Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:19 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1797 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 ... 120  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am
Posts: 179
Robthebob wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
mvanwink5 wrote:
I'll believe anything if there is a steady job in it."

Why not? It is very rational position and viewing from this side you will always have bread, butter and piece of bacon.


we're scientists, we're in the business of logic and reason.


Great!! Just add the money as part of model you are so skillful to develop and get the freedom - be rich. Once you add money in your model you may learn that your skill in "logic and reason" is not so advanced behind the universities walls.

The guys working on Polywell should have an ownership with very modest current compensation. I do not think that just a good "training" is enough to make a breakthrough, people should bet their lives to make such accomplishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 2039
Robthebob wrote:
we're scientists, we're in the business of logic and reason.

Robthebob wrote:
I'm pretty much giving up my life for fusion, more specificly polywell, but before they have results, im not holding my breath.

I still think it's frick up that they wont let anyone help them, there's at least 2 legit groups that wants to help do research, and they're just like, nah, our (the US navy)'s face is too important.

"I have a dream" (c)
"I'm pretty much giving up my life..."
Are these two declaration either logic or reason?
To what are those much closer - to poetry or to science?
Why simply not to answer on quite reasonable questions without any poetic allegories?
1. Is it possible to achieve in Polywell beta=1 or close to 1?
2. Is plasma in Polywell thermal or cold? And do particles in Polywell move "strongly radial" as Dr. Nebel declared in correspondence with US Patent Office?

Quote:
...do research, and they're just like, nah, our (the US navy)'s face is too important.

Yes, it's important. If feasible to achieve producing net power on base of Polywell concept. As Navy is interested in nuclear propulsion for warships with sizes much less than aircraft carriers too.
But I am not sure that your and Navy's point of views on Polywell are the same.
As I know total financing of Polywell does not exceed 10 millions USD.
For note this is the cost of about 5 Harpon or 5 Standard of 5 Tomahawk missles used by Navy.
For note: If to believe Wikipedia, only one Ticonderoga class cruiser has ready to fire 122 vertical launch positions and additionally 8 slant launch for Harpoon.
So, 130 ready to fire missiles (if even not considering stored) make 260 millions dollars.
All missiles have their life-cycle after end of which they have to be renewed.
If Polywell is so important for Navy, why not to buy on 50 missiles less each year and to finance better the Polywell’s program?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Posts: 366
Location: Auburn, Alabama
stefanbanev wrote:
The guys working on Polywell should have an ownership with very modest current compensation. I do not think that just a good "training" is enough to make a breakthrough, people should bet their lives to make such accomplishment.


we dont just believe in things, that's not what science is about. we're convinced of its validity.

As for the human part of me, i do wager my life for fusion, that's why im studying physics, going to grad school to learn about plasma physics, keeping up with various information about IEC and polywell.

I'm still not holding my breath tho.

_________________
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Posts: 366
Location: Auburn, Alabama
Joseph Chikva wrote:
"I have a dream" (c)
"I'm pretty much giving up my life..."
Are these two declaration either logic or reason?

Human beings can only have one aspect, right? we cant be both scientists and believers, right?

Quote:
...do research, and they're just like, nah, our (the US navy)'s face is too important.

Yes, it's important. If feasible to achieve producing net power on base of Polywell concept. As Navy is interested in nuclear propulsion for warships with sizes much less than aircraft carriers too.
But I am not sure that your and Navy's point of views on Polywell are the same.
As I know total financing of Polywell does not exceed 10 millions USD.
For note this is the cost of about 5 Harpon or 5 Standard of 5 Tomahawk missles used by Navy.
For note: If to believe Wikipedia, only one Ticonderoga class cruiser has ready to fire 122 vertical launch positions and additionally 8 slant launch for Harpoon.
So, 130 ready to fire missiles (if even not considering stored) make 260 millions dollars.
All missiles have their life-cycle after end of which they have to be renewed.
If Polywell is so important for Navy, why not to buy on 50 missiles less each year and to finance better the Polywell’s program?


Then it's worse than i thought, the Navy wont even provide a striper's tip, cus it may not work. Interesting.

_________________
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 2039
Robthebob wrote:
Human beings can only have one aspect, right?

Wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am
Posts: 179
Robthebob wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:
The guys working on Polywell should have an ownership with very modest current compensation. I do not think that just a good "training" is enough to make a breakthrough, people should bet their lives to make such accomplishment.


we dont just believe in things, that's not what science is about. we're convinced of its validity.

As for the human part of me, i do wager my life for fusion, that's why im studying physics, going to grad school to learn about plasma physics, keeping up with various information about IEC and polywell.

I'm still not holding my breath tho.


>we dont just believe in things, that's not what science is about.
>we're convinced of its validity.

I'm not sure what the believe may do with fusion. It is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity to overcome the Coulomb barrier. It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved. It is why I think that the government backed research has a way lower chances to succeed due to the microbial motivation as "butter and piece of bacon" is likely the compensation gav may offer (plus the glory to be involved in such great development for the most naive souls).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 2039
stefanbanev wrote:
It is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity to overcome the Coulomb barrier. It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

You are absolutely right saying that fusion is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity.
But I am disagree with
Quote:
It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

As in any case that should be a team work. And there in a team should be at least one idea generating person and the rest the very well trained people every knowing how and doing their job well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am
Posts: 2379
5of8 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
If Polywell is so important for Navy, why not to buy on 50 missiles less each year and to finance better the Polywell’s program?


Because missiles are know to work, while Polywell is an expensive dream.


