Focus Fusion at Google Tech Talk

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

I notice he makes a rather silly logical mistake: he argues that to decrease poverty, you would need to make energy cheaper.

While not unrelated, this argument is fallacious. Cheap electricity alone is not enough, you still need to develop agriculture and industry. While cheapening the electric bill helps, you still need to buy the factory and all associated expertise and knowledge, which is much more expensive then the electricity.
Furthermore, people using electricity need something that uses electricity. Washing machines, refrigerators, etc. These again are far more expensive.

And the reason why there is allot of poverty has more political roots then the technical issue of powering them. A dictator does not care about the welfare of its people, he only cares if his army is working and the people fear him. In fact, if people are hungry, they are less likely to be able to uprise againts the dictator.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Zixinus wrote:I notice he makes a rather silly logical mistake: he argues that to decrease poverty, you would need to make energy cheaper.

While not unrelated, this argument is fallacious. Cheap electricity alone is not enough, you still need to develop agriculture and industry. While cheapening the electric bill helps, you still need to buy the factory and all associated expertise and knowledge, which is much more expensive then the electricity.
Furthermore, people using electricity need something that uses electricity. Washing machines, refrigerators, etc. These again are far more expensive.

And the reason why there is allot of poverty has more political roots then the technical issue of powering them. A dictator does not care about the welfare of its people, he only cares if his army is working and the people fear him. In fact, if people are hungry, they are less likely to be able to uprise againts the dictator.
It is my opinion that America as the world's premier imperial power has a plan for civilizing the world. I have no proof. One only has to look though.

Second - copious energy is part of that plan.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

It is my opinion that America as the world's premier imperial power has a plan for civilizing the world
Ha, ha, ha. Sorry but are you kidding? By now you only have tried to invade those countries which are against your ideas (mainly if the have oil). Africa is plently of dictators and I haven´t seen the US military around those countries. I thanks the US for helping Europe to fight against Nazis and Communist but in the last 20 years your willing intentions have changed just to get the control over the oil. I am in this forum to talk about science but I can not resist to answer such a funny sentence. I suppose that, as always, you will answer later to my reply. I won´t reply any further because I am here because of Polywell. You are free to say something, you are not going to get any reply at least from me. BTW, instead of using "civilizing" maybe it is not better "helping". You are far from civilizing the world, don´t you think?

The good think would be if all rich countries help the rest to get rid of poverty and hunger. And if Polywell would help for that purpose. The future is devoted to the Age of mankind not the Age of countries. I believe that the globalization (I am referring to 200 years ahead) will change definitely the current concept of empire.

choff
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

I think Dr. Bussard was extremely modest about the benefit to mankind from polywell fusion. One of these reactors in any country is a potential Von Neumann machine, providing the means to make dozens more. Imagine a country like Haiti developing an electrical capacity equal to all North America within a decade, or how this will change the world over the next 200 years. When every human being on earth has the means for independent wealth, all economic motivation for crime and warfare will disappear. The arab world could turn the deserts into forests and meadows. Even the coal and oil industries will do well, since all non fuel uses for thier product will expand to take up the slack from losing the fuel market. Not to mention the cost of extracting, transporting and refining will be greatly diminished. I hope I don't sound too much like a dreamer, but this could be the beginning of a utopian world.
CHoff

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

Trust me, there'll still be things to fight over. Primates are good at that stuff.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jlumartinez wrote:
It is my opinion that America as the world's premier imperial power has a plan for civilizing the world
Ha, ha, ha. Sorry but are you kidding? By now you only have tried to invade those countries which are against your ideas (mainly if the have oil). Africa is plently of dictators and I haven´t seen the US military around those countries. I thanks the US for helping Europe to fight against Nazis and Communist but in the last 20 years your willing intentions have changed just to get the control over the oil. I am in this forum to talk about science but I can not resist to answer such a funny sentence. I suppose that, as always, you will answer later to my reply. I won´t reply any further because I am here because of Polywell. You are free to say something, you are not going to get any reply at least from me. BTW, instead of using "civilizing" maybe it is not better "helping". You are far from civilizing the world, don´t you think?

The good think would be if all rich countries help the rest to get rid of poverty and hunger. And if Polywell would help for that purpose. The future is devoted to the Age of mankind not the Age of countries. I believe that the globalization (I am referring to 200 years ahead) will change definitely the current concept of empire.
Actually the USA has just set up an Africa Command for the first time ever as a permanent command. That is one of the things that made me a believer.

