Dr Bussard's research

In article .com,
"Alex Terrell" wrote:

Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant. The amount of money involved is indeed
trivial compared with the benefits if the thing actually works as
advertised.

Given Bussard's reputation, the US Government really should look at
this very closely. If not, as Joe said, regular investors should be
crawling over the guy.

If you watch the Google talk, he gives a plausible explanation why the
US government is unlikely to fund this. It's as I had guessed -- there
is way too much investment in the ITER approach, and this research
seriously threatens the very lucrative "rice bowl" of nearly everyone in
that community.

He also doesn't seem too interested in pounding the pavement looking for
investors -- "I'm tired," he says. However, it's out there now, and
spreading quickly in the way that things in the Internet age can. I
would not be at all surprised if some big angel hears of it and seeks
him out soon (and I'm sure he'd be willing to talk to a serious
investor). There are enough people for whom even a slim chance to
change the world as radically as this would do is worth $200M.

Perhaps the British Government could look at putting this in Culham,
Oxford, to give something to do for all the JET scientists who don't
want to move to France and learn Japanese.

True, but they're partners in the ITER project too, so they would most
likely have the same resistance that we see here in the U.S.

Best,
- Joe

"Christopher" wrote in message


If it gives humanity the power to get off this rock and go and explore
deep space which is where we belong I'm all for it.

Since we obviously didn't originate upon this godforsaken Earth, I
totally agree.

If there's one pesky species of nasty life that doesn't belong within
this otherwise nearly perfect Earthly environment, it's humanity.
Everything about Earth would have become better off if we never got
deposited here in the first place.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:08:12 +1100, in a place far, far away, Sylvia
Else made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


(*) Hey Henry, what would it do for Canada's economy for the next
several decades to hold the international patents on practical fusion
reactors?

Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant.


If physics is beyond you, why are you so convinced that the route to
orbit is breathing air? Or are you only referring to nuclear physics?

Is there something you don't understand about the definite article "the"?

Sylvia

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 26 Feb 2007 15:12:37 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


On 26 Feb, 22:11, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:08:12 +1100, in a place far, far away, Sylvia
Else made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


(*) Hey Henry, what would it do for Canada's economy for the next
several decades to hold the international patents on practical fusion
reactors?

Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant.

If physics is beyond you, why are you so convinced that the route to
orbit is breathing air? Or are you only referring to nuclear physics?

Every astronaut who has ever gone into orbit did so breathing air, or
a variant of air.


Which has nothing to do with how they managed to get to orbit.
Billions of people breathed air prior to the astronauts, but they
never even got into the upper atmosphere, let alone space.

Your own comment was ambiguous.

It simply shows that not only do you not read other people's postings
properly before you reply, you also do not pay enough attention when
writing your own postings.

Don't try to be a smart alec - you don't have what it takes.

Sylvia.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:21:07 +1100, in a place far, far away, Sylvia
Else made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant.

If physics is beyond you, why are you so convinced that the route to
orbit is breathing air? Or are you only referring to nuclear physics?

Every astronaut who has ever gone into orbit did so breathing air, or
a variant of air.


Which has nothing to do with how they managed to get to orbit.
Billions of people breathed air prior to the astronauts, but they
never even got into the upper atmosphere, let alone space.

Your own comment was ambiguous.

It simply shows that not only do you not read other people's postings
properly before you reply, you also do not pay enough attention when
writing your own postings.

Don't try to be a smart alec - you don't have what it takes.

In other words, you have no substantive response?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:16:50 +1100, in a place far, far away, Sylvia
Else made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant.


If physics is beyond you, why are you so convinced that the route to
orbit is breathing air? Or are you only referring to nuclear physics?

Is there something you don't understand about the definite article "the"?

I'm quite familiar with it. Which is why I asked the second question
for clarification.

So you think yourself familiar with the physics of spaceflight?

Nothing in your posts so far would indicate it.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:16:50 +1100, in a place far, far away, Sylvia
Else made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant.


If physics is beyond you, why are you so convinced that the route to
orbit is breathing air? Or are you only referring to nuclear physics?

Is there something you don't understand about the definite article "the"?


I'm quite familiar with it. Which is why I asked the second question
for clarification.

Your second question was a non sequitur. Since I'd specifically said
"the physics" in the context of a fusion reactor, you had no reason at
all to think that I was stating an absence of knowledge of physics
generally.


So you think yourself familiar with the physics of spaceflight?

Nothing in your posts so far would indicate it.

Or contra-indicate it either. Just because you think that air breathing
engines are a non-starter doesn't mean you're right. After all, there
are people with an acknowledged expertise in the area who are pushing
the idea.

Sylvia.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:03:21 +1100, in a place far, far away, Sylvia
Else made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Having skimmed the conference paper at the link posted by Alex, I'd
certainly like to see the thing properly peer reviewed (the physics is
beyond me), with a view to deciding whether funding should be provided
for a prototype power plant.


If physics is beyond you, why are you so convinced that the route to
orbit is breathing air? Or are you only referring to nuclear physics?

Is there something you don't understand about the definite article "the"?


I'm quite familiar with it. Which is why I asked the second question
for clarification.

Your second question was a non sequitur. Since I'd specifically said
"the physics" in the context of a fusion reactor, you had no reason at
all to think that I was stating an absence of knowledge of physics
generally.

It was a little ambiguous.

So you think yourself familiar with the physics of spaceflight?

Nothing in your posts so far would indicate it.

Or contra-indicate it either.

Actually, it would.

Just because you think that air breathing
engines are a non-starter doesn't mean you're right. After all, there
are people with an acknowledged expertise in the area who are pushing
the idea.

And there are many more (including me) who are pushing the opposite.

Rand Simberg wrote:

... Sylvia Else ... indicate[d] that:

Just because you think that air breathing
engines are a non-starter doesn't mean you're right. After all, there
are people with an acknowledged expertise in the area who are pushing
the idea.


And there are many more (including me) who are pushing the opposite.

I wasn't aware that engineering facts could be determined democratically.

Sylvia.

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
(James Nicoll) wrote:

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

(*) Hey Henry, what would it do for Canada's economy for the next
several decades to hold the international patents on practical fusion
reactors?

More than it would do for the guys supplying the fuel (11B
fusion is mentioned and annual world production of 11B is about 80
times what we'd need to power everything).

Yeah -- bummer for the guys hoping for a big global demand for deuterium
to drive lunar development, though. (The B11 fuses with plain old H.)

3He, surely? For D2O, just call whoever supplies Ontario Hydro's
CANDUs.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)