Economic turmoil

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Postby Nanos » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:49 am

Getting into bed with the google lunar x prize wouldn't be a bad thing.

If I can, I'm going to run a UK team for that, and I do wonder how far we might be from fusion powered launchers.

http://www.nanos.org.uk/lunarprize/lunarprize.htm

A couple of amusing video's there showing what the UK can do when we put our minds to it in just a couple of weeks ameatur effort :-)

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Postby JoeStrout » Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:12 pm

MSimon wrote:What would you think if I told you to measure the temps at 6AM and then at 3PM and then extrapolate that out one hundred years. We'd be hot enough to do D-D fusion. That is exactly what "climate science" in its present state is all about.

You clearly don't know any climate scientists. You've got it exactly backwards; it's the right-wing (mostly corporate-supported) politicians who ignore real science and make up sound bytes and false analogies. The real scientists are working with real, detailed, mathematical models based on real data. They take into account the climate cycles and the reasons behind them. And they are in complete agreement that human greenhouse gasses are forcing the climate well beyond where natural variation would have it, and a great deal of economic turmoil (to return to the subject) is likely to result as weather patterns change.

Yes, on the whole, the Earth will be fine, since (for example) the total amount of water on the planet isn't going to change. But it will be distributed differently, and the Earth "on the whole" will be small comfort to the coastal cities underwater, or previously fertile areas that turn into deserts. Great news for the people who live at higher elevations or in previous deserts that become fertile, I suppose. But a great deal of turmoil regardless.

This is not based on false analogies or inaccurate extrapolations ofthe latest climate cycle. It's real science, based on data and modeling, done by people with earnest interest (and natural incentives) to get it right. I know some of these people personally, and I've read the works of many others in prestigious journals like Science. You disparage the whole field based on nothing but the garbage spoon-fed you by right-wing nut jobs who tried for years to avoid taking responsibility for the damage we're doing, in a classic case of short-term gain outweighing much greater long-term costs. Fortunately even the Bush administration has finally given in to reality, which I consider a great testament to the power of science to ferret out the truth, no matter how unpopular that may be.
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

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

Postby MSimon » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:02 pm

Joe,

Go to Climate Audit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Read for a few hours. There is pretty clear evidence that the "Climate Scientists" are cooking the books.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2077

In addition the whole sky is falling is based on 15 or 18 "climate models" that have not been checked.

If we actually understood climate one model would be enough.

Let me also point out that Climate Science didn't start to get massive funding until they started with "the sky is falling routine". There is just as much reason to believe Climate Science can be corrupted by Government Money as it can be in the other direction by Oil Money.

I would be sceptical of the whole mess until the "climate scientists" release all their data. All their code. And all their "adjustment" methods.

Or just start looking into the measurement stations that all this is supposed to be based on.

http://surfacestations.org/

We have a lousy measuring system for temps/climate in the USA.

This is one of the worst:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... itemId=660

However, at this state of the survey about 80% or more fall into that category. Have a look at the Tuscon station. Laughable.

Here is a real hoot:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2090

Then let me point out that the USA is supposed to have the best weather network in the world.

If Dr. Bussards work was this bad I would go back to blogging strictly on politics.

In my opinion this Climate scare (which happens about every 25 years in the USA - you can look it up starting with the late 1800s. Hot.Cold. Hot. Cold. Hot.) and the Carbon Taxes are worse than the oil companies by far. At least the oil companies give you a real product for your money. Oil. All we are going to get out of this climate scare is higher taxes. Or higher energy prices. Or if we are real lucky - both.

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

Postby MSimon » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:26 pm

I'm an engineer. Aerospace. Everything I do gets run through with a very fine tooth comb. Every darn bit right down to my choice of resistors.

Climate Science is under no such constraints. The temptation to cook the books to keep the Gvmt. money rolling is immense. You think these guys are immune to normal human temptations?

For me it has nothing to do with right/left. It has to do with doing good science.

In addition if we cripple the world economy with all this anti-carbon crap a lot of people are going to die. I' aint into killing nobody for what is most likely just natural variation. I'd like to see something better than just "the models (unaudited) show".

"give me four adjustable parameters, and I can fit an elephant, give me five, and I can fit the tail".

The Climate models have dozens if not hundreds of adjustable parameters.

Hell we don't even know the sign of the cloud feed back let alone the magnitude. Even the Climate "scientists" admit that.

It is the same problem we have with modeling a fusion reactor. There is way too much going on and too many feedbacks to decide on the basis of a model if a given design is going to work.

However, I suppose we can just assume Rider is correct and all go home. I mean. Would Rider lie to us? Would he cook the books to keep competition for the tokamaks unfunded? Impartial science my ass.

That is the state of climate "science".

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Postby JD » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:30 pm

JoeStrout

Yes there are right wing nuts. There's also just as many, if not more, left wing loons and moonbats. Don't get me started on anarchists (btw what's the bag, possession and season on those critter in Oregon?). There's nothing wrong with supporting an opinion but trying to present it as the one and only truth concerning such a controversial matter is a bit narrow in vision.

