Focus Fusion news story

[Joseph Chikva]

You intentionally ignore the fact that the wifleball formation has been verified, yes?

When the electrons are first shot into the center of the magrid, they circulate easily, following the lines of force in and out of the magrid (below left – the electrons are shown as black dots). At first, all the magnetic lines of force loop through the center of the magrid, so the electrons are naturally more concentrated at the center of the magrid. This concentration has the effect of pushing the magnetic field away from the center, squeezing the magnetic lines of force against the magrid (below right).

When the lines of force are pushed against the magrid, the cusp “escape paths” are squeezed into a much smaller size, and the electrons can no longer circulate as easily. This newly formed sphere of confinement is called a Whiffle Ball™. The electrons bounce violently back and forth inside of it, trying to escape.

I do not ignore the fact but I can not see the fact. Once measuring not a fact.
Recall that once in LHC was measured that neutrinos had velocity > c.
Then all recognized that there was an experiment error.
When you say "fact" that should be multiple verified and doubtless.
Here people love the term "scientific method".
I kindly ask you the link and description of experiment and method of measurement.
Before we will not have such data nobody can say about verifying.

[ladajo]

It has been provided previously. Several times. Really.

Read the references Joseph.

[Robthebob]

Wiffleball is proven. It has been stated and explained by the project leads.
Beta=1 has been achieved. I buy what they have written and said.

Oh? I thought up until even now they've only implicitly said wiffleball has worked. We're technically not allowed to really cite the Valencia paper, because that talks about work before the Navy cut its funding the first time. Before Dr. Nebel and Park came on board to do verification and further experimentation.

We know high beta has been achieved, that's easy to see, because... well it said they were gonna do it on the last recovery act website posting, it said so in the J&A. (I'm not completely confident, but I think they got high beta on WB7, but that aint good enough, this time, do it for real)

I understand I may be asking too much, but if with everything stacking against us, and we're still right, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that we're right.

But Joe doesnt understand is lack of evidence does not equate to evidence of it doesnt work. He's already wrong about the fact that polywell cant go to high beta, they've done it. Now whether high beta equates to wiffleball is still not completely apparent. But the fact that they have gone to high beta before, when they're verifying WB6's data with WB7, and they didnt just give up, because if they saw that the data from WB7 didnt say what Bussard said it should've looked like, they would've just said so and stopped. This fact suggests it works.

But then again, Joe's never wrong.

[Joseph Chikva]

It has been provided previously. Several times. Really.

Read the references Joseph.

don't dissemble

Joe doesnt understand is lack of evidence does not equate to evidence of it doesnt work.

At least, no evidence.

[ladajo]

Not just the Valencia IAC paper. But also the history paper. And the WB6 report (for those of us who have read it). And, also statements and discussions had by Bussard and Nebel. Then on top of that, we can add the furthering of research and funding by ONR. And most recently, the comment in the 0125 Mod J&A that states,

"The experimental results to date were consistent with the underlying theoretical framework of the Polywell fusion concept and, in the opinion of the committe, merited continuation and expansion."

So here, for WB8, we have cited experimental results, with a competant peer review saying it works like it is suppossed to. And previously, we have Bussard saying, <sic>, "We have Wiffleball!", and explanations of the theory which state that wiffleball is a function of Beta=1. Not to mention Bussard and Nebel talking about operating at Beta=1. And, of course again, the WB6 report discussing Beta=1 conditions. As well as WB7 findings of "Successful", and providing validation for the WB6 results, with "nuances", which were not made public.

It is enough for me.

Read the references Joseph.

[tomclarke]

Not just the Valencia IAC paper. But also the history paper. And the WB6 report (for those of us who have read it). And, also statements and discussions had by Bussard and Nebel. Then on top of that, we can add the furthering of research and funding by ONR. And most recently, the comment in the 0125 Mod J&A that states,

"The experimental results to date were consistent with the underlying theoretical framework of the Polywell fusion concept and, in the opinion of the committe, merited continuation and expansion."

