Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Reflections on fusion history, current events, and predictions for the 'fusion powered future.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Richard Hull »

Sad story for all the effort expended. Conrad Farnsworth not allowed to compete in top fair.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional ... f850f.html

Farnsworth fusor built by Conrad Farnsworth can't go to the fair because it is unfair.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Mike Beauford
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:24 pm
Real name:
Location: Morton Grove, IL

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Mike Beauford »

Yeah, I saw that story. I think the person who ratted on him had an ulterior motive from the sounds of it. I would just like to say to Conrad not all adults are jerks like that person.

My 2 cents!
Mike Beauford
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Okay, I have been watching this story since it happened for a bunch of different reasons, and I have come to some strong opinions that aren't going to be popular with all. I do however feel compelled to share them because this story potentially affects this community.

1. The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair is a big deal. Getting into the fair and being successful while you are there can mean a lot to students especially for juniors in high school and younger. It can open doors to a whole range of opportunities including the Science Talent Search (STS), college admission, research opportunities, etc. Because there is so much at stake, the organization that manages the fair has to have a good set of rules and hold to them strictly. The fusor project in question violated a rule by the contestant's own admission. The contestant's issues with how the violation was revealed shouldn't matter. It is inappropriate to claim righteousness for your project just because you question the motives of the person revealing the infraction. Without a doubt there is no honor in proceeding with a rule infraction; it is unfair to other contestants who follow the rules. By the way, these rules are available to all contestants and sponsoring fairs. My son went through the rules himself and received two different screenings; one by his high school fair, and a very in depth screening by the final fair before ISEF. Making it to ISEF with an infraction is the fault of the contestant and the sponsoring fair officials. It is not the fault of the ISEF people and it is not the fault of the person reporting the infraction no matter how popular the contestant may be to some. The rule is the rule.

2. I am disappointed how this whole mess has made it into the press. I have no idea how it got there, but it certainly appears one sided. It is coming across that a budding genius is being targeted by an unfair establishment. There is little to know mention that a rule was actually violated. I think this is just another sign of the increasing poor attitude of Americans that anything is okay to do as long as you can get away with it. Cheating on taxes is okay as long as you are not caught and the person that turns in the infraction is demonized. This is very sad.

3. Some of the stories in the media have gone into some detail about the project and the contestant, and frankly some of what I have read makes it sound like there is some recklessness and bravado that isn't necessarily complimentary. For example one article described the contestant as having made "acid bombs" in a previous project. Here we have a cigar chomping teen who likes high power rifles, home made explosives, fusors, and a distaste for people who insist that rules are to be followed. This does not paint a good picture for those of us who want to maintain a good relationships with our communities who still let us proceed with our hobby. This story has already potentially affected my son. Yesterday at my son's graduation, a speech given the class president was edited to remove mention of Mike's project. Further, his principal acknowledged Mike's work as one of the superlatives of his classes accomplishments, but instead of saying it was a fusion device, the speech mentioned the ASME material science prize he won for it. We believe this was related to a growing concern and caution about these types of projects. I cant find the link, but recently a web page about college admissions quoted an IVY admissions officer as saying they recently rejected admissions to an otherwise qualified applicant who claimed to have built a fusor in his basement. They stated that they thought the candidate should have gone to MIT anyway, but they worried what the student would then do in the dorms. The school mentioned and its circumstances seemed uncannily similar to a rejection my son received this spring.

4. I will close by saying that my opinions on this story should not be interpreted as an opinion about the contestant. I have never met the person and only know of him from what he has shared here and in other web based settings. I can tell that he must be very bright, have a great deal of initiative and energy, and that he is well liked by a number of people including friends, peers, family, and teachers. He has many dimensions that the media didn't mention including his participation in sports and music. From all indications he is an amazing young person, but I still maintain my honest opinions about this unfortunate event.

Call me a "jerk" if you like, but I think some have missed some important points here.
Jim K
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Carl Willis »

I can understand the frustration of Conrad's predicament, but I think Jim has the best analysis of the situation.

If politics or interpersonal issues are interfering with the equitable implementation of ISEF qualifying rules in Conrad's regional and state fairs, I hope this controversy helps clean house and avoids screwing future participants.

I also think Conrad has been a great participant at Fusor.net. I hope he continues to contribute here.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Richard Hull »

My post was my only source and I did not know of any back story on this and thank Jim for his rational expression of a much larger issue which seems to be part of this story.

I fear that the fusor is becoming the "Tesla Coil and Van deGraff" of the modern science fair. It may become common enough to the point that it might not be considered as viable without some sort of unusual usage or fresh investigation.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Carl Willis »

It's a fact that the novelty of fusors in the science fair circuit is wearing off.