Also the US Congress passed as part of some obscure funding bill that it was US policy to end tyranny in the world.

BTW you can't get rid of hunger with food. Only stable self government solves the problem. Zimbabwe and Venezuela are cases in point - in the wrong direction.

Iraq is the model. Not too good a job, but it is getting done. We will get better with practice.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

choff
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

People fight because of money. There was a former Marine Commandant named Smedley Darlington Butler in the 30's, one of only 2 Americans ever to win the Congressional Medal of Honor twice. When he retired he wrote a book called 'War is a Rachet.' As he pointed out, in peace time companies slog along at maybe 4% profit per annum. In war time they can make 100% to 1600% profit per annum. The same Saudis that fund Bin Laden invest in the US arms industry. With Polywell Fusion, people everywhere will have it made, it will take extremely dumb reasons to fight.
CHoff

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

MSimon wrote:Iraq is the model. Not too good a job, but it is getting done. We will get better with practice.
Huh. I thought Iran was the model and the Shah was going to teach them all to be Westernized. Oh, well.

Puppetry with foreign countries will sooner or later fail. Iraq is no exception. Empires collapse because of their internal contradictions, and while the U.S. hasn't made up its mind yet about whether it really truly wants to be an empire, it's drifting in that direction.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

Choff, Agreed 100% with you. Global industrial development + Education = End of Wars

MSimon, I was not aware of these budgets and Africa commands. I hope with all my heart, although have my doubts, that you were right and all developed countries will help to get rid of tyranny. These is the first step to do. But countries prefer to be helped indirectly. If you do it direct and clearly they can feel as being attacked for a external enemy. It is a trade-off. I hope Polywell works to star a new age.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

scareduck wrote:
MSimon wrote:Iraq is the model. Not too good a job, but it is getting done. We will get better with practice.
Huh. I thought Iran was the model and the Shah was going to teach them all to be Westernized. Oh, well.

Puppetry with foreign countries will sooner or later fail. Iraq is no exception. Empires collapse because of their internal contradictions, and while the U.S. hasn't made up its mind yet about whether it really truly wants to be an empire, it's drifting in that direction.
America has troops in Europe, South Korea, Japan, and lots of other places maintaining the peace. Now the heart of the Middle East.

As to contradictions? I don't see many. Every one of those countries self governs. The "colonies" are part of a trading empire not a mercantilist empire.

So far every country that has become part of the American empire has (given enough time) advanced politically and economically.

It is not just the colonizer that benefits.

The movie "The Mouse That Roared" with Peter Sellers from the 60s expresses that fact with humor. So America has been building its empire ever since the close of WW2.

We will all be better off if this works out - fewer wars - more trade.

The biggest difficulty in Iraq is that electrical supplies did not increase fast enough due to the long lead time for steam plants. If we can shorten that considerably, pacification can proceed more rapidly.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jlumartinez wrote:Choff, Agreed 100% with you. Global industrial development + Education = End of Wars

MSimon, I was not aware of these budgets and Africa commands. I hope with all my heart, although have my doubts, that you were right and all developed countries will help to get rid of tyranny. These is the first step to do. But countries prefer to be helped indirectly. If you do it direct and clearly they can feel as being attacked for a external enemy. It is a trade-off. I hope Polywell works to star a new age.
We are already seeing signs of change in Saudi Arabia. Women will be given the right to drive in the next year. So influence (if close) can take the place of the conquest, occupation, liberalization cycle evident in Iraq.

The Gulf Emirates are Westernizing at a terrific rate (at least compared to the rest of the region).

The strategy will be a WW2 Pacific type strategy. Pick strategic targets and let influence radiate outward from them. i.e. not everywhere will need military force applied. We simply don't have the resources.

Iraq is a pretty stark example - get conquered by Al Queda and things get worse. Get conquered by America and things get better. Almost all your cultural sensitivities will be honored except one - democracy of one type or another is an absolute requirement. Word gets around.

