Rick Has A Word or two for sceptics.

[D Tibbets]

There were no flaws in the idea of a flying machine. People had been flying for centuries before the Wright Brothers, using hot air balloons and gliders. The success of aircraft has no bearing on whether fusion reactors will work. They are completely different technologies. Completely different physics. They are not even remotely analogous. Even the attempt at using aircraft as an analogy shows your ignorance.

Right now, ITER is being funded the most, has the most support of the scientific community. Based on any number of arguments that you, yourselves, have made, I should believe that ITER is most likely to succeed.

Based on my own inquiries, I don't believe any of them will succeed. Feasibility hasn't been demonstrated.

Not quite completely different. I believe there were a lot of gliders around, some similar to the Wright brothers' design. I think, the biggest breakthrugh was the Wright brothers' research on propeller design, which others had ignored due to a general opinion that they could not work, or at least nobody had persued the issue with the vigor of the Wright brothers. Had anyone used a wind tunnel for testing before the Wright brothers?

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

I wouldn't be surprised if sub was a player (or even paid troll) in one of the energy industries currently in existence.

Sure. Troll. Whatever.

I traded a few emails with Dr. Bussard a couple months before he died. He attempted to convince me that the issues raised by Rider had been addressed in the early nineties - but he was too tired to re-visit them.

Yeah. Sure.

I think he was on heavy meds and wasn't thinking clearly. Even an engineer could see the flaws in his design. You people are riding on Bussard's status only. You have absolutely no other reason to believe Polywell will ever achieve anything significant.

Your arguments are inconsistant. You admit that Bussard had addressed critisims in the 1990's, but that his illness and death in in 2007 somehow invalidated his earlier work. You also, ignore the fact that others were involved in the research, and that there have been several reviews on the research. Add to that the continueing work by associates, including the recruitment of R. Nebel as chief scientist (?) who has good credentials and has survived another review...
Well, I think that is grounds for continued research, and optamism limited only by the degree of "fanboy" enthusiam you are willing to admit. Those with deep understanding of the issues cannot agree on assumptions and processes on a theoretical basis, so you have to accept that data will rule. The arguments from the sidelines thus depend on the unpublished validity and appropiatness of the data.

[EDIT]I should mention that Dr Parks has been a major contributer. I do not recall other names that should be mentioned, any input?

Dan Tibbets

[David_Jay]

"You have absolutely no other reason to believe Polywell will ever achieve anything significant."

So Shub, since you seem to be "absolutely" sure of yourself. How about showing us your creds?

Do you have a background in (say) nuclear engineering or plasma physics like some of the other commentators here who are hopeful about Polywell or at minimum are keeping an open mind?

or are you a troll as suggested above...

[IntLibber]

"You have absolutely no other reason to believe Polywell will ever achieve anything significant."

So Shub, since you seem to be "absolutely" sure of yourself. How about showing us your creds?

Do you have a background in (say) nuclear engineering or plasma physics like some of the other commentators here who are hopeful about Polywell or at minimum are keeping an open mind?

or are you a troll as suggested above...

Anybody who speaks with conviction but refuses to disclose their own creds is most definitely a troll. Every anonymous idiot on the internet is a doctor, a lawyer, a pshrink, a physicist, a military genius, and an expert climatologist, and they each do it all from their highly sought after digs in their mother's basement.

[Shubedobedubopbopbedo]

I'm not giving you any ammunition. But I AM a skeptic. And skeptics always have a reason. Hell, the skeptic is always right.

You're the ones who are out to prove something. So prove it.

So far polywell is no more than a gadget. Feed it a gigantic amount of power, and it might give off a few neutrons. Big deal.

[Betruger]

I AM a skeptic. Hell, the skeptic is always right.

Platitude. How are you "the" skeptic? Skepticism isn't blind refusal to entertain any new ideas. In fact thorough and consistent skepticism will be skeptical also of the status quo.

You're the ones who are out to prove something. So prove it.

We're not.

So far polywell is no more than a gadget. Feed it a gigantic amount of power, and it might give off a few neutrons. Big deal.