Over the history of this forum, a community formula has essentially arisen for a basic neutron-generating fusor with increasingly-predictable performance, to the point now that following established tradition pretty much guarantees a functional system of a few tens to a few hundred thousand neutrons per second. Risks are reduced to the vicissitudes of funding and scrounging, and to the modest--but steadily decreasing--demand on individual skill development and engineering ingenuity required to fill in the gaps. Frankly speaking, these circumstances have been a gravy train for a decade's worth of science fair contestants whose projects centered on building fusors, as judges unfamiliar with the fusion hobby tended to implicitly credit individual projects with much progress actually seated in the wider community. But the next generation of winning contestants is going to have to venture beyond that build-a-fusor formula, I suspect. For the next generation, the formulaic fusor will be relegated to a tool, a platform, or a starting point, and what follows will have to be strong and innovative in its own right. All this is a good thing: a formulaic fusor makes it so much easier to do projects involving neutron physics, or advanced plasma diagnostics, or many other worthy areas of inquiry that would have been beyond anyone's reach before the amateur fusor existed.

Winning or losing or being DQ'd at the science fair is not everything. I've harped before about how science fair contestants have minimal incentive to collaborate, to accurately represent their project's context and antecedents, and to take engineering risks...as important as these are to practical science, they run contrary to the pop-cultural tropes of the wunderkind and the lone genius that really drive the science fair narrative. We've noted before how few of our conspicuous science fair winners actually stick around to grow the community's understanding (and their own). And we all know about the difficulties with judges whose backgrounds are weak in the areas they are judging. This thread particularly highlights the role the rules and their enforcers play in determining science fair awards. So I embrace the science fair phenomenon with considerable caution, and maintain that the single best reason to get involved with hobby fusion is for the enjoyment.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Well said Carl. Another dimension to how "successful" kids are in these fairs with the fusors is their relative ability to self-promote. Hype and celebrity have followed some of the teen fusors but not all, and the defining difference seems to be how much crowing goes on either by the kids or their sponsors. I think a certain amount of back-patting is well deserved by these kids, because even though the fusor is somewhat templated now, it is a massive undertaking especially when compared to the effort required for typical top-class science fair projects. There is almost no comparison. The concern I have about the crowing is when the quotes attribute too much to the kids versus how much was copied and when the fusors are sensationalized for more than what they are in terms of danger, radiation, or even power output. On that subject, I recently read and article that resulted from an interview with Conrad Farnsworth that made it very clear to me that Conrad was trying valiantly to make sure that the interviewer understood what the fusor was and was not. Good job to him.

I don't think the 'permanent' members of the forum should despair if the teen fusioneers take off without returning after their first neutrons. I suspect most of them will go on to further education and careers in related science and education. It is a wonderful contribution.
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Chris Bradley »

There are, clearly, several ways of looking at this story and one can sympathise with 'both sides' of the outcome.

I won't belabour any of those points already discussed, but simply to say this: In the 'real' world you don't get any gold stars on your report card if you do a good bit of work but don't comply with rules. On the contrary, you may well end up with expensive contract liabilities, unenforceable patent applications, losing out to your competitors, health and safety prosecutions (or worse, personal injury outcomes), and/or Court cases and fines, or worse still. You don't need 'mens rea' to find yourself at the wrong end of a legal issue, all you need to do is fail to realise there is some rule you were supposed to follow that you didn't know about. These school fairs are to do with learning - so the way I see this is that there is some good learning worth taking to heart in this episode, yet still within the 'safety net', so to speak, of an educational environment that will not be seeking punitive measures for the rule error.

I hope Conrad is satisfied and comfortable with his efforts, and I trust that he had already found his own rewards from his work.
krfkeith
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:38 am
Real name: Kevin Keith

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by krfkeith »

For starters, I've never been a fan of science fairs to begin with. As Carl said, the way they "work" is counter to how the scientific community operates. Science is a wholly collaborative enterprise. Whereas, science fairs, by comparison, are ordeals which essentially, in my opinion, award self-aggrandizement.

But more to the point: while I don't know the specifics of the even in question, honestly, does a fusor really have a place at a science fair to begin with? I don't think so. To be frank, how exactly is replicating an experiment (and I don't mean to denigrate the difficulty here) an example of science? At best, it could be construed as engineering, but I think that would be tenuous at best. What hypothesis are you testing? As a hobby, it's one thing, but as an attempt to garner favor, I will say I am not a fan of them. People here have mentioned the misunderstanding over the danger of them, and while I agree that is there to a degree, I think a larger problem is actually the reverse.

