Focus Fusion news story

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat May 12, 2012 4:27 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Betruger wrote:Joseph?
You are waiting for answer from me on Ladajo's "it's enough for me"?
Betruger wrote: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.

My thinking is primitive too. If it walks like a duck.. It's a duck till it proves otherwise. Like reading those references.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat May 12, 2012 5:06 am

When was the Valencia paper written??? In the 90s???

Gahhhh!!!

<face lands involuntarily in palms again>

Read even just the title of the references Joseph.

Read the references Joseph.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat May 12, 2012 5:10 am

Tom,
The peer review was for this contract mod. So it is new, and as stated in the J&A, consisted of field experts. Might be fun to speculate who they are, seeings how they don't seem to make the names public.

In any event. I think this is good news. Especially given that they made a point of saying the in 4 to 5 years production bit. For a group notorious for staying mum, this J&A is a comparative babblefest.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat May 12, 2012 5:23 am

ladajo wrote:When was the Valencia paper written??? In the 90s???

And? After WB6, 7 or 8? Or before?
On base of what such optimism?
Opinion of "board of experts"? Who they are? Navy task forces experts? May be or not that once they being mistaken would not like to recognize that mistake and approved limited financing enough only on salary of 3 men?
I know only one reputable board of experts" in USA. This is department of fusion science of DOE.
Do you really believe that financing of several millions enough for solving of world challenge? When one Holywood's filme may be financed at several hunderds millions? Football/soccer teams buy players at tens millions, differnt Beinces/Rihanas.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat May 12, 2012 7:59 am

ladajo wrote:Tom,
The peer review was for this contract mod. So it is new, and as stated in the J&A, consisted of field experts. Might be fun to speculate who they are, seeings how they don't seem to make the names public.

In any event. I think this is good news. Especially given that they made a point of saying the in 4 to 5 years production bit. For a group notorious for staying mum, this J&A is a comparative babblefest.

Well consider:

Navy will not I expect have much money to spare for blue skies R&D?

Review by scientists means that the latest results must remain compatible with the hope of a scalable polywell Q>5 power source.

They are continuing project.

So it definitely means the new results are not bad news. It does not necessarily mean good news because they may be in a position where having started the effort they want to finish and get a yes/no answer, so will do this as long as results are not definitely negative, in which case uncertain but mildly negative results would still get contract.

From our POV the only convincing info about whether the "nuances" are positive or negative is a proper science review, and this is a second one with a good outcome. So since you first posted this I've been rather surprised everyone is not jumping on this as very good news.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat May 12, 2012 8:08 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:When was the Valencia paper written??? In the 90s???
And? After WB6, 7 or 8? Or before?
On base of what such optimism?
Opinion of "board of experts"? Who they are? Navy task forces experts? May be or not that once they being mistaken would not like to recognize that mistake and approved limited financing enough only on salary of 3 men?
I know only one reputable board of experts" in USA. This is department of fusion science of DOE.
Do you really believe that financing of several millions enough for solving of world challenge? When one Holywood's filme may be financed at several hunderds millions? Football/soccer teams buy players at tens millions, differnt Beinces/Rihanas.

Joseph - they are probably the same panel of experts (or a subset of) those who did the original review. And while probably you could put together a "better" panel in the best of all possible worlds they will have relevant scientific expertise (plasma physics) and there is no reason to think them incapable of coming to informed conclusions.

I'd trust them any day over one internet poster with strong opinions who (from my knowledge on this thread) conflates the concepts of heating and thermalisation.

Not that their liking Polywell means it will work. Just that it cannot be self-evidently wrong as you seem to claim, and the results so far must support continued hope.

PS - if you consider P-B11 fusion and only the charged beam output power then maybe Q > 2 would be OK, since cost of power recycling is much smaller so even 30% excess after losses would be acceptable? Though you need to reckon that Total Loss/Total output is an important ratio, since for given output it determines the amount of cooling needed.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat May 12, 2012 9:47 am

As on base of my very limited knowledge how plasma should behave in this case, Polywell should not work as desired.

