Politics:
If Congress Critters get enough political pressure it doesn't matter what the physicists say.
Here is the deal: There is no computer powerful enough to adequately test the operation of BFRs.
The only way to see if Dr. B was right is to construct a series of machines starting with a continuously operating WB-6 size. If that pans out go for WB-100 with a number of smaller projects as required to gather necessary data for construction of WB-100. More accurate proton - Boron 11 cross sections is one thing we need.
The deal is this: there is no way to tell from physics papers if a given machine will produce net power.
Once we find out how a device works we can construct useful equations. Until then all we have are the grossest of estimates.
Given the current state of the art I'd say fund any thing with promise that shows a Q above .01 from theory, provided the experiments are cheap. If nothing else - we will learn something.
What we want is a change in philosophy. That requires admitting that our ignorance far outstrips our understanding.
What we want is a different kind of fusion program. Testing out BFRs is only the first step in the program. Hopefully it will be the only step required. We can't count on that.
When you say what we want is a series of small tests with larger tests done as experiments warrant - you make it look different than if we are just pleading BFRs.
Plasma Oscillation
Interesting: I read a story on physorg.com that claimed that the 'wiki' approach to innovation (as opposed to institutional) had a disadvantage that people would tend to flock toward what seemed to be the best solution, and no-one would continue to work on less-seemingly promising ideas, some of which could actually morph into better solutions. In other words, the 'follow the crowd' mentality does keep people from wasting their time on solutions that others have already ruled out, but sometimes it also leads people to overlook 'hidden gems.'
It seems like that has happened with fusion research: we need to encourage people poking around in the fringes, b/c that's where some unexpect finds are made. Like Bussard's work.
It seems like that has happened with fusion research: we need to encourage people poking around in the fringes, b/c that's where some unexpect finds are made. Like Bussard's work.
I don't think there is any way to beat the herd mentality.Solo wrote:Interesting: I read a story on physorg.com that claimed that the 'wiki' approach to innovation (as opposed to institutional) had a disadvantage that people would tend to flock toward what seemed to be the best solution, and no-one would continue to work on less-seemingly promising ideas, some of which could actually morph into better solutions. In other words, the 'follow the crowd' mentality does keep people from wasting their time on solutions that others have already ruled out, but sometimes it also leads people to overlook 'hidden gems.'
It seems like that has happened with fusion research: we need to encourage people poking around in the fringes, b/c that's where some unexpect finds are made. Like Bussard's work.
Look at what is going on in small fusion - for the time being it is all Bussard all the time. Not that I'm against that.
We just need to recognize that we may have to change course if BFRs don't pan out.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I was thinking in terms of open source/wiki type efforts.scareduck wrote:I note in passing that Norman Rostoker et al. have $40M at their disposal. So "all Bussard all the time" isn't accurate.MSimon wrote:Look at what is going on in small fusion - for the time being it is all Bussard all the time. Not that I'm against that.
As scarce as it is relative to rqmts we have a lot of info on BFRs that is not similarly available for other approaches.
It may be a case where we are looking where "the light is best" and not near where "we dropped the keys".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.