A Prediction Regarding Fusion Power

[MSimon]

...BTW I deserve no respect. Either my work passes muster or it doesn't. If it doesn't it deserves to be shot down. I LOVE design reviews. I show no quarter and expect none. I endeavor to be very careful in my work. I have a very big EGO and just HATE getting shot down. I use my EGO as an incentive system....

At least you are honest with yourself. Yes, respect is offered and given. It is the individual who should show respect to others, compassion and understanding to others, a caring and peace towards others as well. Above all, one should have humility about themselves and realize that they are no more special than anyone else and even better, realize that they are no more special than the animals and plants that also share our biosphere. When one realizes this, the self becomes less important and the harmony and well being of all living beings becomes even more important (I learned that from a little teacher and the wise spirits that taught her that).

Part of the humility allows us to realize that we are learning and no one has all the answers or is totally enlightened. But working together we can solve the problems that face us.

Surely as an engineer, you can find ways to improve the lives of others. You are not going to say, why I can design an electric car with zero emissions if I also incorporate larger solar or fusion based systems to power it, but I prefer the old method of combustion and oil changes and soot out of diesel or gas engines while they sit idling in traffic jams that these heat engines are now only consuming without doing any real work just to get someone eventually to work or perform commerce. Or find ways to feed the masses without paying a heavy toll on the environment in terms of resource usage and waste. Surely such smart minds such as yourself can solve these problems without clinging to the past, resisting the change toward sustainability.

Engineers love solving problems, and there is plenty of opportunity for that.

You see those that fear the change, haven't thought out the possibilities. Executives of oil companies can still use their product for plastics instead of combustion into the atmosphere. They can diversify into renewable and fusion power and truly become energy corporations into the future.

Also because of some electrical engineering background, I can see a near future world driven on an electric economy, where all transportation except for airplanes are electric and airplanes for now needed biofuel and computers running our world in an efficient manner. Yes, I see plenty of opportunities for electrical engineers, civil, mechanical, etc.

They say the need is the mother of invention and with so many problems, those individuals who are dedicated not to themselves but to the others can protect the biosphere and all its inhabitance and lift the well being of all. To solve problems and help others, I sure that is why you wanted to be an engineer and it is to those problems that I dedicate my talents for.

A man has got to know his limitations.

I don't believe in peace per se. In general people are not willing to invest the effort required to attain it. The effort is too painful.

I believe in war i.e. peace through superior fire power.

I wanted to be an engineer because the problems of power and control interest me.

It has been my observation that people who preach "working for the greater good" always wind up picking your pocket, imprisoning you, or worse. In general I prefer the company of cutthroats and thieves to ecclesiasticals. The thieves and cutthroats are more honest.

[MSimon]

Please advise on an operating plant using the technology and show how it has driven down electric rates. In addition please explain why it is not being used in coal plants all over the world. It seems unusual that an electric power company would forgo profits.

The only thing I have seen on it is that it is not available and if available would drive up electricity costs by 30% or more. Plus the CO2 would have to be stored some where. Where would that be?

A friend of mine got together with some guys in Hawaii to come up with a surfer's answer to high CO2.

It's currently being patented and a pilot plant is planned. If you know a coal fired power station owner who's interested I can put them in touch...

I guess when you say something to the effect of "we have the technology right now" you mean not right now, possibly much later, and only in my mind, and did I mention a few tests must be made first?

At least you are honest.

[chrismb]

I was given a prediction from a child whom I know has a very special gift:
She said that the military will develop it.

Clearly there is something even more dramatic in the prediction, then.

The military doesn't develop much themselves any more, it's all by private contract. The only way I can see the military developing something for themselves is if a major war occurs. If she had said the military would fund it, then maybe no cause for concern. If she said they'd develop it, then, oops...

[alexjrgreen]

I guess when you say something to the effect of "we have the technology right now" you mean not right now, possibly much later, and only in my mind, and did I mention a few tests must be made first?

At least you are honest.

There's nothing extraordinary about the technology. An unusual application of well known principles.

It just needs to be built.

[flying_eagle]

I was given a prediction from a child whom I know has a very special gift:
She said that the military will develop it.

Clearly there is something even more dramatic in the prediction, then.

The military doesn't develop much themselves any more, it's all by private contract. The only way I can see the military developing something for themselves is if a major war occurs. If she had said the military would fund it, then maybe no cause for concern. If she said they'd develop it, then, oops...

I sure the government funds the military who funds contractors. I can only assume she meant that the military will do it instead of the civilian industry or some other government program. I would also assume she meant our military and not someone elses. But, I don't know that.
From what was said, the issue is more complicated than that. From my own knowledge, many governments, universities, and industries are working on many different ideas and tests, yet she said that it will depend on people's decisions (this goes back to the time issues). One one path, it will take up to 50 years. Yet, on another path, we develop it within 8 to 10 years. She knows that time is difficult to predict because you have to weigh the likelyhood or probability for these timelines, also of course, they are not isolated because they depend on other major world events and our decisions on those issues. So, no war can't be ruled out 100% if it does exists in a specific possible future nor can you rule out a 50 year long effort on a dumb idea. But she feels that instead the military will develop it, it will be based off of polywell, and it should arrive by 2020 because on that timeline, we also begin to solve other problems and that is the one she said she is going with. As she pointed out it would be almost impossible to decide what you will have tomorrow for lunch, but major world events that depend on the actions of many, are much easier to see.

[Aero]

While it is true that the military does very little (relatively speaking) in-house development, they are often given credit as the developer when they manage contracts that they also fund. I think that the Air Force is given credit for developing GPS even though Rockwell, (space segment), Motorola, (user segment), and General Dynamics, (control segment) were the prime contractors where the work was actually performed. Aerospace Corp. did the IV&V. I suspect that "development" in the above context is used in the same way.

