Talk-Polywell.org

....

Please stop posting things multiple times.
You put it in history. Fine. Don't repeat it here.

Hello,

Had to move the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4LNqgdHWEY

It covers 60 years of fusion history in 5 minutes.

====
The film is dedicated to: Bill Pickles, Edwin Kintner, Ken Fowler, John Clarke, Richard F. Post, Jay Kesner, Fred Coensgen, Marshall Rosenbluth, David Baldwin, Lawrence Lidsky, Vladimir Pastukhov, Eric Lerner, Robert Bussard, Hannes Alfvén, Robert Hirsch, David Meyerhofer, Taylor Wilson, Harold P. Furth, Lyman Spritzer, George Miley, Andrea Rossi, Martin Fleischmann, Eugene Mallove, Stanley Pons, Charlie Thompson, Philo Farnsworth, John Sethian, Rusi Taleyarkhan, Bob Cook, Wayne Knox, Albert Simon, R. J. Taylor, Gérard Mourou Edward Moses, John Lindl, Jonathan Howard, Daniel Lizarralde, Mark Suppes, Lev Artsimovich, Francis F. Chen, Peter Catto, Ricardo Betti, William Barr, DC Barns, Rick Nebel, Marsha Freeman, Hans-Otto Wüster, Martin Keilhacker, Jérôme Paméla, Francesco Romanelli, Moshe J. Lubin, Thomas Dolan, Michel Laberge, Doug Richardson, Norman Rostoker, Richard Hull, Hendrik J Monkhorst, Michl Binderbauer, Gerald L. Kulcinski, Hiroshi Azechi, Nakai Mitsuo, Shigemori Keisuke, Joseph Kilkenny, Freeman Dyson, Michael E. Mauel, Joe Khachan, Jeff Sanderson, Hew Leggit, Todd Rider, H. J. Oskam, George Bekefi, Thaddeus Orzechowski, John Deutch, David Rose, Donna Strickland, Edward Teller, John Lawson, Jim Tuck, Robert Hofstadter, Robert J. Burke, Stephen Slutz, Stanley Skupsky, Martin Schwarzschild, Andrei Sakharov, Stephen Dean, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Evgeny Velikhov, Nicholas Krall, John F. Santarius, Abbas Nikroo, Brian Cox, Melvin Gottlieb, Arthur Ruark, Arthur Snell, James Berkowitz, Harold Grad, Nicholas Christofilos, George Sawyer, Herman Postma, Tihiro Ohkawa and all who quest for fusion power.

Doesn't this now qualify as spam?
Where is moderation? Oh, chasing the drug war...

Do you have a list of the experiments shown in the video?

ladajo wrote:Doesn't this now qualify as spam?
Where is moderation? Oh, chasing the drug war...

Actually I'm doing electronics. And the Drug war. But mostly electronics.

Explain why this is spam.

You do not think that making the same post to an external webpage(self advertising...) across multiple forums here is spamming?

We, the Forumites, have asked him multiple times to post once and let it be. He chooses to continue the shotgun fire. It is unneccesary.

Please note, I am not calling you out for the same thing with drug war stuff. I mean, if I had a nickle for every time you have rolled out your ex-cop buddy....

But seriously, while mattman's efforts to promote and digest polywell are notable in my book, it is unwarranted to shotgun the same links here across multiple forums.

ladajo wrote:You do not think that making the same post to an external webpage(self advertising...) across multiple forums here is spamming?

We, the Forumites, have asked him multiple times to post once and let it be. He chooses to continue the shotgun fire. It is unneccesary.

Please note, I am not calling you out for the same thing with drug war stuff. I mean, if I had a nickle for every time you have rolled out your ex-cop buddy.... :wink:

But seriously, while mattman's efforts to promote and digest polywell are notable in my book, it is unwarranted to shotgun the same links here across multiple forums.

OK. I'll have a word with him.

ladajo wrote:Please note, I am not calling you out for the same thing with drug war stuff. I mean, if I had a nickle for every time you have rolled out your ex-cop buddy.... :wink:

I like to include links in comments where relevant. But I don't make a habit of starting a new topic with the same link multiple times.

Funny enough re:my DW stuff. None of my opponents seem to check out my evidence. Something they would never do on any other technical topic. Emotionalism seems to get in the way.

I think it has a lot to do with old folks (anyone over 25) rarely being able to learn new things. But that observation is not new with me:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

I think Prohibitionists face a similar problem: "a new generation grows up that is familiar with it". Since the late 60s people have grown up with widespread violations of the laws easily visible and they don't see what all the fuss is about.

