Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Besides, nobody is ridiculing them.


Didn't say they were being ridiculed, it's more the point that they are being ignored so have to resort to the media.

Ironically, major western companies and governments have refused to invest more money in this technology based on advise from their 'scientific advisors' saying it's woo. They have had to get a contract with Iran apparently, and have received considerable interest from asian scientists and china too.
 
Last edited:
Ironically, major western companies and governments have refused to invest more money in this technology based on advise from their 'scientific advisors' saying it's woo. They have had to get a contract with Iran apparently, and have received considerable interest from asian scientists and china too.

And how do you know that it's not bad science? I mean, aside from the fact that you want it to be true, what makes you think it is? How would you even know?

In terms of financial incentives, the incentive for somebody to claim they've got something worth funding when they don't is a lot higher than the incentive for an agency to deny funding for good science. There are few high-level conspiracies in the world, but scams are a dime a dozen.
 
How do you know? Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.
 
Last edited:
How do you know?

I don't. But then, I'm not claiming conspiracies either.

Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that?

Um... nothing about your link had anything to do with plasma cosmology. So no, it's got absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology's complete failure.

They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.

Lots of people have good plans to achieve things they can't actually achieve. Nobody makes plans for how to fail. I don't consider you to be qualified to evaluate whether or not their plan is good. I do consider specialists in the field, the kind of people funding agencies rely on to review proposals, to be in a good position to evaluate their funding proposals. The only argument you can make for why to believe you and not them is a conspiracy theory, and I simply don't find that credible.
 
Conspiracy fact is different from conspiracy theory.

I don't know why you have just brought up (the derogatory term) that's know as conspiracy theory when you haven't even read the paper.

They have got funding from two states for their science. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I can't help but think that your pro israeli bias (correct me if I am wrong?) posts I have read from you in the past make you see anything to do with Iran as either a conspiracy, or through a partisan lens? That's not an accusation; its an open question (based on the fact I know that things are pretty heated between israel and Iran at the moment, as ever)

Anyway, this is the official story from lawrencevilleplasmaphysics very own website, it might do well to explain the reasoning behind the comercial direction they have gone.
http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&category=news&Itemid=90
Theoretical insights and calculations by LPP’s Chief Scientist Eric Lerner and our new summer graduate student, Ahmad Talaei of Utah State University, as well as work by an independent group of physicists at Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, have provided a long-sought explanation on how FF-1 has managed to achieve record breaking ion energies, four times hotter than LPP’s earlier theory had predicted. The new theoretical improvement will help us to understand and more efficiently guide further experiments. This work and the independent confirmation of our theoretical calculations by the Iranian group reinforce our confidence that our high temperatures will indeed be able to ignite the ideal fusion fuel, hydrogen-boron.



Since we first observed the 160 keV energies of the ions (equivalent to 1.8 billion C) over a year ago, we had been puzzled as to why they were so much higher than the 40 keV we had predicted. We knew that the earlier predictions, based on theories developed by Australian physicist Heinrich Hora, were only approximate and needed a better physical foundation. But we had not, until now, come up with an improvement.



The first big step to the solution came May 15, with the publication online in the Journal of Fusion Energy of a paper by the Iranian team, S. Abolhasani, M. Habibi, and R. Amrollahi, “Analytical Study of Quantum Magnetic and Ion Viscous Effects on p11B Fusion in Plasma Focus Devices.” The paper studied in greater detail the quantum magnetic field effect originally applied to the DPF by Lerner, for the first time independently confirming our calculations showing that ignition and net energy gain can be achieved with pB11 (hydrogen-boron) fuel, the key to obtaining aneutronic fusion energy. Above: Eric and visiting grad student Ahmad Talaei during a visit to Princeton’s physics library

[snip ....]


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fusion-for-Peace-A-propos-by-Eric-Lerner-120319-706.html
Fusion for Peace -- A proposal from US and Iranian Physicists for Ending the Confrontation with Iran

By Eric J. Lerner, Dr. Hamid Yousefi and Dr. Morteza Habibi

We are hearing it again: we need to attack a Mid-Eastern nation to prevent it from getting weapons of mass destruction. The war, we are told again, will be quick and easy -- a surgical strike. Perhaps U.S. troops don't even need to get involved -- Israel will do the job. This time the target is Iran.

It may seem strange for the U.S., Israel, France, the UK, Russia or China, who have nuclear weapons in abundance, to be deciding that Iran must not have them. Setting that aside, we can all agree that it is desirable to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations. But is yet another "pre-emptive" war the only way to achieve the goal? Does the path to peace really lie in using force to prevent a nation from going beyond dependence on oil and gas?

