D Tibbets wrote:rcain wrote:Hi Joseph,
Forgive me wading in to the discussion at this late hour.
re. thermalisation (vis: 'Maxwellianisation') - have you read Bussards paper here -
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Some ... ations.pdf
it gives a reasonable description of why it is not 'expected' to be a problem, providing well depth is >20kV
the Valencia paper is also a good read - all are available from MSimons blog here -
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ (rhs panel)
the 'supposed' annealing process is something else however.
Both of those papers has been recommended earlier in this thread, and Joseph said he would read them...
As far as throwing a rock up in the air (he still has things reversed for the ions - they are not thrown up in the air, they are dropped from a height, as the initiating event), I'm not sure how to describe the mass change. It all depends on your frame of reference and the measurement method (?). The energy associated with the particle certainly goes up, and as E=MC^2 the resultant mass goes up. Does that mean a cloud/ jet of gas from a supernova traveling at 99.9.. percent the speed of light has more mass than it would at rest? I don't know, but by most, if not all measures it would. So, to answer the question 'if a rock is accelerated to higher speeds does it have more mass?' within that frame of reference, of course it does, due to the mass- energy equivalence. Do products of a chemical reaction gain mass, or lose mass depending on whether they are exothermic reactions or endothermic reactions? Yes, of course they do, unless you throw out Einsteins theories. The saving grace in all of this is that for most situations these effects are so small that Newton's laws serve and general relativity can be ignored.
As far as criticizing comments made by experts in this field (Bussard, Nebel) that is of course appropriate if you give pertinent counter arguments. Joseph says he is an engineer, so he has read many texts and papers. Does he ignore arguments put forth by Newton, Einstein, Ruthorford, Maxwell, Boltzman, Volta, Faraday, etc... The whole field of science is built on the shoulders of others.
That does not mean any of these individuals are right, but it does mean that they are accepted as authorities in the area, and unless disproven they often serve as good references/ shortcuts.
Just because I have not (or cannot) derive Maxwell's or Newton's equations does not mean they are meaningless. Even if they are subsequently proven to be less than absolutely accurate in all situations (Newton) does not mean that they should be discarded as worthless.
IE: If you disagree with some viewpoint, argue the facts, not the label.
And keep in mind that those with narrow views in science are sometimes proven wrong, by further research. Think of plate tectonics, celestial spheres, flat Earth, ether, field reversed configuration plasma containment, Heisenberg and the atomic bomb, Einstein and the cosmological constant (wrong twice, both times due to assumptions), etc...
This does not mean that you should believe every con artist (or politician) out there, but if you wish to debate an item in depth, you need to exam the data, and failing that examine the expectations- assumptions based on other accepted facts and theories. In this latter case you must be prepared for surprises, and keep an open, if skeptical mind set.
Dan Tibbets
