TheEEStory.com

Yep. Most scientists agreed that polywell was "nonsense": impossible in principle, because of the bremsstrahlung radiation. I don't know if they still feel that way or not.

In any case, I wish all the best for EMC2. It's a real shame that Bussard didn't live long enough to see his idea through.

matt wrote:

Yep. Most scientists agreed that polywell was "nonsense": impossible in principle, because of the bremsstrahlung radiation. I don't know if they still feel that way or not.

In any case, I wish all the best for EMC2. It's a real shame that Bussard didn't live long enough to see his idea through.

Most scientists thought brem was likely to be a serious problem, but it comes down to what is the electron temperature & whether this is in equilibrium with the ion temp. There is some wiggle-room here with Polywell maybe different from other devices. So while most would think it a longshot, those who looked carefully (like Nebel) reckoned it was worth pursuing.

Tom

PNeilson 9.9/2 wrote:

Like I said - for you (and most of the English) any commercial intent is suspicious. For me (and many, maybe even most Americans) if you don't have commercial intent who cares!

What total cr*p. Beware of those who pass of their own ideology as the same as "most" of 300 million people.

I doubt ee-tom would support this - "The Men Who Stare at Goats"

http://www.jonronson.com/goats_04.html

In 1979 a secret unit was established by the most gifted minds within the US Army. Defying all known accepted military practice - and indeed, the laws of physics - they believed that a soldier could adopt the cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them.

PNeilson 9.9/2 wrote:

Tom

A few more facts.

Dr. Bussard raised his first $20 million or so of public financing for Polywell based on outrageous, unverified, fantastic claims. Any physicist asked about Dr. Bussard's claims 10 years ago said he was a crackpot. As the last of his money ran out a few years ago, on his sixth attempt at a polywell, he said he had a success. He had a tiny shred of data of questionable quality. He then spent several years without funding and died while popularizing his ideas and seeking funding. Oh, and he did write patents and has a polywell patent.

Dr. Bussard's Google video spurred an internet campaign lead by M. Simon (perhaps aided by the data) that got a small amount of funding to try and replicate Dr. Bussard's last results.

We think Dr Nebel's replication results were successful, he got more funding in any event. There is no public data so we just don't know what Dr. Nebel found.

Someone could attribute nefarious motives to Dr's Bussard and Nebel as you do to Dick Weir. After all, the public evidence is the same. But I won't.

The only real difference I find between Polywell Energy Generation and EESU Energy Storage is that EEStor has to function with private money vs. Polywell's public money.

I see that everything EEStor has done is necessary to function as a private company. I base this on my own experience founding and running a private company. My only commercial complaint about EEStor is that they have not raised enough capital to move fast enough to be successful.

Therefore, I read your response as:

1) You are basically against any kind of privately financed technological development.
2) You are for any kind of government funded technological development.

Now I know why England lost the empire.

Best wishes from an Ugly American,



Paul

Paul --- Perfect! --cept you ain't so ugly

evnow wrote:

PNeilson 9.9/2 wrote:

Like I said - for you (and most of the English) any commercial intent is suspicious. For me (and many, maybe even most Americans) if you don't have commercial intent who cares!

What total cr*p. Beware of those who pass of their own ideology as the same as "most" of 300 million people.

I doubt ee-tom would support this - "The Men Who Stare at Goats"

http://www.jonronson.com/goats_04.html

In 1979 a secret unit was established by the most gifted minds within the US Army. Defying all known accepted military practice - and indeed, the laws of physics - they believed that a soldier could adopt the cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them.

Well, over-generalising from stereotypes of national characteristics to individuals I guess works both ways.

FWIW - I don't judge DW as a bible-thumping yank.

Come to think of it - I suppose we in the UK do tend to see those in US as prone to weird belief-systems... But jdging individuals by common national characteristsics (whether these are true or no) is invidious and stupid.

Thanks Tom

I need someone to call me stupid since po stopped doing that to me in chat. Get's me fired up and more ready to play.

To each his own in seeing weird belief systems.

All your posts on this thread prove my point about you. I just threw in the national character part to aid my point. I just hope I am as invidious and stupid as Wier is delusional.

It's like I posted many months ago about you - I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

PNeilson 9.9/2 wrote:

Dr. Bussard raised his first $20 million or so of public financing for Polywell based on outrageous, unverified, fantastic claims. Any physicist asked about Dr. Bussard's claims 10 years ago said he was a crackpot. As the last of his money ran out a few years ago, on his sixth attempt at a polywell, he said he had a success. He had a tiny shred of data of questionable quality. He then spent several years without funding and died while popularizing his ideas and seeking funding. Oh, and he did write patents and has a polywell patent.

