Which party will support this effort?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

drmike wrote:At this point energy is too big an issue. Fusion will get great support over the next few years, but if no progress is made, fission plants will get built for sure. It's not a matter of party any more. It's getting to be a matter of survival.
Dunno. I think the "alternative energy" pablum can be ridden a good long way.

Duane
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

rj40 wrote:I have asked the same question. I think both would support it. My concern is some of the constituencies on either side. How will oil, coal, gas companies react? How will far left Green NGO’s react? What new unanticipated opposition might appear? How might they pressure congress/president? I think there would be some hold-outs in the fossil fuel industry, but in the end, there is just too much money at stake.
If EMC2 can release sufficiently promising results, special interests in the West trying to shut it down won't matter. China, even Pakistan, will pursue Polywell to fruition.

Duane
Vae Victis

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Which party will support this effort?

Post by Roger »

drmike wrote:At this point energy is too big an issue. Fusion will get great support over the next few years, but if no progress is made, fission plants will get built for sure. It's not a matter of party any more. .
Fission is already getting improved support, ALL YEAR, thru the campaign
djolds1 wrote: Anything with the word "nuclear" is poison with the American Left.

Duane
Daune I am a Liberal Dmeocrat. I would ask you to back that up.

Or fore ever hold your peace.


djolds1 wrote:
Dunno. I think the "alternative energy" pablum can be ridden a good long way.

Duane
Duane. Solar, wind, alternative liquid fuels aren't enough.

Fission will play a role
, Gore said it, Obama said it Clinton said it, McCain said it, Bush said it.

Dunno is right, you dont know. SO let me tell you, all of those people advocate a continuing role for nuclear power generation going forward 20 yrs.

Maybe if you put aside your infantile political bias for one second, you would be capable of actually assimilating some accurate information.

I am by far the most politically involved member here, I work in campaigns. Last year I ran a campaign for 3 School Board candidates and flipped all 3 seats. I was paid $1000 per week. A grand a week for a School Board race.......


I spent 3 days in NH on my own dime, the weekend before the primary. I watched the first half of the Steelers game with Tom Ridge, I had a beer with Chris Shays.

I organize fundraisers, my next event is expected to gross 15 to 20k for a congressional candidate.

Yesterday I just walked into NJ Senator Menedez's office unannounced, and got 5 minutes of face time with his Director of Constituent Services, in front of the other 8 people that were already waiting in the lobby.

I am a member of my towns Democratic Committee, district leader in fact, an elected office. I am a member of my county's Democratic Committee.

I exercise the restraint required to not inflict my political views on this board. Although this is the general discussion section, and the rules are looser here, slapping other talk-polywell members in the face with your political views is not playing nice in the sand box.

If I can sit down and have a beer with Tom Ridge and Chris Shays, and have a civil discussion with men I consider to be extreme ring wingers......

Then I can ask the same of you.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

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

Post by MSimon »

Roger,

If the board goes quiet for a while - slap away.

I won't mind. Joe hasn't complained so far.

Simon
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 »

And Obama doesn't make promises he does not intend to keep.
The question is how long will he keep them? Until the polling results change?

That is a very good reason to build support independent of politicians. We have done a pretty good job so far.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

All politicians are liars. All politicians are unknown variables. Politicians are "handled" by a feedback. If they *don't* do what they promised they would do, and cannot give a good explaination for their failure, then they may or may not get reelected.

Unfortunately our Democracy isn't that refined (most people don't vote and when they do it's hardly ever over important issues). But that may change. Betruger's statement remains the best comment in this thread.



Roger, I'd contest that solar is more than enough (2.5 million exajoules of useable energy, 500 used by humans from a variety of sources, etc, etc, the math is really apparent, low trophic life forms use magnitudes more energy than us). Polywell is just a game changer because solar requires, absolutely requires heavy government subsidies and intervention. And the government is slow to take on such tasks. Polywell would be handled by the market, guys like MSimon would have their own VC firms selling the things. Heck I'd be investing in the thing. Have one in my own house, even (been saving up to buy a huge swath of land to build my first house)! I'm not sure where I read it (I believe rnebel was asked about how much WB6s would cost) but someone said it'd be great to have a Polywell in every district, and the market would undoubtedly fullfill that task quite handidly.

But even that requires educating our youngsters in strong science and not crackpottery.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Which party will support this effort?

Post by djolds1 »

Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote: Anything with the word "nuclear" is poison with the American Left.

Duane
Daune I am a Liberal Dmeocrat. I would ask you to back that up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE

Edwards - opposed.
Clinton - Agnostic.
Obama -supportive.

Edwards has irrevocably damaged his political career, but his voice does (did) represent a significant fraction of the Democratic Party.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/0 ... ear-power/

Pelosi - Agnostic trending supportive.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/03/nev ... -are-they/

Yes, partisan, I know. If the attributed quotes are in error I withdraw the cite with an acknowledging mea culpa.

Reid - unclear, but apparently trending opposed.

The Democratic position seems to be shifting in response to the current energy crisis. Which leaves open the question of how much influence the far left wing/ quasi-Naderite factions have. Your input?
Roger wrote:Or fore ever hold your peace.
We're not getting married Roger. Realistic perspectives evolve over time as the information available shifts. If I am mistaken I will withdraw my assertions and reexamine my perspectives and positions. I would expect the same from you in turn.