Risk limits are certainly a part, but perhaps even more so is politics. My impression is that the DOE is actively opposed to anything that might compete with their sacred cows - primarily high budget, national lab supporting projects like Tokamak and Laser inertial confinement. That does not mean that other research like Sandia Labs Z- pinch, Polywell, DPF, etc. are completely suppressed, but they need to keep a low profile, which translates into small budgets, and/ or disguising efforts by applying different labels- like fision waste processing, diagnostic tools, neutron sources for mine detection, etc. Ocassionally pure science is accepted, so long as a practical application is not too obvous.

When I am feeling conspiratorial I recall that R. Hirsch, who carried IEC fusion further than anyone else before Bussard, etel, and was high up in the AEC for a while, ended up working for the oil industry.

Dan Tibbets

_________________
To error is human... and I'm very human.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am
Posts: 2379
Joseph Chikva wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:
It is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity to overcome the Coulomb barrier. It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

You are absolutely right saying that fusion is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity.
But I am disagree with
Quote:
It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

As in any case that should be a team work. And there in a team should be at least one idea generating person and the rest the very well trained people every knowing how and doing their job well.


I mildly disagree. Overcoming the Coulomb barrior in order to achieve fusion is a simple process that does not even require much engineering effort. The real issues since the 1950"s was how to do this profitably and sustainably and in useful power densities. There are many subtle physics issues that are still being pursued, and even reassessed at times.
Even if you accept Bussard's claim that the 'physics is done, only engineering remains' for the Polywell. The replication- reproducibility of results is an absolutely essential part of science (and engineering for that matter).
After WB7, and especially after a successful WB8, the claim that the physics is solved and only engineering remains is perhaps valid from a view point that the machine can be successfully built if these engineering issues can be resolved is more reasonable. But this does not preclude the possibility that further physics understanding could improve, or even vastly improve the machine.
Besides I'm not sure where to draw the line between science and engineering.

Dan Tibbets

_________________
To error is human... and I'm very human.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 2039
D Tibbets wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:
It is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity to overcome the Coulomb barrier. It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

You are absolutely right saying that fusion is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity.
But I am disagree with
Quote:
It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

As in any case that should be a team work. And there in a team should be at least one idea generating person and the rest the very well trained people every knowing how and doing their job well.


I mildly disagree. Overcoming the Coulomb barrior in order to achieve fusion is a simple process that does not even require much engineering effort. The real issues since the 1950"s was how to do this profitably and sustainably and in useful power densities. There are many subtle physics issues that are still being pursued, and even reassessed at times.
Even if you accept Bussard's claim that the 'physics is done, only engineering remains' for the Polywell. The replication- reproducibility of results is an absolutely essential part of science (and engineering for that matter).
After WB7, and especially after a successful WB8, the claim that the physics is solved and only engineering remains is perhaps valid from a view point that the machine can be successfully built if these engineering issues can be resolved is more reasonable. But this does not preclude the possibility that further physics understanding could improve, or even vastly improve the machine.
Besides I'm not sure where to draw the line between science and engineering.

Dan Tibbets

I did not say "overcoming barrier".
If we know how to build Large Hadrons Collider, so, there is not any problem for us to provide collision energy on several orders of magnitude less.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am
Posts: 179
D Tibbets wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:
It is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity to overcome the Coulomb barrier. It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

You are absolutely right saying that fusion is just an engineering task which requires quite an ingenuity.
But I am disagree with
Quote:
It is irrelevant how hard physicist has been trained without the sufficient ingenuity and motivation the practically viable fusion can not be achieved.

As in any case that should be a team work. And there in a team should be at least one idea generating person and the rest the very well trained people every knowing how and doing their job well.


I mildly disagree. Overcoming the Coulomb barrior in order to achieve fusion is a simple process that does not even require much engineering effort. The real issues since the 1950"s was how to do this profitably and sustainably and in useful power densities. There are many subtle physics issues that are still being pursued, and even reassessed at times.
Even if you accept Bussard's claim that the 'physics is done, only engineering remains' for the Polywell. The replication- reproducibility of results is an absolutely essential part of science (and engineering for that matter).
After WB7, and especially after a successful WB8, the claim that the physics is solved and only engineering remains is perhaps valid from a view point that the machine can be successfully built if these engineering issues can be resolved is more reasonable. But this does not preclude the possibility that further physics understanding could improve, or even vastly improve the machine.
Besides I'm not sure where to draw the line between science and engineering.

Dan Tibbets


DT>I mildly disagree. Overcoming the Coulomb barrior in order to
DT>achieve fusion is a simple process that does not even require much
DT>engineering effort. The real issues since the 1950"s was how to do
DT>this profitably and sustainably and in useful power densities.

Well, the correct obvious/banal "statements" are one of the major
impediment to any innovation. No offence, to be just right is not difficult,
to make job done is the actual challenge. It is what sets apart academia
from business.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm
Posts: 195
5of8 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
If Polywell is so important for Navy, why not to buy on 50 missiles less each year and to finance better the Polywell’s program?


Because missiles are know to work, while Polywell is an expensive dream.


Yeah, why leave the caves when you can budget for more rocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 2039
Carl White wrote:
5of8 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
If Polywell is so important for Navy, why not to buy on 50 missiles less each year and to finance better the Polywell’s program?


Because missiles are know to work, while Polywell is an expensive dream.


Yeah, why leave the caves when you can budget for more rocks.

I think that they simply are not sure in viability of concept.
Also, many engineering challenges accompanying to fusion such as first wall, blanket, large cryostats for superconducting magnets, etc. develop within the frames of other programs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4866
Location: North East Coast
Some (lawyers) and FOIA wannabes, might find this interesting...

See page 25 for the summary of our favorite project...

N68936-09-C-0125

www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-076.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1797 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 ... 120  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group