That's no good argument. Things don't just fall on your lap out of the blue, cooked and seasoned. So far Polywell is fairly quick on R&D: a go/no-go in 2-4 years tops.

[chrismb]

Anybody who speaks with conviction but refuses to disclose their own creds is most definitely a troll.

I don't strictly agree with you there. All that counts is the strength of the argument, not the strength of the conviction. It is the same outcome here, though; no argument made.

In order of priority in science, the 'demonstration' of a scientific 'thing' should be;
i) evidence to a prediction
ii) a theorem that makes a prediction
iii) argument and counter argument to a theorem

then, and only then, down into personal qualities where the objective i, ii, and iii are not fulfilled;
iv) prior contributions in the field and a posit of a draft theorem
v) reputation for contribution in the field
vi) prior contribution
vii) prior experience
viii) conviction

At least Polywell is nudging iii onto ii, as are most of the contributions here, whereas Shub appers to be at viii so s/he does not represent an intellectual threat here of any measure.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Hi all. I've lurked here the past couple of years but only just registered - this is my first post.

Regarding polywell, I think that many of the people here realize that the odds of it - or any - fusion system working as originally intended are low. However, the only way to learn about fusion is to try to make it happen. I think we are well served by having as many small projects like polywell as possible pursuing alternative approaches. And, I think we also learn something from ITER. If you look at technology historically, often innovations come about by trial and error as much as by design.

And fusion does work. Stars shine. I'm certain that there is some way for us to make make it work in a smaller reactor-type device... but we might not be anywhere close yet.

------

As for the British Empire/Commonwealth, take a look at the Commonwealth campaign in Malaya in the 1950s for one of recent history's most successful counterinsurgencies/nation-building operations. Yes, modern day Malaysia and Singapore have problems. But, there is no comparison between them and the more messed up parts of the world. Singapore is a very rich city-state.

There was also a counterinsurgency campaign in Kenya around the same time. Now, maybe some of the tactics used were questionable, and a few of the old former insurgents are now actually suing the UK for war crimes. And yes, there was a small outbreak of tribal violence in Kenya a couple of years ago. But again - it's nothing like we see in many other parts of Africa. So I tend to agree with MSimon, the British Empire got a lot of things right.

Incidentally, I think attributing any of the current problems in Afghanistan to a fleeting brief and disastrous British occupation gives the Brits too much credit. That's only a blip in Afghanistan's history. They only remember it to the extent that it allows them to boast about having defeated the British empire. In my opinion what we're dealing with today has more to do with the fallout from the Cold War than previous periods:

1. Afghanistan actually wasn't doing too badly in the 1970s. Then the Soviets decided to invade. 2 million people died. Millions more became homeless. Most of what infrastructure existed was destroyed. A generation grew up illiterate, never having gone to school. We (the West) helped fund the Mujahedeen, then walked away once the Soviets were defeated. A power vacuum was created, and predictably filled by extremists.

2. Saddam as well as a bunch of African regimes were sold weapons by both NATO countries and the Warsaw block. Weapons sales and other types of aid were used for Realpolitik purposes, with little regard to the real interests of the people in those regions.

3. The whole North Korea problem stems directly from the Cold War's "Limited War".

OK, so then you have Iran. That's not directly Cold War. However, America and Britain were really both equally involved in Iran with oil interests from the 1920s on. Can't blame the UK without blaming the US there.

With India/Pakistan/Kashmir - looked like you might have a civil war without partition. So, partition happened and you got a war anyway... this is one of those situations where you can second-guess with hindsight forever.

In many cases the actions of the Brit Empire and later on America/Western world can be justified. With both the "great game" of the 19th century and the Cold War of the 20th - what are you going to do? Let the Russians walk into a place? Although the West's actions may look nefarious to some, they usually work out to serve the greater good in the end (situations where things go off the rails, like My Lai or Abu Ghraib notwithstanding).

Anyway, sorry for adding to the extensive history talk on a physics forum. But I couldn't resist.

[MSimon]

Physicists of all people need to know history.

Nice digression.