Talk:Robert W. Bussard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] More information

Two semi-articles worth using as information for further article development: http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?s=e665007961e36e93001813d66ec9a4ea&p=1722023

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684406

Note to self:

Toroid 3   5,174,945       Full-Text       Controlled thermonuclear fusion power apparatus and method
Fusor  4        5,160,695       Full-Text       Method and apparatus for creating and controlling nuclear fusion reactions
Toroid 5        5,049,350       Full-Text       Controlled thermonuclear fusion power apparatus and method
Toroid 6        5,019,321       Full-Text       Modular fusion power apparatus using disposable core
Toroid 7        4,859,399       Full-Text       Modular fusion power apparatus using disposable core
Toroid 8        4,836,972       Full-Text       Controlled thermonuclear fusion device and method

- Omegatron 03:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link

The link to "The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor: How To Make It Work" does not appear to work anymore. Does anyone have a new source for this document? James A. Stewart 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

fixed. an alternative is: http://www.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0001095/Fusion.0a Kevin Baastalk 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one I have officially approved is the updated version posted in "the newbie center" of fusor.net. I bear no grudge against the others, considering the importance of that article in getting the amateur fusor movement started, but it is copyrighted material. Tom Ligon Tomligon 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
http://fusor.net/newbie/files/Ligon-QED-IE.pdf

[edit] new-ish video

2006-11-09 video of Bussard discussing the design of the reactor in detail and going into some history

[edit] Interstellar gas

"most interstellar hydrogen exists in an ionized state"

Doesn't that mean "protons"? If so, shouldn't it be called "interstellar plasma"? — Omegatron 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, ionized means positively or negatively charged MOLECUlES. An ion is a molecule that does not containt equal numbers of electrons and protons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.10.121.63 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
If the H is a positive ion, what's the diff between that and a regular P+? Oh well, this isn't the place for the discussion. Paperweight 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More information

This article could be expanded a lot.

PhD thesis: Energy principle for the stability of hydromagnetic plasmas in equilibrium motion, 125 pp 1961 http://w3.pppl.gov/gradprogram/Misc/Thesis-59.html — Omegatron 18:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From personal conversations with him, I believe R. W. Bussard did the original proposal (at about age 24!) for and initiated Project Rover, and was the primary designer on Kiwi-A. The Rover program led to the NERVA program. There is a Wiki on these already. A reference to Bussard, R. W., and R. D. DeLauer. Nuclear Rocket Propulsion, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958 would be in order, and I believe they also wrote a second book on the topic.
He also had a hand in developing the cargo plane gunships used in Vietnam, often called "Puff the Magic Dragon." He told me that he was involved in the preliminary design, realized the guns produced too much thrust to fire forward, and changed the design to fire out the side, which is still done on the AC-130.
I believe he also had a hand in surveillance satellites and night vision development.
He evidently started very young with his interest in rockets and space, and this has been a driving motivation all of his life.
Sorry, I can't provide firm citations. Tom Ligon Tomligon 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We have some information about these projects, but not a lot:

References would be good. — Omegatron 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding Technology of the Year Award - 2006

Apparently Dr. Bussard's Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion (IEF) Device has won the International Academy of Science's 2006 Outstanding Technology of the Year award. I think this should be mentioned somewhere... The question is, where? In this article or another? / Hiddekel 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Polywell? — Omegatron 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of homework on this award. It turns out the award was from the Missouri organization claiming to be the International Academy of Science, not the real distinguished international organization. As such, I don't think it is appropriate to give the fly-by-night group more publicity by linking to them. Nor is the award particularly an honor for Dr. Bussard, unfortunately. - trey@cmu.edu.

[edit] Removed ref

User:JzG removed the following

inrelation to:

  • In an article entitled "The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor: How To Make It Work" in the December 12, 1998

J. D. Redding 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link for donations

Link is a little strange and doesn't provide much information. Site is apparently registered to Bussard, though.