Climate science predictions are not settled, if you believe so I'd encourage you to broaden your reading scope. I've spoken to a couple of climate scientists. One would be opposed to your opinions, the other is a centrist. So much for consensus. I'm sorry but the field in question is not filled by dedicated, altruistic individuals, Hansen comes to mind when thinking of supposed scientists who've turned into self serving hacks.

Paleo geologist/climatologists tend to have different spins on the issue and
I've seen some very interesting articles. As an example the graphs given at.....

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossi ... imate.html

that are very interesting. I would encourage anyone concerned with this subject to tune out the strident voices, do their own study and reach their own assessment. Scientist simply research and hypothesize, they're not the source of knowledge and can be just as wrong as anyone else with their conclusions (hint, when was plate tectonics first recognized other than by any grade schooler looking at his first world map).

Is humanity contributing to climate change trends? If so how? My own assessment is that humanity, primarily through land usage contributes to but does not drive these trends. Now if we removed some coastal territory, say turn Panama into a nice deep channel, then you'd have some pretty dramatic climate changes within the century.

I do get a good chuckle from some of the evidence posted though. I remember the British paper from a couple of years ago. Headlines stated that receding glaciers in Greenland were uncovering land not seen in a million years. The picture was of old Viking long house foundations that had been recently exposed.

There is currently no valid methodology for predicting climate future. The computer models are laughable. Sensor stations in North America are at best unreliable due to siting. I bluntly don't trust most of the highly vocal protagonists from both sides of the issue. Calls for, and actual political pressure have been used against people in disagreement. Money is apparently flowing from "both" partisan political sides, cough cough Soros.

As far as my ideology? Yes I'm an old style conservative. Hell I would supporting cloning Teddy Rosevelt and making him Imperator of Earth. Someone disagrees? Well we've got all those SSBM's floating around to convince them. Hey yeah, nuclear winter, there's the solution.

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

Postby MSimon » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:58 pm

Tell you what though.

Let us go over climate science the way the FAA goes over an aircraft design. Or the way the FDA audits a mechanical medical device like an x-ray machine or a blood chemistry tester.

Every single line of code and every piece of data gets intense scrutiny.

After such an audit if the error bands are not 3X or more the size of the purported signal I will buy into the GHG theory of "the sky is falling". Until then color me sceptical.

BTW the AGW folks have made numerous errors in computing the error bands. In many, many cases they don't show their work and just give a number. In many other cases an error band is not even mentioned.

Junk science.

There is too much crap here for politicials to be making decisions that have the potential for killing hundreds of millions of people.

Do some serious research on DDT. The banning of that due to junk science is killing 3 million a year. I'm not getting on that kind of train ever again. Show me the data. Show me the methods. Let the sceptics and the chemical companies have at it.

Competing ideas is how real science is done. Hysterical rent-a-mobs and concensus just don't cut it for me any more. I have too much blood on my hands.

Sorry for the ranting but this stuff justs sets me off. I'll try to calm down and let others have their say.

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

Postby Roger » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:42 am

JoeStrout wrote:You disparage the whole field based on nothing but the garbage spoon-fed you by right-wing nut jobs who tried for years to avoid taking responsibility for the damage we're doing,


Joe, I agree with you 100%, but throwing out the line

"right-wing nut jobs" does about as much good as MSimon disparaging the whole field based on nothing.

Joe, dont think I dont want to freakin strangle MSimon when he goes off the deep end, but then I remind myself that generally I don't go to an engineer for political wisedom.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Postby Nanos » Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:24 am

FX [ whistles Technocracy in the background.. ] :-)

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Postby JD » Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:51 am

Okay I'm apparently guilty of piling on. Roger you are included. I call break and back to non political discussions. Neither side will convince the other that they're in the right. Only natural events will do that, not vehement statements.

I call for a ban on all political discussions. This includes mention of AGW, climate change or whatever the hell the catch phrase is at the moment. This subject area has proven itself to be in the political/emotional ring now instead of simply science.

Both sides consider the other to be wrong headed (insert expletive).

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

Postby MSimon » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:29 am

Molten salt in cars is not a good idea. esp. with the salts at 200 to 300 deg C.

Lithium is reactive enough.

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

Postby MSimon » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:47 am

I don't consider the other side wrong.

Just not proven to the level of an FAA audit.

In the aircraft business we design with the reqmt. of one death per 1E9 operating hours.

I think political action based on climate science should be proven to that level. After all we are talking about the potential either way of 1E8 deaths.

Until we know what we are about doing nothing (which will insure economic growth and the possibility of ameliorating anything bad) is the best way forward.

Here I discuss two peer reviewed papers:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... auses.html

One says global warming will increase sea salinity. One says it will reduce sea salinity. Both were published in the same time frame.