As physicists in Iran and the U.S., we are proposing an alternative: starting a scientific and engineering collaboration between the two countries that could, if successful, make uranium enrichment obsolete, block proliferation everywhere, liberate the world from oil, and open up a new source of cheap, clean unlimited energy. In the past three years, Iran has become a major player in the small, but growing, global effort to achieve aneutronic fusion power -- controlled nuclear fusion using fuels that produce no neutrons. Controlled fusion harnesses the power that heats the sun -- nuclear fusion -- as a source of energy for peaceful purposes. Fuels that don't produce neutrons are important because neutrons can be extremely destructive, damaging the structure of a fusion generator and inducing radioactivity.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy fact is different from conspiracy theory.

I don't know why you have just brought up (the derogatory term) that's know as conspiracy theory when you haven't even read the paper.

I brought up conspiracy theories because it was part of your Russian Television link. They claim that this research was being suppressed because of conspiracies. I merely addressed that claim.

They have got funding from two states for their science. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

That's not the conspiracy to which I allude.

I can't help but think that your pro israeli bias (correct me if I am wrong?) posts I have read from you in the past make you see anything to do with Iran as either a conspiracy, or through a partisan lens?

You are very wrong. If this project fails, Iran is just wasting money, and that's nobody's problem but their own. If it succeeds, then we benefit regardless of Iranian investment. I don't see any conspiracy involved, and I don't know why you thought I was referring to Iran.

The conspiracy theory comes from Russian Television, and their claims about why this research isn't being heavily funded. And RT pushed a conspiracy theory that's because that's what they do: they sell anti-western propaganda. The funny thing is that RT's conspiracy theory is directly contradicted by Iranian investment. Iran benefits from high oil prices while the US is hurt by them, so if this really threatened to make oil obsolete, Iran would have a far stronger incentive to see it fail than the US. But then, conspiracy theories never had to make sense.
 
How do you know? Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.

Rather large non sequitur , considering the lack of anything you have brought to the table in the most recent thread you started on the topic it is specious as well.
 
Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved.

And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works.

Are you alleging academic misconduct? That's quite a serious allegation, and to just be hand waving it away carefree on a pubic forum without even checking the science first ... just seems bizarre.

I have the journal publication if you want it.

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=86

By raising the idea that large amounts of money are involved you can have no other intention than to poison the well. Having stated that their scientific opinions can be modified by the amounts of money involved, I have pointed out that this particular tactic works both ways.

Yours is the handwaving because you have no evidence that money has anything to do with the lack of acceptance of the ideas of these people.
 
I'm talking about lack of political acceptance and economical acceptance, scientific acceptance tends to come first, and business later. Record breaking scientific discoveries nearly always preclude business and politics. Do you want to read the full paper or not? Pm me.
 
I'm talking about lack of political acceptance and economical acceptance, scientific acceptance tends to come first, and business later. Record breaking scientific discoveries nearly always preclude business and politics. Do you want to read the full paper or not? Pm me.

How can you be talking about anyone, other than the scientists, when you say:-

how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding.

Who are these people who would lose funding other than the scientists involved?

Perhaps the reason some scientists do not get their work generally accepted is simply because they are wrong.
 
How can you be talking about anyone, other than the scientists, when you say:-



Who are these people who would lose funding other than the scientists involved?

Perhaps the reason some scientists do not get their work generally accepted is simply because they are wrong.


Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise, and other non renewable energy sources continue to run our economies.
 
I'm no economist, admittedly. But disprove that statement if you will, and I will learn :)
 
Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill.

You have it exactly backwards. The capital investment means that you lose money at the start. It's only over time that you can make that money back, and you keep making money for as long as your renewable source provides it.

And that's not forever without continued investment, because even solar panels need service and don't last forever.

It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics.

No. It's a business plan that only works long term, if it works at all.
 
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that American corporations are willing to forgo massive short-term profits in order to maintain the status quo over the long term.

This is, as far as I know, a novel interpretaion of corporate behavior.
 
Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise, and other non renewable energy sources continue to run our economies.

I'm no economist, admittedly. But disprove that statement if you will, and I will learn :)

You were clearly trying to implicate scientists in suppressing cheap fusion. You have tried to misdirect by referencing a totally irrelevant paper, by pretending that you were talking about a completely different group and now presumably by rambling about oil prices you think that that your original implication can be buried.

