What the hell are you talking about, did you even go to high school? Or do you really think drugs make you smarter.
Its a well known fact that energy loss in high temperature plasmas is from ion electron collisions. I have no references to KeV anywhere and yes you do measure temperature in eV and KeV in plasma physics regularly. Just google it for gods sakes. Oh and I teach physics well above a 101 level.
First of all I am not a layman. I am a physicist, and electrostatic fusion has been a hobby of mine for some time. There is a link you didn't specify I think too. Also the link to the other/. article is in fact to this guys work, not Bussards, also the guy in question even posts.
Anyway I have read all the stuff I could find on his device and other ES confinment devices. I think the paper you want to ref is:
"The Advent of Clean Nuclear Fusion: Superperformance Space Power and Propulsion", Bussard, Robert W.,57th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2006).
This and all other "publications" of his do not explain anything. They just assert that some fact is correct, often in the face of other facts. No math, no explanation on other experiments, no justifications at all. Example in the above he claims the following: "giving DD fusions at
over 100,000x higher output (at 1E9 fus/sec) than all prior
similar work at comparable drive conditions (Ref. 3)." yet normal commercial neutron source fusors get 1e9 events per second wikipedia and 1e8 are achieved at lower voltages and don't need high B fields, and also where are the error bars? Then there are scaling laws which are simply not backed up. In fact with everything I have read it appears that its made up.
And for the ions to fuse faster than they thermalise would require some black magic in terms of plasma density and thermodynamics and charge distributions, or he thought everyones data on fusion reaction cross sections is completely wrong (and thats arguing against a lot of experimental data from a lot of different places). And I'm assuming D T reactions. P B are 1000's of times worse.
You can't do physics without some theroy to back you up. You can't answer critics that use theroy that has shown to be a good model in similar situations without justifying why the model is not good in your case. Bussards work does not have or do that. Plain and simple.
his view is the general consensus of held by physicist, not just my view.
And it's a very good thing that science isn't a democracy. There are many researchers who do not agree with the consensus. Some from MIT and University of Wisconsin-Madison. Funny how this view changes with the Global warming debate when someone points out flaws in current models.
Electrostatic fusion is viewed as a black horse, but if you have a good paper on it, it will get published. We want to believe that it can be done. But you must back up your position and at least address known issues with proper exploration of the appropriate models. Just claiming your right and they are wrong is not science.
As far as sound physics are concerned, neither is to be given much weight. Both require non equilibrium plasmas to work as advertised and that just does not work (The ions collide with electrons far more often than they fuse). In fact unless they can find a massive flaw in our current understanding of plasma physic thermodynamics neither can break even. Well the Bussard one defiantly, since its constant state. At least this one is a pulse device (aka not in equilibrium).
Pretending that this is a non issue without backing up with some calculations/data is bad science. Especially when there is quite a lot of analysis indicating that at best they get around 3-5% of the power out as they put in (real devices less than 0.001% or worse). Thus without some high efficiency (>>90%) power recirculation method they can't work as a power production device.
This view is the general consensus of held by physicist, not just my view.
Think napster. The UK could rule the same way. That by providing links that have no leagal use is part of the crime. Kinda like adding and abetting or whatever.
Given that it was stuck down from prior art seems to indicate that perhaps it was a little more obvious than you think. Not only did someone think of before hand, but they did not presume it patentable. Also I always wondered what "clicks" get counted.
It was invalidated on the grounds of prior art, you know, already thought of by others before the filing date. It was obvious enough when others thought of it that they did not run down to the patent office.
In fact if something is obvious why do i need to publish or do anything with the idea, its obvious. The requirement that everything that is obvious should either be in some public archive or already patented is laughable.
Are you a patent lawyer by any chance?
Re:Ahh crap-DISMANTLE ONE SERVER AT A TIME
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I can't remember who said it or the exact quote, but its something like this:
"The internet treats censorship like any other error, and routes around it."
On another note, the spam levels and trolls in usenet are so high, I find that its not really all the usable. (my killfile was huge)
You can if you implement the Prior Art idea and not the distinct parts. This can be very useful if the prior art is a expired patent and is therefore without doubt in the public domain. The idea is that the distinct innovation will probably only improve things a little.
You might not need some of these features, but the programs you like to run might. Thats what a OS does, provide all these things for other programs to access, so you don't have to care. The hardware is getting more complicated too.
Yea, thats why every day there some doom and gloom evo story in every dam newspaper on the planet. People who feel a need to shout to be heard are the people you shouldn't listen too.
I can back this up. They have come twice to our flat to "check" on the reason for not paying TV fees. And both time we just refuesed to let them in. There is nothing they can do. I have been told that even if they can see a TV from the door and you don't let them in, you can just deny it.
Well said. All to often the programming community sees solutions only in terms of what they need now. Or worse what they *like* now. Rather than what it computers and code really are. A solution to a problem, and the best tool is not always a hammer.
