"the DFP may already be near it's limit (not scalable), while the Polywell MAY be scalable"..but more likely also at its limit?! The evidence to the contrary being....??
> why did the US get to the Moon in under a decade with realtively premative technology, while now very little real results have been obtained with the Aries rocket after 6-7 years? ..........
A maniac, near suicidal, jump across a 250million mile cravass for spam-in-a-can. Just ask the pilots! Genius or madness...same thing really. Thanks for the clear, supportive example!
Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
-
Dan Tibbets
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
..."The evidence to the contrary being....??"
Of course there is evidence, or at least there might be evidence, or not ...
WB7, I believe is 35 cm wide, while WB 6 was 30cm. Thats 1.17 times larger. r^3 scaling would give ~1.6 times the output of neutrons. That would be a wopping increase of~ 2 measured neutrons in the same drive, magnetic field, and time conditions. Obvously not much above the noise level for judgeing the size scaling. WB7 may have been tested with significantly different drive and magnetic conditions though. If this limited lower range information exists, it's not aviable for outsiders like us. I understand that the B^4 and r^3 scaling are both well accepted processes, though admittedly there are arguments (well beyond my understanding) that the magnetic (B) scaling at least, may not apply fully to the Polywell system. I don't know if any related work with Penning traps, Maxwellian plasmas,IEC fusors, etc. give any insight. Also, of course, there are questions about about weather losses will scale as Bussard predicted.
"A maniac, near suicidal, jump across a 250million mile cravass for spam-in-a-can. Just ask the pilots! Genius or madness...same thing really. Thanks for the clear, supportive example!"
True, but nobody died in the Apollo program while off the ground. Three astronauts did die due to the truely stupid idea of using 100% oxygen for the internal atmosphere in the spacecraft. And, the Ares rocket is basically an Apollo system on steroids, even using the old Saturn F2 second stage engine- "improved of course". The only major difference is the solid booster, which is less efficient than the old first stage, and proving to be problamatic, despite a huge amount of experiance with the Shuttle program.
Dan Tibbets
Of course there is evidence, or at least there might be evidence, or not ...
WB7, I believe is 35 cm wide, while WB 6 was 30cm. Thats 1.17 times larger. r^3 scaling would give ~1.6 times the output of neutrons. That would be a wopping increase of~ 2 measured neutrons in the same drive, magnetic field, and time conditions. Obvously not much above the noise level for judgeing the size scaling. WB7 may have been tested with significantly different drive and magnetic conditions though. If this limited lower range information exists, it's not aviable for outsiders like us. I understand that the B^4 and r^3 scaling are both well accepted processes, though admittedly there are arguments (well beyond my understanding) that the magnetic (B) scaling at least, may not apply fully to the Polywell system. I don't know if any related work with Penning traps, Maxwellian plasmas,IEC fusors, etc. give any insight. Also, of course, there are questions about about weather losses will scale as Bussard predicted.
"A maniac, near suicidal, jump across a 250million mile cravass for spam-in-a-can. Just ask the pilots! Genius or madness...same thing really. Thanks for the clear, supportive example!"
True, but nobody died in the Apollo program while off the ground. Three astronauts did die due to the truely stupid idea of using 100% oxygen for the internal atmosphere in the spacecraft. And, the Ares rocket is basically an Apollo system on steroids, even using the old Saturn F2 second stage engine- "improved of course". The only major difference is the solid booster, which is less efficient than the old first stage, and proving to be problamatic, despite a huge amount of experiance with the Shuttle program.
Dan Tibbets
-
Dan Tibbets
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
I did a search, and found some iffy references to the IEC / magnetic B field considerations. Not many, as almost everyone is taking about the Tokamak model.
http://fsc.lle.rochester.edu/pub/HEDLP/ ... /Bauer.pdf
http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?07-04.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 081954.pdf
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/neep533_l ... nProp.html
http://burningplasma.org/web/ReNeW/whit ... source.pdf
D. Tibbets
http://fsc.lle.rochester.edu/pub/HEDLP/ ... /Bauer.pdf
http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?07-04.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 081954.pdf
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/neep533_l ... nProp.html
http://burningplasma.org/web/ReNeW/whit ... source.pdf
D. Tibbets
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
Dan DT wrote:
> True, but nobody died in the Apollo program while off the ground.
Exactly my point. The Apollo missions were great because no one died (en route). But if they had all died then it would've been called "madness" and all the nay-sayers would've had a field-day. Genius means you have to ignore the nay-sayers and take risks, the genius bit is the decision to do so. The madness is the decision to do so.