Try learning how science actually works and how new ideas are readily accepted when they have evidence. It will stop you having to flounder about.

I suggest you start with the discovery by Barry Marshall that H. pylori causes gastric ulcers.

I won't be following any more of this thread.
 
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-extreme-plasma-theories.html#jCp

The new analysis gives insight into the sorts of plasmas scientists need to create in some experimental approaches to fusion, the process that powers stars, in which the cores of super-condensed atoms combine and release massive amounts of energy. The research may lead to improved modeling for certain aspects of fusion, as it gives detailed information about the process where tightly packed atoms begin to lose their autonomy as the orbits of their associated electrons overlap. Scientists use complicated algorithms that may include millions of lines of code to simulate the behavior of superheated matter and build better models of how fusion works. "Even very sophisticated computer codes used to simulate dense plasmas usually employ an old model from 1966 to simulate the effects of the plasma environment," Ciricosta said. "Our work at the LCLS has shown that this widely used model does not fit the data. In an extraordinary twist of fate, it turns out that an even earlier approach from 1963 does a far better job."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-extreme-plasma-theories.html#jCp


Weird that, after a lot of posters here kept saying we know exactly what plasma does as we have all these ace models and theories to prove it.

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i6/e065002

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/88
 
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that American corporations are willing to forgo massive short-term profits in order to maintain the status quo over the long term.

This is, as far as I know, a novel interpretaion of corporate behavior.


Thats just standard economics :boggled:

Who'd want say a one off billion in a year return on a revolutionary energy source that you could guarantee, or would you rather just keep making your half a billion yearly indefinitely and give the people that made this technology a million or so?

I'm not saying that's happened. Thats just capitalism and economics.
 
Last edited:
Thats just standard economics :boggled:

Not in this part of the space-time continuum.

American corporations are notorious for taking the short view. A classic would be Dell's outsourcing of their computer manufacturing, which progressed until they were unable to compete with the contracted companies and lost their manufacturing capability, just beconing distributors.

Who'd want say a one off billion in a year return on a revolutionary energy source that you could guarantee, or would you rather just keep making your half a billion yearly indefinitely and give the people that made this technology a million or so?

I'm not saying that's happened. Thats just capitalism and economics.

It's "just capitalism and economics" if the organization takes the long view. In a case like this, this would only be possible if the organization can conspire with all the other players in the industry to suppress the technology. This has two problems, trust and liability. Any such conspiracy will work only as long as ALL the players continue to take the long view - if any one of them finds itself in short-term difficulty it will be tempted to go for the short-term jackpot and thereby screw over the others. And, of course, such a conspiracy has a number of rather ungracious labels, including "conspiracy in restraint of trade" and "racketeering". They are both federal crimes. So, from the point of view of your proposed conspirators, they are simultaneously forgoing a major profit and exposing themselves to criminal prosecution. This is not the usual carrot and stick. And it's not just capitalism and economics, either.

And finally, in case you don't realise it (and clearly you don't), any corporation which could be proved to have rejected the opportunity to guarantee a doubling of profits would be liable to a major shareholder lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Weird that, after a lot of posters here kept saying we know exactly what plasma does as we have all these ace models and theories to prove it.
Weird that you do not cite any poster who states this (actually not so weird :D).

I have never seen any poster say that we know exactly what plasma does and it has little to do with this thread - unless you are going for a "god of the gaps" argument for pc!

If we are going to continue with derail of this thread into fusion, maybe we should ask for it to be split starting with your "Heh this was a pleasant surprise last night when I was watching Russia Today." post.
 
Last edited:
376628_373850299355059_1015405983_n.jpg


The new Chandra X-Ray Telescope has recorded detailed pictures of the heart of the Crab Nebula, first seen on Earth in the year 1054. Here are pictures of the Crab at x- ray (Chandra), optical (Palomar), infrared (Keck), and radio (VLA) wavelengths.

Looks like a bunny? No.
Looks like a diffuse and slightly filamentary optical nebula? Yes.
Looks more homogenous at radio and infrared frequencies? Yes.
Looks like the x-ray spectrum indicates a distinct structure and mechanism underlying the nebula unapparent before by studying the other frequencies of the EM spectrum? Yes.
Looks like the xray spectrum shows the morphology of a huge Unipolar inductor? Yes.
Is it a bunny? No
Is it more likely a Unipolar inductor than a bunny? Yes.
 

Back
Top Bottom