And yes. I hope electricity and the Internet can avoid most need for fighting.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

I think Dr. Bussard was extremely modest about the benefit to mankind from polywell fusion. One of these reactors in any country is a potential Von Neumann machine, providing the means to make dozens more. Imagine a country like Haiti developing an electrical capacity equal to all North America within a decade, or how this will change the world over the next 200 years. When every human being on earth has the means for independent wealth, all economic motivation for crime and warfare will disappear. The arab world could turn the deserts into forests and meadows. Even the coal and oil industries will do well, since all non fuel uses for thier product will expand to take up the slack from losing the fuel market. Not to mention the cost of extracting, transporting and refining will be greatly diminished. I hope I don't sound too much like a dreamer, but this could be the beginning of a utopian world.
I think you see too much in the man. Polywell would no doubt help the world, but I am quite sure that its still far from the thing that would make an utopian world. It would make the world a bit better though.
Also the US Congress passed as part of some obscure funding bill that it was US policy to end tyranny in the world.
Not self-righteous just a bit there? The USA is for all intents and purposes not the most culturally advanced country, shown by the fact that a good deal of your people still have their heads stuck back 100 years (just look at your current president). Especially right now, when people who want to turn your country into a theocracy are gaining political power.

And last I checked, the USA isn't ruling the world. It has no right to invade countries that did not directly threaten it or its allies.
Iraq is the model. Not too good a job, but it is getting done. We will get better with practice.
At invading? Sorry, but that is what it was for all practical purposes.

It had nothing, and absolutely nothing to do with ending Saddam's tyranny. It was for oil, plain and simple. The modern world is slowly realizing that relying on prehistoric slime might not be such a good idea long-term. Dressing it up as looking for weapons that don't exist and using Al Quaida as a bogeyman gives no less justification.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Zixinus,

The object is not for the USA to rule the world. The object is to make the world safe for people and business.

Look at Germany, Japan, South Korea. Does the USA rule those countries?

Of course the USA is not the most culturally advanced. It does have the most popular culture. It is one of our not so secret weapons. And in fact it is one of the things pissing off the Islamic nutters. Their culture is being liquefied. They resent it. Heck, the French resent it.

For oil? We could have got it cheaper by making a deal with Saddam.

No Al Queda? Al Q was trained in Iraq by Saddam. They had enclaves. But the really best part is that Al Q has made Iraq their fight and they are losing. Badly.

Go read Michael Totten's blog for the last three months to get a feel for the new Iraq. It will give you a different perspective from what your media tell you.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

The object is not for the USA to rule the world. The object is to make the world safe for people and business.
And for the profit of corporations and other entities that can hugely profit from it.

Of course you can always hide stuff like that behind high idealism.
For oil? We could have got it cheaper by making a deal with Saddam.
No, you wouldn't. Then Saddam would have a bargaining position with your country. He would demand several times more money then what it would cost to get the oil yourself. Sure, it costs allot of the national budget, but as long as those involved have shares in companies that take profit from the whole thing, that isn't a problem. Remember, corporations and similar entities can drive a much higher profit then otherwise.
No Al Queda?
Did I say that there is no Al Queda? No. Al Queda exists, but I am pretty sure that its power is overblown to further political agenda.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

It had nothing, and absolutely nothing to do with ending Saddam's tyranny. It was for oil, plain and simple.
Yes and no. We invaded Saddam because he used oil money to build a huge military (which he used to invade Iran and Kuwait to seize their oil) and produce WMD, which he used on his own people and refused to explain what he had done with.

America got zero barrels of oil for invading Iraq in 1991 and 2003; in fact, we not only spent a couple trillion but also made oil more expensive and more scarce by telling U.S. companies they could not invest in Iraq (and Iran for that matter).

If what we wanted was oil, we would have turned a blind eye in 1991 when Saddam took Kuwait. There would be no free elections and free press in Iraq today, but oil would be a lot cheaper and U.S. companies would be making money on Iraqi oil.
No, you wouldn't. Then Saddam would have a bargaining position with your country. He would demand several times more money then what it would cost to get the oil yourself.
You clearly don't understand how the oil markets work. The prices are set by demand from consumers and supply by produces, not negotiation with different countries.
So influence (if close) can take the place of the conquest, occupation, liberalization cycle evident in Iraq.
Quite true. Iraq was a unique situation: it had violated Westphalian norms by waging wars of conquest, it had used WMD, it refused to explain what it had done with them, and it supported terrorism.

People forget that Taiwan and South Korea were once de facto military dictatorships. China, too, is belatedly seeing the benefits of liberalization. Inshallah, we will never have to invade another country to bring basic human rights to the people.

Post Reply