Sunday, November 04, 2007

We Had Better Get A Move On

There is a very interesting discussion of the nuclear proliferation aspects of the
Bussard Fusion Reactor going on at Talk.Polywell. Here is what I think needs to be done:

We need to build Bussard Reactor neutron generators as soon as possible to test out possible proliferation aspects - like trying to make Plutonium - so we can figure out the best ways to control the proliferation problem.

The cat is out of the bag. We better start looking for a leash.

The idea was suggested to me by my friend Eric of Classical Values.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Anonymous said...

How can the cat be out of the bag when IEC hasn't come anywhere close to demonstrating breakeven operation? Bussard's dubious, unverified claims notwithstanding, you have placed the cart so far ahead of the horse that it's comical. Get a grip on reality for once.

Karridine said...

You MAY be right, A Nony Mouse, but then by the time the Bussard Reactor is functional in somebody ELSE's basement, there may be such an enormous cat that it will be too late to leash it.

A grip on reality sometimes needs a boot in the butt to get going!

And then, cool heads to steer it where it needs to go!

Anonymous said...

Oh look it's "Karridine"-- another long-winded, bandwidth hogging member of the The Msimon Bran Muffin Retiree Club. How ironic it is that your handle is just as "A Nony Mouse" as anonymous.

As has been mentioned many, many, many times: Before you pathological Bussardigans get your undies in a such a bundle, you might want to provide a verifiable demonstration of Q>0.00001. That's the current world record achievable by IEC devices as pointed out recently Park, who first observed POPS oscillation.

Of course, unlike the all the Bussardigans, who seem to be 99.999% convinced that IEC is the solution the world's energy problems, Park makes no such ridiculous statements. And, of course, unlike Bussard has actually published his work in a peer-reviewd journal:

Until you actually demonstrate the viability of IEC, just shut the hell up for once. I am certain that Msimon and his EMC2 buddies (and little birdies who tell him about lavish government funding just around the corner) are plotting and planning, just waiting for the big results of WB-7 to come in!

M. Simon said...


Your infinite ignorance is showing again.

The Bussard reactor does not have to function as a net power power generator to be a neutron source.

You feed in electricity you get out neutrons. Kids are doing this in basements. Now.

You might be fun to have a discussion with if you had any brains.

M. Simon said...


You feed in electricity, you get out neutrons. You can extract your neutron producers from sea water. Or fresh water. There is lots of it around.

I mean how hard is it to understand?

I fear your anger has clouded your judgment.

Anonymous said...

You're the brainless fucking idiot. IEC has been used for medical isotope production for decades. You now think this will become a proliferation problem? How stupid are you?

If you're worried about nuclear proliferation, perhaps you should write your congressman about improving our nation's nuclear security, and not allowing nuclear tipped cruise missiles to suddenly appear on B-52's out of Minot. I don't hear you talking about that, which is a far, far, far more serious issue than your little bullshit fusors. God your ignorance is astounding.

Anonymous said...

This approach hasn't been proved as a source of net power. Maybe it will be, maybe not.

This is the time to carefully build models and investigate. The cost is low.

IMO it will be proved. But I also think the stocks I buy will rise.

The writer is correct; we need to do a better job in funding.

While we continue to fart around - stopping and starting, talking and blowing smoke - other nations will actually work on the problem. And they may very well solve it.

Karridine said...

Most Recent Anonymous (the one who has no need to resort to ad hominem foul language):

You get the big idea here... have America commit to an Energy Manhattan Project, or a Kennedy-esque Energy to the Moon in Ten Years project, and LEARN, in our American commitment, what CAN and CANNOT be done in the way of fusion...

Learn in a rapid, timely manner based on scientific reality... not anger, denial or name-calling.

Anonymous said...

Karradine, you should stick to song writing. You wouldn't know scientific reality from a hole in the wall. In fact, none of you seem to have the foggiest idea of how science works and what the scientific method actually is. Bussardigans are victims of grandiose dreams aimed at a single purpose: to bring down the mainstream physics research community. Msimon sees it as a crusade -- one that feeds an ego the size of Alpha Centauri.

BTW, did you have the national anthem playing in the background as you wrote your post? Tears came to my eyes while reading.

Eric said...

I'm hiding behind a proxy server in Germany, but thanks for mentioning me!

M. Simon said...


Bring down the mainstream physics community? Hardly.

Reach power production (to the grid) in 5 years or less. Certainly.

Have you seen the MIT work on IEC? Very interesting.

BTW two LANL scientists have taken a leave of absence to work on the Bussard reactor. It seems like the physics community (or at least a small part) is embracing colliding beam fusion.

As to unverified claims. Verification is in process. Which is as it ought to be.

Way more should be done in the low cost fusion area. Bussard's Reactor is only one device (with the best prospects in my estimation). They all ought to get make or break funding.

As the premier plasma physicist Dr. Nicholas Krall said, "We spent $15 billion dollars studying tokamaks and what we learned about them is that they are no damn good."

You ought to look up some of the books Krall has authored and see what courses they are used in. Just to check if Dr. Krall is mainstream enough for you.

Anonymous said...


Once again hitching your wagon to a scientist in the very twilight of his career. If you would take the time to do a true literature search, you would discover that Dr. Krall has not provided a significant contribution to fusion science since 1985. In the '90s he drifted into research on dusty space plasmas and that's about it. You keep trying to make IEC more important than it really is by pointing to the reputations of scientists who are no longer involved in the research.

And don't even pretend to say that you're not a highly motivated anti-mainstream science guy. You take perverse pride in going against anything that you perceive mainstream. You're a dyed in the wool ITER hunter, too. You have shown time and again on this blog and other sites that you "want to grab people by the throat" with IEC and embarass the ITER folks. That would stroke your ego like nothing else.