[MSimon]

I guess when you say something to the effect of "we have the technology right now" you mean not right now, possibly much later, and only in my mind, and did I mention a few tests must be made first?

At least you are honest.

There's nothing extraordinary about the technology. An unusual application of well known principles.

It just needs to be built.

Ah. It will not be ready for Copenhagen then.

If what you say is so (the technology is profitable) then I will assume that you are not in favor of carbon taxes, carbon quotas, hectoring people about climate change and all the rest that goes with that constellation of thought.

[chrismb]

I guess the questions that could usefully be further asked, then, is; what are the modifications?

Here is a question to ask your young oracle, if you are able; will the fuel ions all travel through the centre of the device, or will they rotate around the centre, or will they bounce into each other everywhere like balls in a play-pit?

[Betruger]

She said that the military will develop it.

Too vague. The Navy's already developing it.

[alexjrgreen]

Ah. It will not be ready for Copenhagen then.

If what you say is so (the technology is profitable) then I will assume that you are not in favor of carbon taxes, carbon quotas, hectoring people about climate change and all the rest that goes with that constellation of thought.

I'm not in favour of making large and accelerating increases in world CO2 levels, simply because the consequences are very poorly understood. I regard it as potential pollution. In that context I have no difficulty with "polluter pays" carbon taxes. Taxing things you want people to use less of is hardly new.

You won't have heard much hectoring from me because there's a much simpler pitch. If companies redesign their production methods to use less energy and produce less waste, their profits are likely to go up.

[MSimon]

Ah. It will not be ready for Copenhagen then.

If what you say is so (the technology is profitable) then I will assume that you are not in favor of carbon taxes, carbon quotas, hectoring people about climate change and all the rest that goes with that constellation of thought.

I'm not in favour of making large and accelerating increases in world CO2 levels, simply because the consequences are very poorly understood. I regard it as potential pollution. In that context I have no difficulty with "polluter pays" carbon taxes. Taxing things you want people to use less of is hardly new.

You won't have heard much hectoring from me because there's a much simpler pitch. If companies redesign their production methods to use less energy and produce less waste, their profits are likely to go up.

Ah. Yes plant food is pollution. Totally.

And yes large amounts of CO2 can be a real danger. Why we even have faulty computer codes that point exactly to that. And bad data too.

And it appears you lack confidence in the CO2 sequestration idea you are aware of. You do know that if it adds to profits it will be adopted much faster than if it is done at the point of a gun.

BTW companies in countries where profit is respected will change their process as much as is economical to increase profits. Capitalism in a system with torts is naturally green.

If greens and those interested in reducing CO2 worked to make the alternatives profitable they would be adopted without resistance.

Some on once made a comment on this board that I had done more than most greens (with my promotion of Polywell) towards technologies that have a great potential for CO2 reduction while increasing general wealth.

The trouble with greens is their obsession with command and control. Otherwise planting trees would be fine with them as a way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. At much lower economic cost than source reduction.

[BenTC]

As she pointed out it would be almost impossible to decide what you will have tomorrow for lunch, but major world events that depend on the actions of many, are much easier to see.

Sounds a bit like psychohistory in Asimov's Foundation series. A series I thoroughly enjoyed.

[BenTC]

There is a problem solving maxim that goes something like: If you NEED something to be true, then assume it. The corollary of this is that the vetting required of truth depends on what it costs you if its wrong.

This associate of Flying_Eagle's may be total fraud, or though inexplicable to science, may be a source of information to progress knowledge of the Polywell. For the purposes of discussion, what would it cost to suspend disbelief for a while? The skeptics can see as providing enough rope to hang themselves - but please be polite. Assuming you had an oracle, what questions would you ask?

Flying_Eagle,
For the good of the world, would your associate consent to answering direct questions about the successful device.

I'm not in a position to ask good technical questions, but the ones from chrismb would be a good starting point.
The question I will ask is:
+ How does her direct response to these questions affect the fate of the Polywell?

[alexjrgreen]

Ah. Yes plant food is pollution. Totally.

And yes large amounts of CO2 can be a real danger. Why we even have faulty computer codes that point exactly to that. And bad data too.

Anything can be pollution in sufficient quantity. Doubts about the calculations only make the uncertainty greater. From a public policy perspective it makes more sense to slow down than to charge blindly ahead.

it appears you lack confidence in the CO2 sequestration idea you are aware of.

Coal fired power stations contribute perhaps 40% of man-made carbon dioxide. So, while removing that from the equation would make a substantial impact, it's not the whole story.

The trouble with greens is their obsession with command and control. Otherwise planting trees would be fine with them as a way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. At much lower economic cost than source reduction.

I would class that as a temporary measure. Trees eventually die and, over time, return the carbon dioxide they absorb unless conditions favour the creation of coal and oil.

[MSimon]

Anything can be pollution in sufficient quantity. Doubts about the calculations only make the uncertainty greater. From a public policy perspective it makes more sense to slow down than to charge blindly ahead.

Well of course we need to slow down. There are way too many people coming out of poverty in the world. People just don't understand he value of starving children. Fortunately you and I can see things differently.

On of course the uncertainty is great between data that predict no catastrophe and only minor change and computer programs which predict civilizational collapse. Given the choice between the computer programs and the data any right thinking person will of course prefer the computer programs. After all the data is just the result of nature while the computer programs were developed by real scientists. And real scientists know the value of starving children.

If we can starve enough children we can avert a CO2 crisis. We can't begin killing them soon enough.