EMC2's fault.
Finally, here is my response to his summary page at the end of his video:
1. The statement that heating mechanism fails because you cannot concentrate negative charge is simply not true.
2. The claim that the cusp confinement trap is not based on robust data is also untrue. See our 2015 and 2019 papers for such data.
3. The statement that arbitrarily scaling up the magnetics cannot improve performance is not true. In fact, if EMC2's current projection is correct, it expects to produce fusion energy by operating its magnets between 3-5 Tesla, which is significantly lower than all tokamak devices.
4. The statement, "because you cannot heat continuously, plasma gets too cold to fuse," is completely mistaken. In most, if not all, fusion devices, the reactor operates with heating systems such as neutral beam injection and rf wave heating for ITER. In Polywell, we also have a plan to operate the reactor with similar methods to maintain a potential well and plasma temperature.
5. Matt has made a claim that diamagnetic effect might prohibit your ability to inject fresh plasma. I am afraid his understanding of plasma diamagnetism is flawed, and I am not following his argument here.
6. The claim that embedding magnets drives up energy loss via plasma striking metal is not accurate. EMC2’s Polywell device design moved away from having metal surfaces intercepting magnetic fields starting from WB-8. It is noted that, all fusion devices, including tokamak, have specially designed plasma-facing components ( PFC ) that can handle the heat flux from plasma particle striking the device. Due to its natural divertor configuration of magnetic fields in Polywell, the materials challenge of PFC will be significantly less problematic compared to tokamaks.
7. There are plasma instabilities ( interchange, etc. ) that form when you have a dense plasma next to a vacuum. We all know that. So, it is entirely possible Polywell may experience some form of plasma instabilities though my understanding is it is much less likely to suffer from plasma instabilities compared to tokamaks and magnetic mirrors due to its unique magnetic field structure. However, I think he can improve his understanding of interchange instability by reading my plasma physics textbook ( Principles of Plasma Physics, by Krall and Trivelpiece ). I guarantee that the Polywell device will not suffer from interchange instability due to its good magnetic field curvature, a fact recognized by Jim Tuck of Los Alamos in the late 1950s. See his Nature paper in 1960. ( https://www.nature.com/articles/187863a0 ).
I am hoping this note corrects many errors and misconceptions which are sadly being distributed by Matt’s video. By the way, I am only 91 years old – which Matt could have found out by doing a quick google search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Krall
I play golf frequently and occasionally beat my age. I also play bridge in a competitive setting and solve physics problems to make progress in fusion research.
I work with Dr. Nick Krall and he asked me to post this as he's not a user of social media.
In his video, Matthew Moynihan claimed to have spent 7 years investigating Polywell, and he has concluded that it will not work. This premise serves as the basis of his talk. However, having dedicated the last 30 years to studying Polywell and publishing a few papers on the subject, I am prepared to refute his statement. To prove it work, I believe we still have a significant amount of work ahead. However, nothing that has been done to date has proven that it will not work.
Before delving into the specifics, I would like to comment briefly on his depiction of the Polywell device WB-8 ( 2013 ). The image he presented is not, in fact, of the WB-8 device. The image Moynihan referenced is actually a photo of a smaller device known as the high beta cusp test device used for the experiments published in 2015 PRX paper - the reference is given below. This is one of many errors described in his Polywell concept discussion.
The first aspect of Moynihan's criticism that I would like to address is his discussion of the "quasi-neutral assumptions" regarding the heating mechanism. While I understand his perspective, I believe his criticism overlooks a critical point that is fundamental to both plasma physics and Polywell. The assumption of quasi-neutrality does not preclude the formation of a potential well. For example, in the derivation of plasma sheath and Bohm sheath criteria, which can be found in Chapter 8 of Francis F. Chen's plasma textbook, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, quasi-neutrality removes any static applied voltage from the plasma, but a non-zero electric field is still present over the length scale on the order of the system size, with a potential difference of e*phi/kite ( where e is the Coulomb constant, phi is the potential difference, k is the Boltzmann coefficient, and Te is the electron temperature ). In other words, there is no plasma theory that suggests quasi-neutrality would prevent the formation of a potential well on the order of the electron temperature. While I concur with Moynihan that it is impossible to form a 10 kV potential well when the electron temperature is only 1 eV, I would like to urge him to provide references or calculations demonstrating that a 10 kV potential well cannot form due to quasi-neutrality when the average kinetic energy of electrons is 10-20 keV. Despite my 60 years of research in plasma physics, I am not familiar with any such results and would welcome the opportunity to learn from him.
