Talk-Polywell.org

So if I understand correctly, they say it is not patentable because it will not go past break even point.
so this would leave it open for anyone to "refine" this process and make their own patent application?
Like lockheed martin?

The whole thing is now unpatentable because it is in the public domain.

However, if there was some key feature or enablement that was required to make it work, then that new enablement would be patentable.

But, in a sort of 'perverse reversal' of fortunes, Polywell can now only be patented if it doesn't work as stated in Bussard's patent, but it could if some key feature has been missing all along from the patent applications (or in the public domain) and has yet to be revealed to make it work. Then an application could be made for that missing feature.

If it does work as intended, then it is now unpatentable.

Also worth emphasising the decision



The board of appeal disagreed with the patent examiner that it has no use (even if it does not hit break-even), but agreed with him that it would take too much experimentation to get it to that utility.

Considering the amount of utter crap that USPTO grants patents for, their rejection of Bussard's patent application means nothing.

The whole system is broken and needs to be revamped.

BTW, one of the patent judges is an ex-Navy nuke.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/hyun-j-jung/a/a98/a1
Fission Mafia?

It means nothing, insofar as the physics of it.

It means everything, insofar as no for-profit body will invest in its R&D whilst there is no protection on commercial returns-on-investment at the end of it.

chrismb wrote:It means nothing, insofar as the physics of it.

It means everything, insofar as no for-profit body will invest in its R&D whilst there is no protection on commercial returns-on-investment at the end of it.

So the fossil fuel industry strikes again?

KitemanSA wrote:So the fossil fuel industry strikes again?

Expediency issue strikes and not interests of some branch of economics taken separately. Humanity needs new energy source not today but needs about 50 years readiness technology. There is not necessity to make big investments today. All the more in questionable technology.
Also if you mean that investments made in TOKAMAKs or total amount of money spent in fusion research are big, you don’t feel the real significance of problem. As by the end of oil era cost of energy will be higher on order/orders of magnitude then today’s prices. But investments will go only in viable approaches with very well developed theory. And as I see theory of Polywell is weak.

See the reference list in Bussard patent application. What Morozov’s “Galatea” is?

DeltaV wrote:Fission Mafia?

Are you sure that at least initially fusion energy will be cheaper than fission?
What mafia has to do with viability of certain fusion approach?
If patents are granted utilizing only two criteria: novelty and usefulness.
May be or not that Bussard proposed novel but less useful approach?
Before posting here I've read what Russian Galatea is here: http://ufn.ru/ufn98/ufn98_11/Russian/r9811a.pdf
http://ufn.ru/en/articles/1998/11/a/
For your reference there is considered thermal plasma and considered various types of instabilities caused by diamagnetic properties of plasma. And very ridiculous popular here statements about possibility for Polywell to run at beta=1

I hope the examiner was competent.
Busard said people trained in tokamaks use to not understand the polywell.

Torulf2 wrote:Busard said people trained in tokamaks use to not understand the polywell.

That is one more delusion.
As Bussard from his side worked on TOKAMAK concept too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggatron
And what do you think, people here even not having the regular physics education - programmers, military men, etc. can understand Polywell or any other approaches better than well trained plasma physicists?
That is nonsense.
Seeing at Riggatron concept (high-aspect ratio Tokamak) we can assume that theory was not a strength of namely Dr. Bussard. As only low aspect ratio Tokamaks are under consideration today.
And his attempt to force investing in the project of far from physics person specifies that Bussard also was inclined to intentional deception.

so actually no... a lot of plasma physicists are very specialized, to the point where one person of a specialization wont just know indepth information of another specialization. Dont claim that tok guys know the fine details of beam compression, or even something that's more down their alley, like stellarators.

polywell is already not well known by the mainstream community, how the hell would they know the details of polywell? WB effect isnt well understood even within the field (sure it happens, sure the computer simulations predicts it, sure we know it's due to diamagnetic effects, but how does it really work? I think only like less than 10 people in the world really knows)

Wondering if I'm wasting time typing this.

Robthebob wrote:so actually no... a lot of plasma physicists are very specialized, to the point where one person of a specialization wont just know indepth information of another specialization. Dont claim that tok guys know the fine details of beam compression, or even something that's more down their alley, like stellarators.

polywell is already not well known by the mainstream community, how the hell would they know the details of polywell? WB effect isnt well understood even within the field (sure it happens, sure the computer simulations predicts it, sure we know it's due to diamagnetic effects, but how does it really work? I think only like less than 10 people in the world really knows)

Wondering if I'm wasting time typing this.

Wiffleball, annealing and MaGrid are only the words thought up by Bussard.
Only 10 people understand whar wiffleball is?
IIRC you were very delighted when I provided you a 40 years old article about influence of plasma own field on externally applied field in mirror machines.
Those reasonings are not new too, my friend.
Simply, after extensive research "mainstream community" now states that mirror machines are not attractive for fusion. Yes, they provide possibility to run at higher beta (not 1 but about beta value varies from 0 to 0.7) due to unexpected cusp losses double product nτ always was lower than in dooghnut machines.

chrismb wrote:It means nothing, insofar as the physics of it.

It means everything, insofar as no for-profit body will invest in its R&D whilst there is no protection on commercial returns-on-investment at the end of it.

If I understand correctly, SpaceX does not patent their technology but keeps it under wraps (trade secrets), at least as far as the important details go. I recall Musk making some statement like "Why give it to the Chinese by patenting it?" (paraphrase).

I wonder if EMC2 has also decided to abandon the screwed-up patent process and keep key details as trade secrets, indefinitely. This might explain the recent years of silence. Or, it went deep black and has a classified patent.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

DeltaV wrote:Fission Mafia?

Are you sure that at least initially fusion energy will be cheaper than fission?
What mafia has to do with viability of certain fusion approach?

I'd say a working Polywell would be initially cheaper than a traditional fission plant, yes.
Newer fission reactor types, such as smaller self-quenching and/or thorium varieties, might be comparable, but I really don't care.
I want to see aneutronic p-11B fusion become the norm, regardless of initial costs.

I used "Fission Mafia" to denote fission industry "thugs", not (overtly) criminal thugs. Those who use whatever means they can to preserve the (profitable to them) status quo. The dangers of fission are a great excuse to keep costs (profits) high.

Torulf2 wrote:I hope the examiner was competent.
Busard said people trained in tokamaks use to not understand the polywell.

I don't think any of the examiners or judges were plasma physicists. The patent judge I linked to has an aerospace engineering degree and a law degree. That's part of the problem with the US patent system. Unqualified people making go/no-go decisions on technology they don't fully understand.