Well see. There is your problem. Dr. B spent decades with plasma before he came up with the idea. And the US Navy - not exactly ignorant of plasma physics - is willing to continue to dump money into the project. Do you suppose they know more than you do? I'd give odds.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:15 am

tomclarke wrote:who (from my knowledge on this thread) conflates the concepts of heating and thermalisation.

Heating is increase of intensity of thermal motion. Cooling - decrease.
Intensity can be measure with internal energy. Can be measure with temperature. Can be measure with temperature and pressure. Depending on case.
Thermalization - is a slangy word meaning approx the same as heating: increase intensity of thermal motion - thermalization. If you or Kiteman or any other not put in it another meaning.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:15 am

MSimon wrote:There is your problem. Dr. B spent decades with plasma before he came up with the idea. And the US Navy - not exactly ignorant of plasma physics - is willing to continue to dump money into the project. Do you suppose they know more than you do?

Do you really expect a pompous muppet who cannot, and does not even begin to, understand the difference between 'thermalisation' and 'heating' (yet presents posters at conferences on beam instabilities!!!!

) would ever lower himself to accepting that he doesn't know more that anyone else!?!?!?

The multiple voices for a ban, long ago, should have been implemented.

It is still not too late - even though this is just a ghost's voice commenting, his input is still a serious degradation of this site just to casual lookers-in (let alone for regular posters).

Just imagine if/when some real results do come in - 50% of the comments from that point on will be from this banal fool accepting nothing spoon fed to him, completely compromising any future discussions on Polywell.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:18 am

MSimon wrote:
As on base of my very limited knowledge how plasma should behave in this case, Polywell should not work as desired.
Well see. There is your problem. Dr. B spent decades with plasma before he came up with the idea. And the US Navy - not exactly ignorant of plasma physics - is willing to continue to dump money into the project. Do you suppose they know more than you do? I'd give odds.

MSimon
Only the God can have unlimited knowledge.
All others including the biggest experts have limited.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:19 am

some_idiot wrote:Thermalization - is a slangy word meaning approx the same as heating: increase intensity of thermal motion - thermalization. If you or Kiteman or any other not put in it another meaning.

Sealed box containing two cavities with a closed valve between. One cavity has hot gas, one cold. Open valve. You get; THERMALISATION WITHOUT HEATING.

Piston compressing gas in a cylinder head. You get;HEATING WITHOUT THERMALISATION.

Clearly, the two are quite distinct phenomena.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:23 am

The multiple voices for a ban, long ago, should have been implemented.

It takes quite a bit more than ignorance, stupidity, and obnoxiousness to get banned around here.

There has only been one banning in the lifetime of this board (the board started in the summer of 2007). And the guy had to work really hard to accomplish that.

Sorry but this is pretty much a free speech zone.

BTW haven't seen you around for a while. How's trix? Or did I miss you while I was busy elsewhere?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:26 am

chrismb wrote:Do you really expect a pompous muppet who cannot, and does not even begin to, understand the difference between 'thermalisation' and 'heating'

I understand, Chris, that you beared personal grudge.
I can not help you.
You said many nonsenses that time and please let me free from your nonsenses now.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:29 am

Joseph Chikva wrote: Intensity can be measure with internal energy. Can be measure with temperature. Can be measure with temperature and pressure. Depending on case.

Uh. You left one out. It can be measured in electron volts. Thus an accelerator heats without thermalization. Mr. smarter than every one else.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:31 am

chrismb wrote:Sealed box containing two cavities with a closed valve between. One cavity has hot gas, one cold. Open valve. You get; THERMALISATION WITHOUT HEATING.

This is only name issue, my friend. We in former SU call this not thermalization but cooling with mixing. As two spices attempt to equlize their temperatures: one heating while the second cooling.