The geometry hasn't changed since he first released information on WB6 in 2006 about what he had been dong with the Navy for several years under a Navy-imposed publishing embargo.
The subsequent developments of the WB series -- now up to WB8.1 -- have not "failed... to live up to promises" as far as I know. Indeed, the most recent public information from the Navy<https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/N6893609C0125%20_Redacted_JA.pdf>states: "The experimental results to date were consistent with the underlying theoretical framework of the Polywell fusion concept and, in the opinion of the committee, merited continuation and expansion." On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Well Bussard has an approach which may work, but it may more likely be > burdened with a fundamental design error - in not fully capitalizing on > “spherical convergence” – since it or was closer to cubical.**** > > ** ** > > IMHO proper spherical convergence needs at least 12 converging vectors at > a minimum, or twice as many as he provides. I got the feeling he was > unaware of the advantages of geometry.**** > > ** ** > > Maybe the latest edition has proper convergence by now. I stopped > following the site a few years ago when he failed once again to live up to > promises.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* James Bowery ** > > ** ** > > No, I mean that if you are interested in magnetic enhanced electrostatic > confinement, there is no need to speculate.**** > > Do you mean the post was too short J **** > > After all, I wanted to leave something for others, so the stage is yours… > **** > > *From:* James Bowery **** > > Why no mention of the WB series?**** > > **** > > ** ** >