Dan DT wrote:
> Of course there is evidence, or at least there might be evidence, or not ...
NOT!
What sort of evidence is an unsubstantiated pile of numbers? If it was, then that'd be "the evidence for God is the bible" type of logic.
There is no evidence for any neutrons yet, formed by the process "as advertised". That would be evidence!! There may be neutrons, but just as Zeta found out, you can get yourself (and the world's press) very confused if you don't know where they came from!
> True, but nobody died in the Apollo program while off the ground.
Exactly my point. The Apollo missions were great because no one died (en route). But if they had all died then it would've been called "madness" and all the nay-sayers would've had a field-day. Genius means you have to ignore the nay-sayers and take risks, the genius bit is the decision to do so. The madness is the decision to do so.
Dan DT wrote:
> Of course there is evidence, or at least there might be evidence, or not ...
NOT!
What sort of evidence is an unsubstantiated pile of numbers? If it was, then that'd be "the evidence for God is the bible" type of logic.
There is no evidence for any neutrons yet, formed by the process "as advertised". That would be evidence!! There may be neutrons, but just as Zeta found out, you can get yourself (and the world's press) very confused if you don't know where they came from!
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
........."And why did the US get to the Moon in under a decade with realtively premative technology, while now very little real results have been obtained with the Aries rocket after 6-7 years?".........
There was an entirely different breed of men in the program with different value sets than those displayed today and a nation of supportive people galvanized to see it done. It was all about the doing and getting it done, not about the musing and posturing.
The job was looked at as a purely mechanical task, albeit gigantic, based on a lot of engineering. The men in the program did not mind being just another worker ant in a collective. They focused on their jobs and did not muse over their future, just the future of the "program" which was "job-one".
No one wanted a traceable finger pointing at their failure to perform as having cost lives or millions of the money in a failure. They sought to actually outperform themselves constantly so that only perfection shone as their personal part of the effort.
Today many men could really give a hoot if they fail; even when performing important or critical tasks. Sure, they'll give it what they call their "best shot". They know that whatever they are doing now, they probably won't be doing a few years from now and certainly not with their current employer......Are you kidding me? Besides, if they screw up big time, screw it, they'll move on and get another job. Hell, they'll even retrain to a new field, no big deal.......Right?
Different times, different people, different world.
There are still men like those in the "program" around though rarified compared to the 50's and 60's.
NASA only tolerated, hired and retained the best of the best in any field and paid damned well for that period in time. The hours were long, the work, both mentally and physically, was often exhausting, but you had a family to feed clothe and house, (Sole wage earner - Man of the house), and it was all on you (as a man), coming at you from all directions. Mentally, emotionally, physically and economically. Fail at any task and you were a bit less of a man. In society's eyes, you were never just a person, you were a man. In a family setting you were "the man". It meant something then.
Richard Hull
There was an entirely different breed of men in the program with different value sets than those displayed today and a nation of supportive people galvanized to see it done. It was all about the doing and getting it done, not about the musing and posturing.
The job was looked at as a purely mechanical task, albeit gigantic, based on a lot of engineering. The men in the program did not mind being just another worker ant in a collective. They focused on their jobs and did not muse over their future, just the future of the "program" which was "job-one".
No one wanted a traceable finger pointing at their failure to perform as having cost lives or millions of the money in a failure. They sought to actually outperform themselves constantly so that only perfection shone as their personal part of the effort.
Today many men could really give a hoot if they fail; even when performing important or critical tasks. Sure, they'll give it what they call their "best shot". They know that whatever they are doing now, they probably won't be doing a few years from now and certainly not with their current employer......Are you kidding me? Besides, if they screw up big time, screw it, they'll move on and get another job. Hell, they'll even retrain to a new field, no big deal.......Right?
Different times, different people, different world.
There are still men like those in the "program" around though rarified compared to the 50's and 60's.
NASA only tolerated, hired and retained the best of the best in any field and paid damned well for that period in time. The hours were long, the work, both mentally and physically, was often exhausting, but you had a family to feed clothe and house, (Sole wage earner - Man of the house), and it was all on you (as a man), coming at you from all directions. Mentally, emotionally, physically and economically. Fail at any task and you were a bit less of a man. In society's eyes, you were never just a person, you were a man. In a family setting you were "the man". It meant something then.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Edward Miller
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:50 am
- Real name: Edward Miller
- Contact:
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
What I mean is that outside of war research, science is terribly unfunded. We got those people into space because we had to beat the communists! And the major discoveries can't be forced along specific political project plans. And I can see Bussard struggling with that in his talk, justifying his progress against government goals. And fighting against a paper that is seen as absolute (No IEC will ever work via Rider's PhD Thesis). The best critics said we'd never fly.
