Robthebob wrote:what's the actual problem that may make p+B11 impossible?
Most critics point to Tom Riders bremstrahlung arguments as making it dead in the water. They ignore Bussard's arguments about running proton-rich to bring it down to 5%.
No they (we) don't. It's an undergraduate calculation to optimize the fuel mix, and everybody does it. [increment counter to 27]
I'm not sure what Bussard's argument is, but it's more than fuel mix. Can anybody help me with a reference?
Rider's paper was after, but if I'm not mistaken he in essence ignored the density and energy distributions used in that EMC2 paper. I'm going off memory from more than a year ago though.
Thanks. I had seen that, but apparently it didn't make a big impression on me. Is this everything, or does somebody know of other relevant (possibly even peer-reviewed?) documents? I've have read through it again and will start a new thread to discuss it.
Thanks. I had seen that, but apparently it didn't make a big impression on me. Is this everything, or does somebody know of other relevant (possibly even peer-reviewed?) documents? I've have read through it again and will start a new thread to discuss it.
Art,
Rider is careful to say that if the assumptions are different a different result might obtain. He does the same when it comes to losses. But you know how it is. Policy makers just read the summary.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Rider is careful to say that if the assumptions are different a different result might obtain. He does the same when it comes to losses. But you know how it is. Policy makers just read the summary.
It's good that you and I know how to read the fine print. If you can think a different set of assumptions that is physically plausible and leads to a more optimistic result, I would like to hear it.
I have started this thread on the Theory forum, which is a better place to get down to the nitty gritty.
MSimon wrote:Rider is careful to say that if the assumptions are different a different result might obtain. He does the same when it comes to losses. But you know how it is. Policy makers just read the summary.
It's good that you and I know how to read the fine print. If you can think a different set of assumptions that is physically plausible and leads to a more optimistic result, I would like to hear it.
I have started this thread on the Theory forum, which is a better place to get down to the nitty gritty.
I wish. My expertise is in project management, electronics, software, hardware, with some nuclear engineering background. The physics I more or less have to take on trust. At least until I can see the experimental results.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.