I was the first author of the EMC2 paper detailing our ability to create an 8,000 volt potential well in 1995 ( Physics of Plasmas 2, 146 ( 1995 ); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871103 ). I conducted a comprehensive analysis that explained why the potential well eventually collapsed. This collapse occurred because, at the time, our experiment could not regulate the neutral gas density infiltrating the central region of the potential well. However, if the plasma density had been high enough, on the order of 10^20/m^3 or higher ( a necessary plasma density for fusion reactors ), the penetration of neutral gas to the reactor's center could have been prevented. The low plasma density in the experiment was due to our inability to generate high-density, high-pressure plasma that could modify the magnetic field in the cusp from plasma diamagnetism in 1995. At low plasma pressure ( or low beta ), energetic electrons ( note that a 10 keV electron in the system is required to form a 5-10 keV potential well for fusion ) are not well confined in the cusp system. This phenomenon has been recognized since the 1950s by Grad and his team at NYU. Therefore, it is no surprise that we were unable to produce high-density plasma from a 10 keV electron beam injection in 1995.
Subsequently, I was thrilled when the EMC2 team was finally able to generate high beta ( beta ~ 1 ) plasma and demonstrate the enhanced confinement of energetic electrons ( 8 keV beam electrons ) in the Polywell test device in 2013. Their experimental work underwent a rigorous review process, with four reviewers, and was published in the open-source journal Physical Review X in 2015. EMC2 chose to publish the paper in an open-source journal so that anyone could read it. If you would like to read the paper, you can find the link here: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.021024.
In contrast, the University of Sydney team operated their magnetic cusp system in a similar manner to our 1995 paper, with low plasma pressure, and therefore it was not surprising that the injected electrons did not exhibit good confinement properties. The 2015 paper clearly states that high plasma pressure is crucial in order to have any chance of achieving fusion. Failing to heed the lessons of others in science can be costly. Nonetheless, in my opinion, he did not adequately follow the advice outlined in the 2015 paper, so the lack of success is not surprising. The same applies to Matt’s criticism that does not incorporate our findings in 2015 paper. As such, his criticism has no validity.
When I read through a paper titled "Electric potential in a magnetically confined virtual cathode fusion device" by Richard Bowden-Reid ( Ph.D. student mentioned by Matt ) and Joe Khachan, published in Physics of Plasmas in 2021, I found their analysis flawed. Although the paper presented good agreement between experimental data and theoretical results, such as in figures 8 and 9 compared to figures 12 and 13, I found that the gas pressure values differed by a factor of 10,000 between the two sets of results. Additionally, I noticed that the paper showed a potential hill, where the potential at the center is higher than the potential at the edge, in figures 8, 9, 12, and 13. However, the Polywell fusion concept relies on a potential well where the potential in the center is lower than the potential at the edge. Therefore, I am afraid that their analysis has no relevance to Polywell fusion.
Another criticism raised by Matt is that the Polywell magnet design creates significant forces that require an impractical structural support system. In the WB-8 experiments, EMC2 estimated that the coil mount system needed to handle a 24,000-pound force ( or 10 metric tons ) when the coil operated at 6.5 kG and appropriately designed the experimental system to handle that level of force. For a Polywell fusion reactor operating at 3-5 T, this force would increase by almost a factor of 100, requiring a structural support system capable of handling 1,000 metric tons of force. While this is a large force, it is not beyond the capabilities of modern fusion technology. In fact, the central solenoid, a small magnet segment in the center of ITER device, is expected to handle 6,000 tons of force in a compact package. https://www.iter.org/mach/Magnets
Therefore, Matt’s belief that the Polywell magnet design represents a critical flaw in the development of this fusion technology is incorrect.
