Talk-Polywell.org

*

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... false-dawn

*

The beginning of a redeployment of resources?

oh hi, ICF, didnt know you were still here.

They figured out how to keep the fuel from leaking out when the compression takes place?

Their problem isn't with big Fusion" so much; Their problem is with *any* Fusion. The Premise of the story is, as they say:

Even as a historic milestone nears, skeptics question whether a working reactor will ever be possible

All Fusion qualifies, not just "big" fusion.

All in all, this is a good thing. They've been advocating low power density "solutions" on behalf of the Fossil industry for a long time. Crack the rag and look at their adverts. They'd have us build windmills and solar panels and let King Carbon rule the day. Now they're showing their fear. They've been wrong for so long now.

NIF blowing past Q>1 this year will be an epiphany for the public; It'll open eyes to what is possible. The energy research slipstream caused by the NIF this year will be just what is needed to further promote the types of research that will tend to move us forward. I hate what Scientific American has become.

Helius wrote:Their problem isn't with big Fusion" so much; Their problem is with *any* Fusion. The Premise of the story is, as they say:

Even as a historic milestone nears, skeptics question whether a working reactor will ever be possible

All Fusion qualifies, not just "big" fusion.

All in all, this is a good thing. They've been advocating low power density "solutions" on behalf of the Fossil industry for a long time. Crack the rag and look at their adverts. They'd have us build windmills and solar panels and let King Carbon rule the day. Now they're showing their fear. They've been wrong for so long now.

NIF blowing past Q>1 this year will be an epiphany for the public; It'll open eyes to what is possible. The energy research slipstream caused by the NIF this year will be just what is needed to further promote the types of research that will tend to move us forward. I hate what Scientific American has become.

Scientific American sold itself out a long time ago, starting with their infamous "nuclear winter" article in 1983, authored by Carl Sagan and others. It was following the collapse of the Soviet Union that we all learned that the nuclear winter theory was originally a work of disinformation created by the KGB.

I have no paid any attention, whatsoever, to Scientific American since the mid 80's. The MIT publication, Technology Review, sold itself out to ideologues about 5 years ago when they attempted to discredit Aubrey de Grey's SENS concept for curing aging. Not only did their attempt to discredit SENS failed, it was obvious from reading the magazine itself that it was motivated and based on ideology, not science.

Both magazines have completely discredited themselves. I no longer read either one of them.

Helius wrote:I hate what Scientific American has become.

Agreed. It's now a comic book, like so many other formerly great science/engineering/technology periodicals. A dumbed-down populace is much easier to control. Give them magazines that look like web sites, and soon they'll give up the paper versions altogether.

After they deleted "The Amateur Scientist" section the decline became irreversible.