Perhaps not, it may be a fundamental limitation. Since reading the state back from a n-qbit register is in a way exponential in n (decoherence and signal to noise). There may be a limit on the largest register than one can have. I know at least one prominent scientist in this field who believes that its a matter of time before we prove that quantum computers cannot be better than the current computers. But no ones rushing to prove it yet.
Not quite. Given a discrete log algorithms I can always use it to factorize (This is shor's method by the way). The Opposite is not true, that is, a fast factoring algo does not let you solve the discrete log problem faster. Some suspect that it may be true (ie goes both ways), but there is no proof at this stage.
ECC with correctly chosen parameters cannot be mapped/isomorphic/whatever to the appropriate finite field. However that doesn't mean that someone might develop a technique to do so with currently secure ECC parameters in the future.
EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. Can you back that up? I doubt it, because its one of the things that comes from the USA, that democracy is good and pure and everyone wants it. Like everyone wants to live in the USA.
Oh yea, just so you know, most of the 6 billion people on this earth don't want to live in USA.
Nice to get confirmation. I didn't think this type of prop was "secret". At any rate I would care more about the airfoil section, stiffness, materials and rpms etc that are used than a rough outline.
The problem is not blogs per say, but that they get posted here as a news source.
You know I hear this a lot, and its bunk. The fact is people do watch the movies and listen to the music. Crap or not (By your taste), main stream entertainment is popular.
Also the original goals of openGL were very different from DX. Just about every single CAD program uses openGL and the priority on game performance came much latter. However the old texture system in openGL was totally horrible, its a wonder even ID stuck with openGL with that.
Personally I find DX9/openGL very similar and the "features" of DX10 rather bland. So i go for portability and use a openGL subset.
I myself d/l multiple shows via BT but have never hit the limit--what exactly could anyone be downloading that takwes mroe than 100gb a month?? P0rn. Really. Ask anyone at a ISP what the breakdown is. 90%+ is p0rn, some from BT, some still from alt.binaries and others are from "legit" (aka subscribed) feeds. Lots and Lots of P0rn.
the internet is for p0rn
No, except what you tell your GPS nav unit to record, a almost never used feature, and its not plugged into any network. So there is no database anywhere. I think they write down the address they pick you up from and drop you off at. The GPS units are mainly used for directions, with the very confusing one way streets everywhere it can make a big difference (aka roads only wide enough for a horse & cart). In Vienna were I am, some shops don't even have electronic tills. They use pencil and paper. The waiters with pen and paper are also quicker at the beer gardens than the ones that use PDAs for the waiting staff.
Not all countries are clamoring to get on the grid. Technology has its place, but sometimes i think we see lots of nails because we like hammers.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about, did you even go to high school? Or do you really think drugs make you smarter.
Its a well known fact that energy loss in high temperature plasmas is from ion electron collisions. I have no references to KeV anywhere and yes you do measure temperature in eV and KeV in plasma physics regularly. Just google it for gods sakes. Oh and I teach physics well above a 101 level.
Please have a nice hot cup of shut the hell up.
Anyway I have read all the stuff I could find on his device and other ES confinment devices. I think the paper you want to ref is:
"The Advent of Clean Nuclear Fusion: Superperformance Space Power and Propulsion", Bussard, Robert W.,57th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2006).
This and all other "publications" of his do not explain anything. They just assert that some fact is correct, often in the face of other facts. No math, no explanation on other experiments, no justifications at all. Example in the above he claims the following: "giving DD fusions at over 100,000x higher output (at 1E9 fus/sec) than all prior similar work at comparable drive conditions (Ref. 3)." yet normal commercial neutron source fusors get 1e9 events per second wikipedia and 1e8 are achieved at lower voltages and don't need high B fields, and also where are the error bars? Then there are scaling laws which are simply not backed up. In fact with everything I have read it appears that its made up.
And for the ions to fuse faster than they thermalise would require some black magic in terms of plasma density and thermodynamics and charge distributions, or he thought everyones data on fusion reaction cross sections is completely wrong (and thats arguing against a lot of experimental data from a lot of different places). And I'm assuming D T reactions. P B are 1000's of times worse.
You can't do physics without some theroy to back you up. You can't answer critics that use theroy that has shown to be a good model in similar situations without justifying why the model is not good in your case. Bussards work does not have or do that. Plain and simple. his view is the general consensus of held by physicist, not just my view.
And it's a very good thing that science isn't a democracy. There are many researchers who do not agree with the consensus. Some from MIT and University of Wisconsin-Madison. Funny how this view changes with the Global warming debate when someone points out flaws in current models.
Electrostatic fusion is viewed as a black horse, but if you have a good paper on it, it will get published. We want to believe that it can be done. But you must back up your position and at least address known issues with proper exploration of the appropriate models. Just claiming your right and they are wrong is not science.