Thanks for that, PNielson. ee-tom's summary was an astoundingly inaccurate whitewash of the true situation.

In fact, until recently when an independent science review panel gave the Polywell a non-negative review**, the Polywell was frequently called "fringe science", and has been *compared* to the EESU. If EEStor submitted its tech for a similar review, perhaps it would now be considered just as respectable by the mainstream scientific community. Of course, since EEStor is not trying for a gov't grant, it has no motive to do so.

**Rather like LM's tech guys saying of EEStor's tech, "We don't see any reason why this can't work."

Oops,
The latest Bussard patent was abandonned.

jam wrote:

Oops,
The latest Bussard patent was abandonned.

Huh? Link? Source?

The abandonment of the patent is discussed in this thread:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t...

Lensman wrote:

PNeilson 9.9/2 wrote:

Dr. Bussard raised his first $20 million or so of public financing for Polywell based on outrageous, unverified, fantastic claims. Any physicist asked about Dr. Bussard's claims 10 years ago said he was a crackpot. As the last of his money ran out a few years ago, on his sixth attempt at a polywell, he said he had a success. He had a tiny shred of data of questionable quality. He then spent several years without funding and died while popularizing his ideas and seeking funding. Oh, and he did write patents and has a polywell patent.

Thanks for that, PNielson. ee-tom's summary was an astoundingly inaccurate whitewash of the true situation.

In fact, until recently when an independent science review panel gave the Polywell a non-negative review**, the Polywell was frequently called "fringe science", and has been *compared* to the EESU. If EEStor submitted its tech for a similar review, perhaps it would now be considered just as respectable by the mainstream scientific community. Of course, since EEStor is not trying for a gov't grant, it has no motive to do so.

**Rather like LM's tech guys saying of EEStor's tech, "We don't see any reason why this can't work."

The point is this. Bussard had no real evidence. His equipment broke just after first readings and just before funding ran out.

Rick Nebel is a serious and careful person who thinks it is worth checking out. No-one at EMC2 is claiming it WILL work, just that there is no far no proof that it won't.

As far as theory goes, there is an MIT thesis which proves, under certain assumptions, that no pulse or fusor fusion method will work for advanced fuels, and the prospects for normal fuels are marginal.

The assumptions made in this work are questionable, Nebel claims that they do not apply to Polywell.

We don't know.

If I had to bet I would say chances of this working are small, but equally there is zero possibility of scam and delusion, the critical facts needed will be found over next two years.

BTW - the potential killer for all these high energy low confinement fusion attempts is Bremsstrahlung X-ray radiation from high-energy electrons.

Compared to EEstor. If DW was saying - we have this weird effect in baTiO3 that appears to allow high ED, we are going to check it out, I would be very positive. If 5 years later he had no evidence for it, but was asking for funding claiming he would be making thousands of EESUs shortly, while fudging the question of whether it actually worked, I would be less positive.

If I had to bet I would say chances of this working are small, but equally there is zero possibility of scam and delusion, the critical facts needed will be found over next two years.

Are "scam and delusion" part of a standard test you typically apply to verifying science, EE-tom? It's a serious question.

Fusion vs Chemical energy

Chemical reactions are on the order of 10ev (electron volts) or less.
Fusion reactions are on the order of 1mev (million electron volts).
So there is a factor of about 100,000 difference between them.

If you fill your car tank once a week this would be about 50 fill ups a year or 1000 fill ups in 20 years.

100,000 fill ups would last 2000 years.

If fusion is eventually be made small enough to fit in a car then you would never have to fill the car in your life time.

For those that are interested in the polywell idea you might find this interesting.

http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/

http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/2009/09/3...

"This blog will document my attempt to build a working open source Bussard fusion reactor (also know as the Polywell). The Bussard reactor was invented by Robert W. Bussard and is based on the Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor."

small update:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandf...

Little bit of news:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandf...

Of particular importance within the Navy contract is the option for an additional $4.46M for “…based on the results of WB8 testing, and the availability of government funds the contractor shall develop a WB machine (WB8.1) which incorporates the knowledge and improvements gained in WB8. It is expected that higher ion drive capabilities will be added, and that a “PB11” reaction will be demonstrated”

Thanks for the news, guys!

Sounds promising, I continue to be hopeful about the Polywell.