Art Carlson wrote:
What I have presented here is, in my opinion, the most complete and consistent theory of polywell physics there is.
Fair enough. I don't think anyone can complain that you have not worked hard at making your case on this forum. Presenting ideas and mathematics in this format and in this venue were not easily done, but you did it anyway.
Art Carlson wrote: Explanations by Bussard and others sometimes contradict themselves, sometimes contradict known physics, and resort to handwaving at an early stage.
I have noticed some inconsistencies, all of which could have been attributed to slips of the tongue. I am not competent to judge about the "handwaving" nor would I venture to argue with you about the contradictions with known physics, but I find it hard to believe that Doctor Bussard got such stuff by the US Navy, given that it is full of nuclear engineers and has access to nearly any physicist they would wish to consult.
The US Navy is not exactly flush with cash at the moment and has numerous other problems with which to cope, yet it's leadership has seen fit to fund additional research into the Pollywell design
after Doctor Bussards death. Despite my misgivings about your claims on this matter, I am obliged to admit that stranger things have happened.
Art Carlson wrote:The published experimental basis on polywells is too thin to draw any conclusions.
I don't think anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.
Art Carlson wrote:Dr. Nebel's statements about his measurements have not been explicit and extensive enough to draw any firm conclusions, even if we trusted him fully. (I have not received any experimental information from him beyond what he has said here, but I haven't given up hope.)
I can appreciate your frustration, but we are talking about the US Navy here, and we are talking about that part of the Navy refrerred to as the "Silent Service." I would imagine that Doctor Nebel would love to sit on your garden fence and crow for you, assuming he has seen the results he and Doctor Bussard predicted.
Art Carlson wrote:I have no doubts that Rick is an honest and competent physicist, but physics is hard. His statements should be treated with caution until other, independent experts have had a chance to review them.
This is true of anyone proposing some shiny new doohicky. It is easy for one's enthusiasm to override one's good sense and there are very often unanticipated problems separate from the device itself that would render such new devices useless. We have seen that happen numerous times.
Life is all about using energy to survive and produce more life, so naturally, many of us want and would love to see a system of this kind work. But, you can't always get what you want. I don't think any forum participant would claim otherwise.
I have tried very hard to follow your descriptions of the shortcomings of this machine. I now want to see if I have gotten the gist of it.
The first problem seems to be associated with the electrons. You do not believe that the device will temporarily trap them in the center of the machine as Doctor Bussard says it will. In this respect it ulitmately suffers from the same defect as the ealier fusor designs. It will lose too many electrons for it to produce more power than it consumes.
Secondly, you seem concerned that the nucleii will not collide in the center as Bussard predicted and that they will not cycle back into the center of the machine to undergo further collisions. Apparently this is because any voltage that is high enough to prevent them from striking the Magrid, would also cause the plasma to glow or even cause arcs between the magnets and the vessel walls.
It would not surprise me to find that I have gotten this wrong. I am not that conversant in mathematics or plasma physics. Would you be good enough to correct me?