Recovery.Gov Project Tracker
I recall Dr. Park saying WB8 was like a Ferrari, something about you have to learn how to drive it or such. Also R Nebel in an interview when WB8 was first announced comparing the new machine to WB7. It would just make sense to me with a new machine that has no operators manual to bring it up to full power in stages. Generally a low power short does less damage than at full power in electrical devices.
CHoff
A Ferrari eh? I think they build them somewhere near Bologna, oh the irony.choff wrote:I recall Dr. Park saying WB8 was like a Ferrari, something about you have to learn how to drive it or such. Also R Nebel in an interview when WB8 was first announced comparing the new machine to WB7. It would just make sense to me with a new machine that has no operators manual to bring it up to full power in stages. Generally a low power short does less damage than at full power in electrical devices.
Based on past naming convention WB8.1 is a modification of WB8, not a new machine. And 8.1 is intended to investigate pB&J, not steady state. At least that is how I read the contract.mvanwink5 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if WB-8.1 was funded for continuous operation rather than pulse operation. Just my personal bias.
WB 9 on the other hand may be a comparable scale steady state machine.
EMC2 update
I'll give it a gochoff wrote:Maybe Alan Boyle can get another interview with Dr. Park?
Re: EMC2 update
Terrific, you have the best track record with EMC2, and I would hope you could tease out a few details when WB-8.1 is finished. Even if all it is - is similar to "Nuanced" results circa WB-7.ABoyle wrote:I'll give it a gochoff wrote:Maybe Alan Boyle can get another interview with Dr. Park?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Re: EMC2 update
Or you could do a "Krivit" on him to get to the bottom of it all ....Roger wrote:Terrific, you have the best track record with EMC2, and I would hope you could tease out a few details when WB-8.1 is finished. Even if all it is - is similar to "Nuanced" results circa WB-7.ABoyle wrote:I'll give it a gochoff wrote:Maybe Alan Boyle can get another interview with Dr. Park?
Re: EMC2 update
Squeeze him out as much as you can!ABoyle wrote:I'll give it a gochoff wrote:Maybe Alan Boyle can get another interview with Dr. Park?
Re: EMC2 update
Seems like you still don't get the difference between EMC2 and Rossi......icarus wrote:Or you could do a "Krivit" on him to get to the bottom of it all ....
Re: EMC2 update
So two standards for scientific proof or more ... a spectrum of scepticism?Giorgio wrote:Seems like you still don't get the difference between EMC2 and Rossi......icarus wrote:Or you could do a "Krivit" on him to get to the bottom of it all ....
Aaaargh!So two standards for scientific proof or more ... a spectrum of scepticism?
Dude, get the difference please:
Product with secret ingredients and no peer review (Ecat) with claims that it will produce net energy ("worth buying").
versus
Test device with known process, evaluated with the scientific method and peer review (Polywell) with no claims that it will produce net energy, but the hope that it might ("worth researching").
You dont get the difference? Or do you just want to troll?
Normally I would say he just wants to troll. But in this case he actually seems to be controlling his temper and name calling so I am not sure. Maybe a bit o both.Skipjack wrote:You dont get the difference? Or do you just want to troll?So two standards for scientific proof or more ... a spectrum of scepticism?
Re: EMC2 update
I am eager to know what s your definition of "scientific standard".icarus wrote:So two standards for scientific proof or more ... a spectrum of scepticism?Giorgio wrote:Seems like you still don't get the difference between EMC2 and Rossi......icarus wrote:Or you could do a "Krivit" on him to get to the bottom of it all ....
Please explain it to us with a practical application to both, Rossi and EMC2.