"But when government directs scientific research, it's my opinion, and this is not necessarily true, that it rarely works. You look at paradigm shifts, the big scientific discoveries, and you can name them all, you have penicillin or the transistor or nuclear power or solar cells, anything you want, I struggle to find one that came from direct government scientific research. They're chance discoveries, and it's not surprising to me. It’s actually obvious why that is."
That quote is from the excellent Brian Cox Edge talk here:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/cox09/cox09_index.html
Maybe we're going down the wrong track with politics and science.
In my opinion the government should actively fund new, unique, novel (and amateur) projects and not just these multi-billion-dollar and/or multi-national and war-relevant projects. (Furthermore as a side note I think a tremendous amount of money is wasted on hardware and research journals and I hope one day these areas become open-source and cookie cutter like linux/pc hardware.)
"But when government directs scientific research, it's my opinion, and this is not necessarily true, that it rarely works. You look at paradigm shifts, the big scientific discoveries, and you can name them all, you have penicillin or the transistor or nuclear power or solar cells, anything you want, I struggle to find one that came from direct government scientific research. They're chance discoveries, and it's not surprising to me. It’s actually obvious why that is."
That quote is from the excellent Brian Cox Edge talk here:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/cox09/cox09_index.html
Maybe we're going down the wrong track with politics and science.
In my opinion the government should actively fund new, unique, novel (and amateur) projects and not just these multi-billion-dollar and/or multi-national and war-relevant projects. (Furthermore as a side note I think a tremendous amount of money is wasted on hardware and research journals and I hope one day these areas become open-source and cookie cutter like linux/pc hardware.)
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
Not sure I agree that transistors were a chance discovery. Seeing that when Lilenfeld originally conceived and patented the idea the materials to make it work didn't even exist, it could hardly be described as a 'matter of chance' to have come up with the device! The idea that one happens, by chance, to write up a patent is not quite right! "Oh, look, I started writing a letter to tax office but it seems to have come out looking like a patent for a device I've never seen before!!" In that case, it *would* have happened by chance, but not otherwise!!
But perhaps that is just pedantery, because I fully agree with Brian's sentiment, and also I agree with Richard's point and add that the modern lack of commitment by many individuals to the betterment of us all (and particularly wrt the behaviours of, so called, "elected representatives") is disgusting.
Just to reply to edmo, though, I do not share the opinion that Polywell has been insufficiently funded. I am lead to believe it has received $25M yet has still not provided basic evidence that it can confine electrons in the manner it proposes to, let alone manipulate ions with those electrons. Such an elementary stage of plasma manipulation should have been reached very easily with $25M.
Also to add, you might be interested to note Todd Rider's appendix E of his thesis, where he throws in a few ideas of his own as to how a working IEC device might look.
But perhaps that is just pedantery, because I fully agree with Brian's sentiment, and also I agree with Richard's point and add that the modern lack of commitment by many individuals to the betterment of us all (and particularly wrt the behaviours of, so called, "elected representatives") is disgusting.
Just to reply to edmo, though, I do not share the opinion that Polywell has been insufficiently funded. I am lead to believe it has received $25M yet has still not provided basic evidence that it can confine electrons in the manner it proposes to, let alone manipulate ions with those electrons. Such an elementary stage of plasma manipulation should have been reached very easily with $25M.
Also to add, you might be interested to note Todd Rider's appendix E of his thesis, where he throws in a few ideas of his own as to how a working IEC device might look.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Video of Bussard talk on IEC (at Google)
That last one raised my 'eyebrow'.
>
> http://burningplasma.org/web/ReNeW/whit ... source.pdf
I could see the lines weren't linear which means they must meet 'breakeven' output at some stage.
This guy's just invented a breakeven machine! Either that, or his optimistic use of scaling equations has got the better of a sanity check. The latter seems the norm in all cases I have ever observed in fusion!!
>
> http://burningplasma.org/web/ReNeW/whit ... source.pdf
I could see the lines weren't linear which means they must meet 'breakeven' output at some stage.
This guy's just invented a breakeven machine! Either that, or his optimistic use of scaling equations has got the better of a sanity check. The latter seems the norm in all cases I have ever observed in fusion!!
- Attachments
-