Tom,
I don't believe the Tokamak will ever work. For one, the ideal plasma shape for fusion seems to be a sphere like the sun - and far too much energy is expended when the plasma is manipulated into a torus. They are purposefully st reaching out the plasma into a doughnut shape "at a greater energy cost to do this" than what the fusion produces. My device doesn't require the wasted power input for magnetic containment - however I cannot prove fusion happened by just saying the neutron counter registered neutrons, and the MSGC gas tests on the sample were destroyed by the petroleum lab because they said it made their equipment look defective. Maybe there was too much helium, but I can't afford to pay for any more testing. Rather than fusion, I now make non detonation synthesis nanophase diamond powder - so on to Farnsworth and fusion.
If the plasma was just contained in spherical form, like the Farnsworth fusor - and the same megawatt level of power dumped into that Plasma, we would have fusion. But then the cash cow would have no more milk and fusion be required to produce power, and what good does that do for the professional scientists? Then they must find another project or a real job.
There have been many people saying the Farnsworth fusor never reached break even, so why take all the trouble to hide the fusor historically and why toss Philo Farnsworth out of the fusor project when things started getting interesting? Because he would have screwed up the whole program by 1: he knew what needed to be done next because he invented the equipment and 2: insisting that everybody be told. And how was the father of the all electric TV system treated - they booted Philo out of his own project, the one person that could bring us safely into the fusion age. I first heard of the Farnsworth Fusor, not in school - but in the Inquirer.
Richard Hall knows what happened at ITT and he also said he knows about an "event" that occurred with the fusor that had to be kept secret. Maybe someone would like to ask him about that? While you are at it - say hello for me.
Chris
thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>thomas malloy wrote:
And Jed Rothwell replied'
>
>>Good at what? attracting funding? The last I heard, the last
>>generation of Takamak's were producing .85 units of usable energy
>>for each one input. This is a deal that only a bureaucrat, or an
>>idiot liberal could love.
>
>Why do you ascribe this trait to liberals? Both parties have
>supported Tokamak development and ethanol, but there is no evidence
>that liberals are more inclined to
OK, it was a cheap shot.
Let me restate the question. Do you of you people think that this
thing will work? IMHO, on a scale of 1 - 100, I give it a 5.
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