My worry is that this sea change will poison them against the rest of the program on the right which is mostly sound. Certainly sounder than most of the program on the left.

But the left has been pulling this trick for ages. They will find a defect on the right and then go on to say, "well if they can't get something this obvious right what does it say about the rest of their program?" And the right plays right along by digging in and doubling down.

The right is stupid enough to try and hold every piece of ground instead of only the important pieces. And that holding causes them to lie (the Needle Parks in Switzerland are long gone - why? - legalization) further hurting their position. I'm not against propaganda. I do it myself. But I'm totally against lying. It is counterproductive.

The only important piece of ground the right should be holding these days is economics. Instead they get caught up in peripheral issues. Like Prohibition etc. Forgetting that if we don't get economics right none of the rest matters. Ah. Well. We ARE getting the government we deserve.

BTW it is my contention that if the right stuck strictly to economics they couldn't lose elections. That tent is a VERY big one. But every other issue added on loses some votes. Enough of those other issues and you lose elections. You win elections by addition NOT by subtraction.

Thanks for giving him a poke Mike.

I must agree with your additive comment. Sigh.

One thing I do find funny is that with record voter turnouts the last couple of cycles we see a clear even split in the nation. So I have yet to figure out who is the 99% if the voters are split 50/50.

MSimon,

Yes, you win elections by addition, not subtraction. However if neither party adds Right To Life voters, for example, you can subtract all those votes. Right to Life groups turn out voters. The NRA also turns our voters. Since both are not economic I don't think your equation holds. It is true that taking a position on either side of life and guns both adds and subtracts voters. However, I am not familiar with an economic position which only adds voters.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... williamson

Yours,
Tom

Tom DeGisi wrote:MSimon,

Yes, you win elections by addition, not subtraction. However if neither party adds 'Right To Life', for example, you can subtract all those votes. Right to Life groups turn out voters. The NRA also turns our voters. Since both are not economic I don't think your equation holds. It is true that taking a position on either side of life and guns both adds and subtracts voters. However, I am not familiar with an economic position which only adds voters.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... williamson

Yours,
Tom

Well OK. I think that is unwise. Medical stuff should be up to the states at least according to the original Constitution - but no one cares about that any more. Not even the so called "Constitutionalists". Proof that no one cares? Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment? I'm OK with a Right to Life Amendment. And the attendant Black Market. How are you doing with passage?

BTW the last I looked the 2nd Amendment was still in the Constitution. And has 75% support.

'Right to Life' - sentences like this really do annoy me

303,

Is the sentence better now?

MSimon,

What is unwise? I can't figure out what the word 'that' in the sentence 'I think that is unwise' refers to. I care about medical stuff and the states. There should be Drug Prohibition Amendment for the feds to prohibit drugs. There should *not* be an FDA unless there is a different Amendment. Passage of a Right to Life Amendment is dead in the water. However, even many liberal lawyers agree that Roe was badly decided and badly written. I am hoping that Roe and Casey will be overturned. Then it goes back to the states.

I know about the 2nd and its support. What I am reacting to is your comment about the right and economic issues. Every sub group in the right wing coalition like to downplay the issues of the other sub groups. This is only natural. If you are strong military conservative and don't care about social conservative issues you will tend to downplay them just because you don't care about them. But you need the so-con votes to win. That means that ditching so-con issues may lose you the votes you need for a strong military. My point is that the right cannot win on economic issues alone.

Yours,
Tom

But you need the so-con votes to win.

No. You don't understand politics. It is the last vote you need to win that determines party policy - if winning is the goal.

The margins rule.

If the so-cons (all your base are belong to us) devise policy that does not attract enough votes to win they lose on everything. You have to decide what you will give way on to win. The leftists currently are better at figuring this out than the right. Yes they lie. But they get elections. So they lie enough during elections to win.

That usually changes when the losses start hurting enough. One side gets arrogant and the other side gets hungry.

Yes. Roe was wrong. But can you gain enough votes at the margins on that issue to win elections? So far the answer (Aikin, Mourdock) is no.

You want to know where the votes are? Med-pot. About 75% to 85% support. And yet because a core of socons are prohibitionists the Rs will not touch it. So they keep their core and lose elections (nationally).

Prohibition is coming to an end. It is obvious. And yet the Republican base digs in its heels instead of getting in front of the parade. I see a 1932 coming in 2016. As if 8 years of Obama isn't enough.

What I see is the Republican base confuses politics with religion. But Christianity thrived in a bad political environment at its beginning. No reason it can't do the same now. If the faithful had enough faith.