Ok, say I've got a new design for a fusion reactor, but it takes me 5 years to convince anyone that it's worth investigating.
Fusion power has been set back 5 years.
Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please!
Fusion power has been set back 5 years.
Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please!
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/choice-of-...
Short version: because it can be read as “we, the author and the reader”.
But the site above uses phrases like “we have been granted a patent”, which come across as somewhat dishonest, making it appear on first glance as though this is the work of a team, corporate body, or at least two collaborators (and two is a huge step up from one in terms of credibility of any idea).
I’m not saying there was any dishonest intention on the part of this author - I’m just suggesting that radical transparency is a good technique for introducing an idea to a skeptical audience, in a domain which is very noisy with bad actors.
I'm working with suppliers, and discussing the concept openly with everyone who is interested.
Most of the time however, I am working alone.
Should I pay someone to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for semantic reasons?
I believe a royal "WE" is appropriate, but I could be wrong.
You might need to make a tough call to do one or the other.
The research is obviously the most important thing at this point. Without validation it's all just conjecture.
I know I'll need solid evidence to back up the idea, but I've reached the end of my ability to evaluate the concept. I can't find a fatal flaw, and that's why I keep trying.
I'm really looking for an answer either way. I need help to prove it will work, or to show it's a dead end.
While it's in limbo I can't, in good conscience, drop it.
Do you really think having a patent and an LLC to organize under are fatal flaws?
This isn't LENR with some mystic explanation requiring new physics. This is hot, thermal fusion contained by a novel, but very simple to understand set of fields.
I've talked to many, physicists and am open to criticism about the design. If I don't know the answer to a question I admit it.
Since it's such a new device, there hasn't been any rigorous analysis of it yet, so there is nothing to publish. It's a chicken and egg problem.
for those curious: http://www.envirotechdme.com
If I could offer you some pointers:
- Separate the Youtube account you use for this technology from the one you use personally.
- Specify in nontechnical language the advantage this tech has over similar fusion technologies. (still working on this myself)
- Seek peer review and then highlight that peer review directly on your website. My intuition is that most people or departments who are capable of funding a demonstration are not capable of validating the science behind your technology.
- I would recommend writing and attaching a succinct summary of your technology distinct from your patent, and devoid of the legalese and cruft that fills up a patent.
I took a look at your site and had some thoughts I wanted to share with you.
See if you can convince yourself that the arguments he makes about non-equilibrium systems don't apply to your concept, and then write a white paper explaining your argument.
The instant ions leave the hot thermal focus, each one flys off on its own independent cyclotron trajectory. Their collective motion results in another dense, hot, thermal focus one period later.
Have you submitted your research for peer review, and if not, why?