As far as sound physics are concerned, neither is to be given much weight. Both require non equilibrium plasmas to work as advertised and that just does not work (The ions collide with electrons far more often than they fuse). In fact unless they can find a massive flaw in our current understanding of plasma physic thermodynamics neither can break even. Well the Bussard one defiantly, since its constant state. At least this one is a pulse device (aka not in equilibrium).
Pretending that this is a non issue without backing up with some calculations/data is bad science. Especially when there is quite a lot of analysis indicating that at best they get around 3-5% of the power out as they put in (real devices less than 0.001% or worse). Thus without some high efficiency (>>90%) power recirculation method they can't work as a power production device.
This view is the general consensus of held by physicist, not just my view.
Think napster. The UK could rule the same way. That by providing links that have no leagal use is part of the crime. Kinda like adding and abetting or whatever.
Given that it was stuck down from prior art seems to indicate that perhaps it was a little more obvious than you think. Not only did someone think of before hand, but they did not presume it patentable. Also I always wondered what "clicks" get counted.
It was invalidated on the grounds of prior art, you know, already thought of by others before the filing date. It was obvious enough when others thought of it that they did not run down to the patent office.
In fact if something is obvious why do i need to publish or do anything with the idea, its obvious. The requirement that everything that is obvious should either be in some public archive or already patented is laughable.
Are you a patent lawyer by any chance?
I can't remember who said it or the exact quote, but its something like this:
"The internet treats censorship like any other error, and routes around it."
On another note, the spam levels and trolls in usenet are so high, I find that its not really all the usable. (my killfile was huge)
You can if you implement the Prior Art idea and not the distinct parts. This can be very useful if the prior art is a expired patent and is therefore without doubt in the public domain. The idea is that the distinct innovation will probably only improve things a little.
The Nobel peace prize is about as political as you can get. Putting a global warming movie on the list of ways to win it only makes it more so.
Face it GW is politics inside politics. As its is said. Power Corrupts.
You might not need some of these features, but the programs you like to run might. Thats what a OS does, provide all these things for other programs to access, so you don't have to care. The hardware is getting more complicated too.
But we don't err on the side of caution. We err on the side of PANIC!
In the words of the most popular book in the universe
Don't Panic
Yea, thats why every day there some doom and gloom evo story in every dam newspaper on the planet. People who feel a need to shout to be heard are the people you shouldn't listen too.
This is true. However there are more than enough alternatives that people will switch too if the deal is to rough.
I can back this up. They have come twice to our flat to "check" on the reason for not paying TV fees. And both time we just refuesed to let them in. There is nothing they can do. I have been told that even if they can see a TV from the door and you don't let them in, you can just deny it.
Well said. All to often the programming community sees solutions only in terms of what they need now. Or worse what they *like* now. Rather than what it computers and code really are. A solution to a problem, and the best tool is not always a hammer.
Perhaps not, it may be a fundamental limitation. Since reading the state back from a n-qbit register is in a way exponential in n (decoherence and signal to noise). There may be a limit on the largest register than one can have. I know at least one prominent scientist in this field who believes that its a matter of time before we prove that quantum computers cannot be better than the current computers. But no ones rushing to prove it yet.
Not quite. Given a discrete log algorithms I can always use it to factorize (This is shor's method by the way). The Opposite is not true, that is, a fast factoring algo does not let you solve the discrete log problem faster. Some suspect that it may be true (ie goes both ways), but there is no proof at this stage.
ECC with correctly chosen parameters cannot be mapped/isomorphic/whatever to the appropriate finite field. However that doesn't mean that someone might develop a technique to do so with currently secure ECC parameters in the future.
No he didn't. He said EVERYBODY wants democracy. Typical dribble from the New World.
Oh yea, just so you know, most of the 6 billion people on this earth don't want to live in USA.
Nice to get confirmation. I didn't think this type of prop was "secret". At any rate I would care more about the airfoil section, stiffness, materials and rpms etc that are used than a rough outline.
The problem is not blogs per say, but that they get posted here as a news source.
You know I hear this a lot, and its bunk. The fact is people do watch the movies and listen to the music. Crap or not (By your taste), main stream entertainment is popular.
Also the original goals of openGL were very different from DX. Just about every single CAD program uses openGL and the priority on game performance came much latter. However the old texture system in openGL was totally horrible, its a wonder even ID stuck with openGL with that.
Personally I find DX9/openGL very similar and the "features" of DX10 rather bland. So i go for portability and use a openGL subset.
No, except what you tell your GPS nav unit to record, a almost never used feature, and its not plugged into any network. So there is no database anywhere. I think they write down the address they pick you up from and drop you off at. The GPS units are mainly used for directions, with the very confusing one way streets everywhere it can make a big difference (aka roads only wide enough for a horse & cart). In Vienna were I am, some shops don't even have electronic tills. They use pencil and paper. The waiters with pen and paper are also quicker at the beer gardens than the ones that use PDAs for the waiting staff.
Not all countries are clamoring to get on the grid. Technology has its place, but sometimes i think we see lots of nails because we like hammers.