And as further information becomes available, reassessment happens again.
Roger wrote:Duane. Solar, wind, alternative liquid fuels aren't enough.
Concur.
Roger wrote:Fission will play a role, Gore said it, Obama said it Clinton said it, McCain said it, Bush said it.

Dunno is right, you dont know. SO let me tell you, all of those people advocate a continuing role for nuclear power generation going forward 20 yrs.
It would appear so. Debatable if it holds up assuming the current crisis fades as did the '70s embargo, but that is a separate issue.
Roger wrote:Maybe if you put aside your infantile political bias for one second, you would be capable of actually assimilating some accurate information.
I responded with a generalized, tho judgmental, opinion of which party would be more supportive of polywell. You now respond with ad hominem?
Roger wrote:I am by far the most politically involved member here, I work in campaigns. Last year I ran a campaign for 3 School Board candidates and flipped all 3 seats. I was paid $1000 per week. A grand a week for a School Board race.......

I spent 3 days in NH on my own dime, the weekend before the primary. I watched the first half of the Steelers game with Tom Ridge, I had a beer with Chris Shays.

I organize fundraisers, my next event is expected to gross 15 to 20k for a congressional candidate.

Yesterday I just walked into NJ Senator Menedez's office unannounced, and got 5 minutes of face time with his Director of Constituent Services, in front of the other 8 people that were already waiting in the lobby.

I am a member of my towns Democratic Committee, district leader in fact, an elected office. I am a member of my county's Democratic Committee.

I exercise the restraint required to not inflict my political views on this board. Although this is the general discussion section, and the rules are looser here, slapping other talk-polywell members in the face with your political views is not playing nice in the sand box.
A very impressive resume Roger. Your accomplishments deserve recognition.

However, it does appear you are attempting to intimidate me by playing the "Do you know who I AM??" game. Am I mistaken in that assessment?
Roger wrote:If I can sit down and have a beer with Tom Ridge and Chris Shays, and have a civil discussion with men I consider to be extreme ring wingers......

Then I can ask the same of you.
Nothing I have said has been uncivil nor a personal attack upon you.

The entire point of THIS THREAD is to render judgment as to which US political party would be most useful to supporting polywell. IOW, the entire point of this thread is to inflict political judgment on the board.

I am entirely open to constructive criticism showing my positions to be in error.

I will not entertain attempts at intimidation.

Duane
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Which party will support this effort?

Post by djolds1 »

Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote:Anything with the word "nuclear" is poison with the American Left.

Duane
Daune I am a Liberal Dmeocrat. I would ask you to back that up.

Or fore ever hold your peace.
I also posted this in my original message:
djolds1 wrote:Greens have a major hold on that side of the aisle.
Which is, basically, the root of my general judgment that the Democratic Party would not be the optimum choice to back Polywell.

Is this particular perspective in error? If so why? From here all further derived judgments follow.

Duane
Vae Victis

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

dupe sorry
Last edited by Josh Cryer on Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Can Polywell be used for nuclear poliferation? If not and it is as clean as I understand, what would be any reasonable argument against it (the pB-11 variety)? It seems that there is no reasonable objection.

Carter was anti-nuke (being a nuclear guy himself) not because it was dirty and had nuclear waste, but because it encouraged nuclear poliferation. It set a bad example for the rest of the world. "If the USA has nuclear power, why can't we? Oh forget that it lets us build the tech to build nukes and all!"

Honestly, as I understand Polywell, the dang thing would pass a high power generator inspection and anyone could have them anywhere, there are no laws against clean nuclear fusion. There are no laws, that I understand, against the components necessary to make such a thing.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

edit - delete
Last edited by djolds1 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Josh Cryer wrote:Can Polywell be used for nuclear poliferation? If not and it is as clean as I understand, what would be any reasonable argument against it (the pB-11 variety)? It seems that there is no reasonable objection.
Possibly. Run the polywell on the DD or DT fuel cycle. Wrap the thing in Uranium metal, possibly even uranium yellowcake. The neutron flux might be enough to breed the U238 into Pu239.

Of course, pure fusion nukes (4th Gen nukes) eliminate the need for weapons grade fissionables to fire off the things. And there are several promising pathways. :(
Josh Cryer wrote:Carter was anti-nuke (being a nuclear guy himself) not because it was dirty and had nuclear waste, but because it encouraged nuclear proliferation. It set a bad example for the rest of the world. "If the USA has nuclear power, why can't we? Oh forget that it lets us build the tech to build nukes and all!"

Honestly, as I understand Polywell, the dang thing would pass a high power generator inspection and anyone could have them anywhere, there are no laws against clean nuclear fusion. There are no laws, that I understand, against the components necessary to make such a thing.
Unfortunately, nonproliferation has for all intents and purposes failed. The number of members of the "club" will only continue to expand.

Duane
Vae Victis

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

What is "pure fusion nukes (4th Gen nukes) "?

ckrucks
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:50 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Post by ckrucks »

Josh Cryer Posted:
But even that requires educating our youngsters in strong science and not crackpottery.
I realize this is probably not worth posting but alongside "douchebagery" "crackpottery" is my new favorite word.

You made my day Josh...thanks!
________
Chrysler sigma history
Last edited by ckrucks on Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Vae Victis

Post Reply