In the video, Matt somehow claims that stagnant plasma is rarely ( if eve r ) diamagnetic. I am afraid that he is completely mistaken here. Plasma, whether stagnant or dynamic, has a fundamental property of diamagnetism. Diamagnetism is a property of materials that describes their ability to create a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field. This is a result of the motion of electrons in the material in response to the applied field. In the case of plasma, the charged particles ( electrons and ions ) in the plasma respond to the applied magnetic field in a way that creates a magnetic field that opposes the applied field, resulting in diamagnetism. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that stagnant plasma is rarely or never diamagnetic. It is a fundamental property of plasma that has been observed and studied extensively in plasma physics.
It's important for scientists to back up their claims with evidence and not rely on personal beliefs. Diamagnetism is a fundamental property of plasma, and it is not up for debate. Any claim that stagnant plasma is rarely or never diamagnetic needs to be supported by experimental results or theoretical calculations. So, his claim should not be taken seriously in scientific discussions.
By the way, the EMC2 team collaborated with scientists from KU Leuven to publish a peer-reviewed paper in 2019, detailing their extensive theoretical calculations that required millions of CPU hours. The paper can be accessed at this link: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00074/full. Note that this publication is in an open-source journal, making it accessible to anyone interested in reading it. In the paper, EMC2 provides a comprehensive explanation of how the high-beta boundary physics works, a topic that is not only relevant to Polywell fusion but also to Earth's magnetosphere as it helps to protect us from solar storms. The calculations presented in the paper are based on hard data and state-of-the-art computer simulations that are suitable for modeling the non-linear nature of plasma physics.
In one of his slides, Matt pointed out a few follow-up questions. EMC2 will review them and address them accordingly. In fact, EMC2 has described its own set of good follow-up questions in a few papers and lectures published as future works. However, it is not clear to me why he then raised the issue of publishing in peer-reviewed journals as the only way to do science. EMC2 has made significant efforts to publish its key scientific findings from the US Navy works in the past when possible. It is unfortunate that the lessons learned were not well heeded, as was the case with the University of Sydney's work. It is not EMC2's fault.
Finally, here is my response to his summary page at the end of his video:
1. The statement that heating mechanism fails because you cannot concentrate negative charge is simply not true.
2. The claim that the cusp confinement trap is not based on robust data is also untrue. See our 2015 and 2019 papers for such data.
3. The statement that arbitrarily scaling up the magnetics cannot improve performance is not true. In fact, if EMC2's current projection is correct, it expects to produce fusion energy by operating its magnets between 3-5 Tesla, which is significantly lower than all tokamak devices.
4. The statement, "because you cannot heat continuously, plasma gets too cold to fuse," is completely mistaken. In most, if not all, fusion devices, the reactor operates with heating systems such as neutral beam injection and rf wave heating for ITER. In Polywell, we also have a plan to operate the reactor with similar methods to maintain a potential well and plasma temperature.
5. Matt has made a claim that diamagnetic effect might prohibit your ability to inject fresh plasma. I am afraid his understanding of plasma diamagnetism is flawed, and I am not following his argument here.
6. The claim that embedding magnets drives up energy loss via plasma striking metal is not accurate. EMC2’s Polywell device design moved away from having metal surfaces intercepting magnetic fields starting from WB-8. It is noted that, all fusion devices, including tokamak, have specially designed plasma-facing components ( PFC ) that can handle the heat flux from plasma particle striking the device. Due to its natural divertor configuration of magnetic fields in Polywell, the materials challenge of PFC will be significantly less problematic compared to tokamaks.
7. There are plasma instabilities ( interchange, etc. ) that form when you have a dense plasma next to a vacuum. We all know that. So, it is entirely possible Polywell may experience some form of plasma instabilities though my understanding is it is much less likely to suffer from plasma instabilities compared to tokamaks and magnetic mirrors due to its unique magnetic field structure. However, I think he can improve his understanding of interchange instability by reading my plasma physics textbook ( Principles of Plasma Physics, by Krall and Trivelpiece ). I guarantee that the Polywell device will not suffer from interchange instability due to its good magnetic field curvature, a fact recognized by Jim Tuck of Los Alamos in the late 1950s. See his Nature paper in 1960. ( https://www.nature.com/articles/187863a0 ).
I am hoping this note corrects many errors and misconceptions which are sadly being distributed by Matt’s video. By the way, I am only 91 years old – which Matt could have found out by doing a quick google search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Krall
I play golf frequently and occasionally beat my age. I also play bridge in a competitive setting and solve physics problems to make progress in fusion research.
