Joseph Chikva wrote:And what is to "get angry all the time"? If I say to Rossi fans (rossibots) not to have much expectations on ecat? Or when I advise you not to have much expectations on Polywell? As by my vision both situations are very similar.
The physics behind the Polywell is pretty common sense and understood. No one has yet an explanation for how or why the ECat ought to work. That's my single biggest objection with it. When you build a device before you have a theory that would instruct you about how to build the device, you're not doing science. The Polywell is a science experiment. The ECat is not. Likewise, Rossi is a con artist with a proven record of deceiving people. Bussard and the folks at EMC2 are anything but.
So what did you think they had in common? And yes, when you make outlandish statements like that, it does make you seem angry or at the least, a bit emotionally distressed.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:The physics behind the Polywell is pretty common sense and understood.
It's not so. The model of ion oscillating harmonically around potential well does not work. Wiffleball effect is not proven. Statement that because of convex field Polywell has immunity against macroinstabilities is wrong. Etc.
Well as I'm not a nuclear physicist I'm not going to argue with you here. Are you a nuclear physicist? Just curious because inertial electrostatic oscillation and confinement was confirmed experimentally with the POPS experiment and that was peer reviewed in 1998. Did you respond in the published literature with your disagreement?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote: inertial electrostatic oscillation and confinement was confirmed experimentally with the POPS experiment and that was peer reviewed in 1998.
I would believe in combination of two types of motion, one of them is harmonic oscillation, while the second - chaotic (thermal) caused by multiple scatterings. Only harmonic oscillation when there is not any forces returning particles after each scattering event to "right" radial direction is a nonsense.
Now when in recent and current experiments they have the so called "collisionless" plasma intensity of thermal motion would be increase slowly - energy of harmonic motion transfers into thermal (thermalisation process). But people here hope that number density in commercial Polywell will reach 10^22 m^-3 and plasma will become "collisional". Instabilities: there is one paper of Dr. Nebel in which he states that due to high thermal component for electron spice, electron-electron two-stream instability is not issue for Polywell (this is so called "Landau damping"). But nobody speaks about possibility electron-ion two-stream. But initially when injected ions have neglectable chaotic component. And again they are going to run at 10^22 m^-3. This is unbelievable regardless to my emotional state.
Running at beta=1 is impossible in case of instability. And as proof of achievement of this value here is mentioned particle losses. This is incorrect. Because in case of presence of waves we can loss water from swimming pool even when that is not full.
Thanks for the link, but I believe someone already posted it.
Bernie Koppenhofer wrote on October 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Rossi Patent strategy is very clear: Keep the patent process going while protecting his IP via trade secret strategies.
Andrea Rossi
October 30th, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Dear Luigi Sandri:
1- it is false that any of our patent applications has been rejected. The process of patent pending is long and complex and goes through series of discussions between the Patent Office and the Attorneys of the Inventor. This is true for normal patents, you can imagine how complex is in this case.
2- the fact that the patent is accepted or not will not affect at all our production and the diffusion of our plants. Simply, we will have to defend the Intellectual Property in other ways. Actually, we are manufacturing our plants and delivering too.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Did you read the "Annex to the communication"? Rossi can't "keep the patent process going while protecting his IP via trade secret strategies". As I've been saying all along, you can't patent a trade secret. It's either the one or the other. I'm guessing it'll be the trade secrets.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
ladajo wrote:No wonder you get angry all the time. Stuck between Turkey and Russia.
Just what until they fight the war again...
That's only your vision. The reality is in that Russia can be splitted again. And several countries may be "stuck between Turkey and Russia".
And what is to "get angry all the time"? If I say to Rossi fans (rossibots) not to have much expectations on ecat? Or when I advise you not to have much expectations on Polywell? As by my vision both situations are very similar.
Joseph, I was only teasing you. It was not serious.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Joseph Chikva wrote:Only harmonic oscillation when there is not any forces returning particles after each scattering event to "right" radial direction is a nonsense.
Yes well, despite your objection, the Poly has good reason to suspect it will work. There is a plausible theory behind its operation, whereas this is not true of the ECat. If you want you can complain that the theory is wrong in some sense, but it exists and guided the construction of the device and the experiment. This is not true of the ECat which is not governed by such guiding principles, but rather by guesswork. The Poly and ECat have nothing in common.
Why didn't you make your complaint where it belongs, in the peer review literature?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, despite your objection, the Poly has good reason to suspect it will work.
I doubt that you can find the answers on questions I've put anywhere. But questions are quite legit. Regardless to where they are written - here in this thread or in another place.
Joseph,
Just because you have not seen answers does not mean the they are not exisiting.
A very large clue for you should be the multiple independant review panels that Polywell has met favorably each time. Ecat has yet to do even one.
Do you really think that you are hte only guy to raise these questions?
I would also argue strongly that Wiffleball is proven. And I have previously showed you the released literature discussing such.
This year's IEC Conference has talks on two-stream. Have you reviewed any of it yet?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Joseph Chikva wrote:But questions are quite legit. Regardless to where they are written - here in this thread or in another place.
No offense but science is not done in public blogs. It is done in peer reviewed journals where the professional reputation of each participant is on the line each time they write a paper or a response to a paper. That is what it takes to have a responsible conversation on an extremely specialized field that only a select few can claim to know enough about to participate in. Peer review has its problems, but it is in general an excellent system.
So I have to ask again, if you're so sure that your complaints have merit, why have you not made them in the proper venue?
You do realize that when you spread these allegations that inertial electrostatic confinement is comparable to the voodoo science involved with the ECat, these are most serious charges. When you say the wiffleball is not proven, you are directly contradicting the experimental evidence presented by people like Nebel back in 1998. When you say Nebel is wrong, you are correcting a top notch nuclear physicist who has been working this single issue for more than 2 decades. So again I have to ask, who are you to do this? Are you a nuclear physicist and why haven't you published your complaints through the proper venue? And let me ask, where's the math? Have you published your calculations to show your argument has any validity?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:No offense but science is not done in public blogs.
GIThruster wrote:The physics behind the Polywell is pretty common sense and understood. No one has yet an explanation for how or why the ECat ought to work. That's my single biggest objection with it.
Do these two quoted statements not contradict each other?
And science I understand as putting questions and as answering on them. You can answering theoretically or experimentally. And there are not any clear answers on questions I've put. Regardless to e.g. ladajo's statement: "wiffleball was observed". Link?