Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Postby stefanbanev » Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:01 pm

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.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:29 am

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?

...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?

Robthebob
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Postby Robthebob » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:32 am

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.

Robthebob
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Postby Robthebob » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:38 am

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?

...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.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:45 am

Robthebob wrote:Human beings can only have one aspect, right?

Wrong.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Postby stefanbanev » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:58 pm

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).

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:50 pm

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
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.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2681
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:48 pm

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.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2681
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:05 pm

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
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.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:09 am

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
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.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Postby stefanbanev » Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:13 am

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
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.

Carl White
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Postby Carl White » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:05 am

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.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:37 am

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.

ladajo
Posts: 5488
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:58 am

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


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ladajo and 8 guests