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
I am not really sure why he had the need to come out with such a video.
It seems just a collection of hypothesis and half right/half wrong assumptions stick together to fill 30 mins of a video.
But what really makes me really wonder is that he has been part of this board since the start (mattman) and he could have easily found out those issues by simply reading the posts going on here....
It seems just a collection of hypothesis and half right/half wrong assumptions stick together to fill 30 mins of a video.
But what really makes me really wonder is that he has been part of this board since the start (mattman) and he could have easily found out those issues by simply reading the posts going on here....
A society of dogmas is a dead society.
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
For clout
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
It does seem a bit fishy this guy drops out of nowhere with the critique.
I was really glad to see Nick Krall's dismantling of the critique. It was also funny to see the rebuttal to Nick essentially being "well, do these tests/answer these questions and maybe Polywell isn't what I said."
This whole thing really read like someone who is on the outside really wants to be on the inside. IP protection can be a funny animal, and I am sure that EMC2 has been in some interesting places in that regard over these last years. The snippets regarding Simulation progress surely indicate they haven't been idle. Plus, these days, burning electrons is way cheaper then burning metal in pursuit of development. If you have good data and validation, you can move way faster with a Sim based approach than bending metal. Just look at how defense contractors and aviation are doing things these days compared to past practice. Even the navy has looked / tried to use Sim based shock testing to replace aspects of physical tests.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, Matt Moynihan may think he is 'all that' for particle physics, however he showed he really isn't with core gaps, as noted by Nick Krall, in the counter. Then Matt folds, and says release more data while completely ignoring his errors.
I was really glad to see Nick Krall's dismantling of the critique. It was also funny to see the rebuttal to Nick essentially being "well, do these tests/answer these questions and maybe Polywell isn't what I said."
This whole thing really read like someone who is on the outside really wants to be on the inside. IP protection can be a funny animal, and I am sure that EMC2 has been in some interesting places in that regard over these last years. The snippets regarding Simulation progress surely indicate they haven't been idle. Plus, these days, burning electrons is way cheaper then burning metal in pursuit of development. If you have good data and validation, you can move way faster with a Sim based approach than bending metal. Just look at how defense contractors and aviation are doing things these days compared to past practice. Even the navy has looked / tried to use Sim based shock testing to replace aspects of physical tests.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, Matt Moynihan may think he is 'all that' for particle physics, however he showed he really isn't with core gaps, as noted by Nick Krall, in the counter. Then Matt folds, and says release more data while completely ignoring his errors.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
Yes, I get suspicious with coincidences. Perhaps he was fishing for news?
I was disappointed when Polywell seemed to die after the paper came out that the cusps would close off with higher pressure, implying jump starting was needed, then computer sim work on improved modeling was performed. Then silence for years indicated perhaps bad news, but nothing was disclosed. (my memory of history)
Now this news. Still, money has not been committed.
The good news for fusion is that there are many projects that are on the verge of success announcements on Q>1 (science, even engineering).
I was disappointed when Polywell seemed to die after the paper came out that the cusps would close off with higher pressure, implying jump starting was needed, then computer sim work on improved modeling was performed. Then silence for years indicated perhaps bad news, but nothing was disclosed. (my memory of history)
Now this news. Still, money has not been committed.
The good news for fusion is that there are many projects that are on the verge of success announcements on Q>1 (science, even engineering).
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
Yes, suspicious indeed. It is almost like he was put up to it, and didn't even make a good job of it.
Maybe with all the movement in fusion recently, EMC2 has opportunities for their next big step. Maybe back to some more physical work. We shall see.
Maybe with all the movement in fusion recently, EMC2 has opportunities for their next big step. Maybe back to some more physical work. We shall see.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: youtube Polywell critique with response from EMC2!
That was exactly my feeling when I said in April that there was no need from Matt to come out suddenly with such a video. Most of his assumptions was already amply discussed and clarified in the posts going on here, and he should have known this as he is a member of this board from long time.
Instead he decided to cherry pick a bunch of arguments without any apparent logic.
I am happy to see that I am not the only one having strong doubts about that video.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.