And that is the consensus science. Think of how much worse it would be if a sceptic was writing them.

===

Did you know there were principles of forecasting? I don't mean like the positions of the planets. Which for time spans of tens of thousands of years is fairly mechanical. The kind of forecasting I'm talking about involves events that are less deterministic than the motions of the planets. And yet there are principles.

The first is to classify the methodology. Are you starting with numbers or guesses? Which is to say how good is your data base? If you have numbers, what kind of precision is attached? Do you use the numbers directly? Or do you use statistical methods to tease out "useful" information?

OK. You have some data. Now you have to select a method of analysis that is both suitable to the data and the purpose for which it will be used. Is this an investment decision? Or just a report on something to keep an eye on? Do you have a business plan in hand or just a casual "this seems like a good idea"?

The above pages are full of annotated charts with little pop-up explanation boxes to help you understand the charts.

And if that isn't enough the authors of these pages and the accompanying book will give you free help if you describe your problem(s) to them.

We have come a ways and surely it can't be just to talk about forecasting methods. Well yes and no. I want to talk about climate. Climate forecasting.

J. Scott Armstrong, of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and Kesten C. Green, of the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University have done a short audit of IPCC climate science [pdf] based on the forecasting principles outlined above.

I think it would be good to start with the title which really gets to the heart of the matter.

=

There is more at Principles of Forecasting:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... sting.html

Which makes this (finally) on topic.

=========

One of the principles of forecasting outlined is that if your info is not sufficiently good do nothing and wait until things become clearer.

So I like JD's suggestion. Lets wait and see what happens for a while. Will we come out of this flat period with temps rising or falling?

=========

Right now we are in a data dearth phase of Polywell. Some money is being spent to get better data. Good idea. No point in making a $200 million bet based on faulty or insufficient data.

=========

Let me also note that the scientific/engineering attitude should be similar to the proper ethos of newspaper men. "If your mother says she loves you, check it out".

BTW science is not consensus. Once upon a time 100 German scientists (in the 30s when you know who was running Germany) wrote a book refuting Einstein. Einstein's response: "One would have been enough".

Consensus is about politics not science.

=========

Take Polywell and the hundreds of scientific sceptics. WB-7 will be enough to refute them if the results warrant.

=========

I have been in engineering situations where I have had whole companies (or at least the relevant depts) tell me my analysis was wrong.

So I soldiered on. The fist ten pre-production prototypes worked perfectly and I had egg on my face. The field failure rate in production was 99%.

Consensus don't mean squat.

The only fix was a redesign. Which is what I recommended in the first place. They used a new model # to avoid the taint.

Several million down the drain when an extra $10K or $20K (plus the cost of a schedule slip) would have prevented the problem.

I am tough on bad data and bad design. Its my job.

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Postby Nanos » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:40 am

I'm often asking experts their thoughts on ideas I come up with, and roughly 50% agree and 50% disagree..

Who do I believe ?

Well, I tend to believe those who are old, and have plenty of real world experience, over those that do not.

That and I ask for proof :-)

Sadly it does mean that often to understand that proof that I myself have to become semi expert in understanding enough to tell which expert has their figures wrong..

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

Postby MSimon » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:00 am

Sadly it does mean that often to understand that proof that I myself have to become semi expert in understanding enough to tell which expert has their figures wrong.


I was once working with a mathematician (nice lady BTW) who was working on a simulation of the electronic controls for a drone aircraft I was assigned to fix (it wobbled too much in flight).

I was helping a little but advanced math is not my strong point.

One day I looked at her equations and told her: you got this section wrong. We went round and round for two days. Finally she read the section of a book I had suggested.

She corrected her error. Thanked me too. She wanted to get it right even at the cost of a bit of ego. Me too.

Sometimes even superior expertise is not enough to get things right.

It is why everything must be checked and double checked. I welcome it. After all it is more than possible that I'm wrong (infrequent as that is).

Engineers are some of your toughest customers when it comes to design. The really good ones LOVE being audited. I love design reviews. My favorite part of engineering. Either as a reviewer or reviewee.

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

Postby Roger » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:10 pm

JD wrote:This subject area has proven itself to be in the political/emotional ring now instead of simply science.


So True.

JD wrote:Roger you are included.


Is that so..... ?

I have called for dropping political talk back @ nasa space forums, I am doing so here @ talk-polywell. I seriously doubt you can link to a post of mine at either board, where I brought up global warming or responded to a post about GW, or any other issue that has been politicized such as GW, without a statement about dropping the subject.

I take it you see it differently... ?


JD wrote:
I call for a ban on all political discussions.


I have in the past, and will continue to support a ban of this sort. When I wish to talk politics I go to a board where it is appropriate.
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:

Postby MSimon » Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:17 pm

Always welcome at Power and Control.

I may disagree but I do not censor (excepting for spam).


Return to “Implications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests