tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post1516370378291664304..comments2024-03-19T01:48:39.709+00:00Comments on Power and Control: Engineering Is ScientificM. Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-88617326336479949412007-11-21T01:25:00.000+00:002007-11-21T01:25:00.000+00:00Linear you must be getting low on your Viagra? Ju...Linear you must be getting low on your Viagra? Just ask Msimon -- he'd be happy to set you up with some low price, top quality "medicinal" equivalent...puff, puff, puff you rec druggies!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-91776325378991914382007-11-20T19:56:00.000+00:002007-11-20T19:56:00.000+00:00nomism said......How about you give me half the mo...nomism said...<BR/><EM>...How about you give me half the money right now, I'll take you out back and kick you in the nuts, and we'll call it day? Why the hell would I place a bet with some dumbshit I don't even know?</EM><BR/><BR/>Last time I heard a rant like this, the playground monitor took the kid by the ear and marched him into the principal's office. It was later rumored that his own nuts were smaller than the marbles in his pocket, but that's another story.linearthinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05201292791445921817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-29954638474754129962007-11-20T14:57:00.000+00:002007-11-20T14:57:00.000+00:00Larryd,The Q value does not need to be redefined f...Larryd,<BR/><BR/>The Q value does not need to be redefined for an IEC fusion reactor. The people who do IEC fusion research use the same definition: fusion yield as a ratio to input power. See the following peer-reviewed publication for a good take on IEC's current state and the potential applicability of POPS -- Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere: <BR/><BR/>"Experimental Observation of a Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere in a Gridded Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Device", J. Park, R.A. Nebel, and S. Stange, Physical Review Letters, 95, 015003 (2005).<BR/><BR/>These authors provide a much more balanced and realistic view of IEC fusion as a neutron source for explosive detection, medical isotope generation, and <I>potential</I> future power generation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-79764640514622417302007-11-20T04:38:00.000+00:002007-11-20T04:38:00.000+00:00"Violently bragging"?Well, I guess I struck a nerv..."Violently bragging"?<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess I struck a nerve somewhere. <BR/><BR/>I'm no nuclear physicist, but I have a decent science background, enough to understand Bussard's work on the conceptual level. His work makes sense, conceptually, violates no laws of physics, and he believed that WB-6 had produced enough fusion (three times) to prove his concept workable. Not that there isn't a lot of work to be done before the first power reactor goes on line, but all the remaining work is just standard engineering.<BR/><BR/>WB-7 should be operational in six months, then we'll find out who would have won the bet. Except that nomism never started to discuss terms. Hmm, Q beyond 0.0001 - I'll look that up, it might be a valid measure. Bussard's letter claimed that WB-6 "produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions." That's what WB-7 needs to reproduce.<BR/><BR/>OK. in fusion research, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor" REL="nofollow">Q is the fusion energy gain factor</A>, where 1 is the break even point. Normally defined as the ratio of output to the energy needed to sustain the plasma. Since a Bussard reactor doen't use thermal heating, the definition would have to be tweaked a bit, but the concept can be retained.LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-48189507720305276292007-11-20T02:06:00.000+00:002007-11-20T02:06:00.000+00:00Larryd -- you are the one who is going to eat crow...Larryd -- you are the one who is going to eat crow on this. <B>You're</B> the one violently bragging about IEC and it's unverified claims. Let me know when you demonstrate a Q value beyond 0.0001 - in fact, one of Farnsworth's original fusors still holds the record for neutron output you ignorant moron. Try getting to that level first. <BR/><BR/>I've got a better idea about your sophmoric bet: How about you give me half the money right now, I'll take you out back and kick you in the nuts, and we'll call it day? Why the hell would I place a bet with some dumbshit I don't even know? Six months from now you will be telling me the same thing -- "just wait and see! In six more months...". Blah, blah, blah. You are obviously completely ignorant of how science works and nothing more than a pseudoscientist hack. Go play with some batteries and a light bulb in your garage you hack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-13861260544395821972007-11-19T23:13:00.000+00:002007-11-19T23:13:00.000+00:00They don't need my contribution nomism, they have ...They don't need my contribution nomism, they have a <A HREF="http://www.rexresearch.com/bussard/bussard.htm" REL="nofollow">Navy contract</A>, for which finding is again available. Dr. Bussard's research was interrupted by the Navy's Energy Program being cut for 2006. He manages to fix the last big engineering hurdle and get three successful tests run before WB-6 shorted out. But the analysis of the data had to wait until December. Now that they've been funded again, they can build WB-7 and demonstrate that it works. And publish the papers that you want.<BR/><BR/>And now that you have shown that you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, how about you just wait until WB-7 is built and running before you comment any further. It's the only way you can be <I>sure</I> of not eating crow. Or do you think it's physically impossible for Dr. Bussard to have been right?<BR/><BR/>It shouldn't take but about six more months.LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-33527631310618122572007-11-19T21:30:00.000+00:002007-11-19T21:30:00.000+00:00How do you know it worked Larryd? I've got some g...How do you know it worked Larryd? I've got some great swampland for sale -- a Google Talk complete with slides will be forthcoming. For WB-6, you have only the feeblest anecdotal evidence to point to in the form of a Google talk and and a conference paper submitted <I>in absentia</I>. There was no formal publication, no paper presented at an APS plasma physics conference, no peer review, no nothing. Just a rush to Google to plead for money. That's a classic hallmark of pseudo and pathological science. And you Bussardigans have eaten it all up -- complete with massive overconfidence, self-absorbed backslapping, and grandiose speculation about how it will revolutionize the world. If you really believe in Polywell go donate your $100 to EMC2 Corp -- they have a "donations" link on their page. Go for it. Become a card carrying Bussardigan!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-35492596403273730482007-11-19T19:40:00.000+00:002007-11-19T19:40:00.000+00:00OK, I got the numbering wrong.WB-6 worked, nomism....OK, I got the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#History" REL="nofollow">numbering wrong</A>.<BR/><BR/>WB-6 <I>worked</I>, nomism. It produced fusion, validating the theory and design.<BR/><BR/>WB-7 is to reproduce WB-6's results, to demonstrate to others.<BR/><BR/>WB-8 is to work out a full scale design.<BR/><BR/>I rarely make bets, but I'm willing to put up $100. What odds do you want? And we have to agree exactly what constitutes success or failure of WB-7. Which should be apparent some time next year.LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-60475430277420980312007-11-19T19:28:00.000+00:002007-11-19T19:28:00.000+00:00A Bussardigan Fusion Reactor. Singular. The purpos...A Bussardigan Fusion Reactor. Singular. The purpose of WB-7 is to explore the parameters and fine-tune the design for reactor number one. Which, like IETR, will be a custom rig. Unlike IETR, it will be a prototype <B>power</B> reactor.<BR/><BR/>Then some experience will need to be gained actually operating the reactor, and a manufacturing design will need to be engineered. <I>Then</I> factories can be built or modified and mass production can begin.LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-86744856220815427242007-11-19T19:25:00.000+00:002007-11-19T19:25:00.000+00:00Whatever. What will you spend your time on when W...Whatever. What will you spend your time on when WB-7 fails to perform as anticipated? Or will you and your fellow Bussardigans never accept a negative result? I hope you have a big garage to continue the development.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-77184466158607034892007-11-19T18:19:00.000+00:002007-11-19T18:19:00.000+00:00The proof will be in the pudding. I actually expec...The proof will be in the pudding. <BR/><BR/>I actually expect a lot more than $200 million will get spent. <BR/><BR/>In any case like Climate Science you will have to wait until WB-7 experiments are done and then if they are successful a further 3 to 5 years.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-72376870927983668142007-11-19T18:03:00.000+00:002007-11-19T18:03:00.000+00:00Predicting the future gains one prestige. Tarot re...<I>Predicting the future gains one prestige. Tarot reader or climate scientist. Doesn't matter.</I><BR/><BR/>Does this comment apply to people who claim that full scale, net power producing Bussardigan Fusion Reactors are possible in 3-5 years with $200M in funding?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com