If this really works, why can't he convince something real to fund it? — Omegatron 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Since when does every feasible, realistic idea receive funding? There are many ways to spend money, donating it is generally not high on people's list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.223.153 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Someone should dig up some discussion on the merits of donation / private financing / corporate share issue financing for the fusor project and make a section on it here. Oh, and he is trying to convince "something real" to finance it. Paperweight 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And eventually succeeded. — Omegatron 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False Alarm

The report that the Navy had resumed funding was a false alarm[1] . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabowery (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I have seen this report[2] about real funding but no confirmation anywhere, it even talks about the false alarm above and is dated August 23, 2007 --Tomschuring 06:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the various references I found and the closest thing to a confirmation seems to be This article, which doesn't say that the research group is still funded, only that Bussard got funding before he died and that "Work on Bussard’s fusion reactor continues at the company he founded... colleagues said." I certainly hope his work is being funded, but it's hard to tell, and the various blogs claiming confirmation all seem to lead back to the same article. Even the EMC2 company site says almost nothing. Can we get clearer info on this issue? -Kris Schnee (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to find out who is providing the funding.Kevinp2 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interstellar hydrogen does not have to be sped up

Re: "any hydrogen picked up by the scoop must be sped up to the same speed as the ship in order to provide thrust,"

It does not follow that the hydrogen fuel must be accelerated to the ship's speed; it could be fused on-the-fly and still provide thrust.

Imagine one possible design: narrow the ever-moving flow of hydrogen through the system until it emerges from the stern as a compressed stream, then use a detonator (e.g. a laser) to fuse the trail behind the ship, driving it forward.

A present-day earth-bound scramjet reacts against moving air without having to drag the air up to the jet's own speed.

[edit] Iraq Claim

I removed a phrase saying that the Navy funding was canceled specifically because of "Iraq War budget costs," because of its unsourced and speculative nature. Seem reasonable? Bussard, assuming that the <a href=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58665#27>forum post attributed to him</a> was his, said, "the entire Navy Energy Program was cut to zero in FY 2006, and we were a part of this cut. The funds were clearly needed for the more important War in Iraq." Do we know that to be the reason though? We could also just give this quote as his opinion, to the extent that the forum post is trustworthy. -Kris Schnee (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be stated as his words. — Omegatron 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion Power and Bussard

I am a basic technology guru type and was once like Dr. Bussard, a nuclear security covered person. I held the world's neutron standard in my own personnel storage locker while employed at the NIST as the building 245 safety supervisor.

NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the US national standards laboratory.

The neutron standard is now being debated as a continued nuclear security standard or to advance the world to new science. Bussard's designs will never be understood in Standard Model Theory, because he like me was inside nuclear security.

I was to vote in the afirmative, and so the neutron was to be recalibrate in 2010. A world congress was to monitor the new neutron number. Beleive it or not, the fission neutron binding values calibrate the number. Nuclear physics was diverted for 80 years by the use of a miscalibrated neutron. An exact number of neutrons are emitted for each fission.

Bussards design is real it is dangerous, but it will project humanity. Simple reactors in valleys designed for excursion are all that was necessary. A valley dedicated to the future power sources was to be Clinch River in Va. A failed fusion system is truely explosive and a small fusion event would occur with maybe 10% probability over ten yearss. A death of plant personnel as true scientific advisors to humanity.

We will simply use coal or use fusion was the test. ANd greenhouse is to advise. We must turn to fusion now. Security cleared personnel for all reactors, that is all. A strange fusion plant where security covers all aspects will occur.

The new science was all we needed.

--207.69.140.22 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Outstanding Technology of the Year Award 2006

This was briefly on Polywell but was removed as unimportant to that article. Mentioning here in case anyone thinks it should be added here.

Award
In 2006, Dr Bussard and the Polywell device were awarded the Outstanding Technology of the Year Award by the International Academy of Science (Missouri). [1]

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I now see that this was already mentioned here. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political subterfuge?

"In June 1995, Bussard claimed in a letter to all fusion laboratories, as well as to key members of the US Congress, that he and the other founders of the program supported the Tokamak not out of conviction that it was the best technical approach but rather as a vehicle for generating political support, "

The letter linked to, assuming it is legitimate, does not state this at all (relevant page: [3]) It simply says that the DOE has a commitment to fusion because of its commitment to large budgets in general, and used the fusion program as an excuse for this. His "confession" is just that they tried to raise very large budgets as a matter of course so they could have the money to use at their own discretion. Whether one thinks this is a good idea or not, it is not at all what the statement above implies. It's fairly standard procedure for agency funding, for better or worse. Its reference to the Tokamak is just as an example of large fusion funding, and it says nothing about technical approaches vs. political support. --140.247.241.114 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you're arguing against this here. By your own interpretation, they used the tokamak approach because it would get them lots of funding, quite irrespective of whether it was technically superior or not. That's exactly what Dr. Bussard wrote. "Political support" means "funding". And if you don't see anything about technical approaches, well, that just corroborates the suggestion that it wasn't even a consideration. So I don't see any contradictions here. Besides, whatever you or any of us opine is WP:OR, while the letter is WP:VERIFY. Kevin Baastalk 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)