So here, for WB8, we have cited experimental results, with a competant peer review saying it works like it is suppossed to. And previously, we have Bussard saying, <sic>, "We have Wiffleball!", and explanations of the theory which state that wiffleball is a function of Beta=1. Not to mention Bussard and Nebel talking about operating at Beta=1. And, of course again, the WB6 report discussing Beta=1 conditions. As well as WB7 findings of "Successful", and providing validation for the WB6 results, with "nuances", which were not made public.

It is enough for me.

Read the references Joseph.

if this is another peer review, after more results, it is very good news. If it is the nebel peer review to get original contract it is not bad news.

I think it is a new review which means serious people think the new results are worth pursuing.

[Robthebob]

Not just the Valencia IAC paper. But also the history paper. And the WB6 report (for those of us who have read it). And, also statements and discussions had by Bussard and Nebel. Then on top of that, we can add the furthering of research and funding by ONR. And most recently, the comment in the 0125 Mod J&A that states,

"The experimental results to date were consistent with the underlying theoretical framework of the Polywell fusion concept and, in the opinion of the committe, merited continuation and expansion."

So here, for WB8, we have cited experimental results, with a competant peer review saying it works like it is suppossed to. And previously, we have Bussard saying, <sic>, "We have Wiffleball!", and explanations of the theory which state that wiffleball is a function of Beta=1. Not to mention Bussard and Nebel talking about operating at Beta=1. And, of course again, the WB6 report discussing Beta=1 conditions. As well as WB7 findings of "Successful", and providing validation for the WB6 results, with "nuances", which were not made public.

It is enough for me.

if this is another peer review, after more results, it is very good news. If it is the nebel peer review to get original contract it is not bad news.

I think it is a new review which means serious people think the new results are worth pursuing.

I thought that statement is about the original contract. I dont think they have had any new panels that discusses the more recent stuff. I could be wrong tho. As at ladajo, again, I dont think we are allowed to cite anything before WB7, because people would just say Bussard's crazy and old and had cancer and was desperate.

No arguing tho, high beta has happened many times already. You can almost claim that by just the recovery act website saying bigger e-guns for better heating is already pretty solid 3rd party statement that implies that the Wiffleball effect happens.

[MSimon]

Read the references Joseph.

[Robthebob]

Read the references Joseph.

Hey, we can play a game of how many time we can quote this quote.

[Betruger]

Joseph?

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph?

You are waiting for answer from me on Ladajo's "it's enough for me"?

He's probably not a troll. I've known other Russians (yes I know, Georgia), and a few of them fit the same archetype, exactly. Incredibly thick.

The people of my archetype are pathologically sceptical and believe only to the hardest and doubtless evidences.
Someone exclaimed "successful!!!!!!!!!" but didn't publish results and the description of experiment with ways of measurements.
And when Valencia paper was written? Not in 90s?
When I have a choice: to believe or not believe, I prefer to believe to my logic which exactly is very simple and may be primitive.
But at least nobody here could disprove but only touched my archetype, my ethnicity or my thinking ability
Best regards to all.

[MSimon]

When I have a choice: to believe or not believe, I prefer to believe to my logic which exactly is very simple and may be primitive.

Not bad for following an established path.

Useless when blazing a trail in previously unexplored territory.

[mvanwink5]

Joseph,
Missouri in the US is known as the "Show me" state. There is also the Missouri mule. Both characteristics have their strengths and many have wished for more of those characteristics after falling for failures and scams. So, having a high bar before changing ones mind is understandable. Polywell will prove itself or won't whether we are optimistic or skeptical.

I am in the camp that thinks Polywell is the real deal, but I have no personal money or reputation on the table. There is government money being used, true, but those folks overseeing the project have the data. Still, they did not build the demonstration device for whatever reason, yet... that we know of.

Stick around, I hope you are pleasantly surprised when the results are known. In the mean time,
Best regards

[Joseph Chikva]

Useless when blazing a trail in previously unexplored territory.

And belief always is antagonist with knowledge. When you have a lack of knowledge you can believe or not believe. So, always "unexplored territory". Knowledge of real behavior of Polywell in this case. As on base of my very limited knowledge how plasma should behave in this case, Polywell should not work as desired.
Yes, my knowledge is limited but no any evidence that I am wrong.

[Joseph Chikva]

Stick around, I hope you are pleasantly surprised when the results are known.

You are right.
I can not add anything more.
Let's wait.
Best regards,
Joseph