My biggest problem to begin with, is that they "cheat," in a sense, by wowing people with loaded, or at least, mysterious (to those unfamiliar with the subject) words like "nuclear," "fusion," "reactor," "deuterium," etc. This already gives the contestant an upper hand. Because, when someone unacquainted with the subject first hears of it, I guarantee, they're going to be thinking the kid built a nuclear power plant in their backyard. And yes, obviously judges will (in theory) know better, but they, as all humans, are not immune to the inertia such projects acquire when the media or just other laymen get a hold of it. For example, I mentioned elsewhere that I'm trying to build a sputter deposition machine. Now, in my opinion, from the perspective of a hobbyist this is roughly an equivalent undertaking. Well, perhaps not quite, as I'm only trying to do "simple" DC sputtering, but with things like reactive sputtering it can get quite complicated. Even more so if you want to move on to chemical vapor deposition. In any case, it's a non-trivial task and certainly nothing to scoff at. I'm 20, so I'm not going to be entering any high school science fairs, but let's say I were entering a science fair. Take two people off the street, and ask them whether they think building a "nuclear fusor" or a "sputter deposition machine" is more impressive. For that matter, show them the devices operating. Do you really need to ask which one will come out ahead?

That brings me back to the point I already reiterated earlier, about misrepresenting science. While the idea of the aforementioned lone genius is an unrealistic one to say the least, there is of course nothing to say a lone genius is incapable of executing valid scientific experiments. Fusors, however, I don't really qualify in this regard either. I'm not denying they aren't extremely interesting, but there's not really a whole lot of questions to answer with respect to their operation is there? The mechanism of inertial electrical confinement is well understood, and I don't really think it's up for debate that IEC fusion (at the very least, in the Farnsworth-Hirsch variety) is not going to net energy. In short, building a fusor, even if it's a slight variation, isn't doing anything new. I mean, if some of these people were building polywells then we might be talking! By comparison, sputtering is awash with variables to test. You could look at the effects of voltage, distance between the target and substrate, substrate temperature, pressure of the argon gas in the chamber, and a host of other things that escape me. Again, I'm not trying to make it out like building a fusor is easy, it most certainly isn't, but just because something is hard doesn't make it an example of a scientific experiment.

While this is perhaps somewhat tangent to the issue, a gripe I have with them, in science fairs, is that it's just not really fair to the economically disadvantaged. How many kids are there out there who are perfectly capable of building one, but simply don't have the money, or space to house it? By far, the biggest threshold to entry is the cost. There are plenty of equally challenging and intellectually rigorous projects without the same extensive cost someone could do for a science fair project, but I can't think of any that have the same kind of hold on people's imaginations. Even aesthetically, fusors are nearly unparalleled. When people see the purple glow of the plasma the details don't even really matter anymore to them. I'm not trying to say people are stupid. What I mean is that, people who aren't trained in science, equate things which appear exotic and unusual (for example, the plasma in the fusor) as being the most complicated or conceptually advanced.

Lastly, and I might be showing more of my cynical side here, I really take exception to how people want to paint these kids who built them out as child prodigies or geniuses for having built them. Note however, that I'm not saying they're stupid, or for that matter, aren't geniuses, but rather that it doesn't take a genius to make one. Some people may disagree with me, but I don't think that the way they work is complicated at all, and I don't think having a basic understanding of how they work is beyond the capabilities of most people with a basic physics education. The details of constructing one are definitely non-trivial. However, many of the things that make that difficult aren't at all specific to fusors! I dare say a lot of the complications arise from having to figure out how to do things without tens of thousands of dollars of grant money. And that, itself, isn't something to forget about! That being said, I somehow doubt that when these kids are being with showered with praise, the people doing so are thinking about how amazing it was that they managed to completely refurbish a non-working turbomolecular pump and build a controller for it (or whatever). I would hazard to guess the vast majority of these kids have had mentors of some sort, which is fine, but this is a detail consistently absent from articles and news segments. Again, this all goes back to the child prodigy narrative. Many of you have mentioned, here and elsewhere, about how far too many have basically used the forum and promptly left after their use for it was over. And even more absurd, is when the nature of what building a fusor means is blown way out of proportion. When Taylor Wilson built his, well, I suppose he was one of the first. And I can understand why people find the whole story fascinating. What I don't understand is why he's receiving $100,000 grants, and meetings with the President, and whatever else with respect to developing and discussing viable means of nuclear energy. I'm personally of the opinion that fusion energy is the greatest scam of the century, but even if you don't, the fact is that for the foreseeable future we're stuck with fission. What exactly qualifies Mr. Wilson to talk about nuclear energy, other than the fact that "nuclear fission" and "nuclear fusion" both contain the word nuclear? In terms of energy source, the farnsworth fusor is a dead end. This isn't going to change. There's a reason why fusion which nets energy is difficult, and in fact, net energy producing fusors already exist, they're called stars. Essentially it's a question of how you build a star on Earth. And I guarantee that won't be solved by one person, even if he or she has $100,000 or $100 million dollars.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Richard Hull »

You sound like me after these many years. I have been expounding in the exact manner. Fusion, at least over unity net energy fusion, is a scam for me as well.

The fusor doesn't define genius, as you note, but it can define a type of individual. This would be a "hands-on" individual with the capability of displaying multi-talented effort in a venture that requires some funding and a good deal of effort not common to the youth of today. Regardless of this site and its informational content reducing the fusor to an engineering endeavor, it remains a tough one and in the doing, separates some wheat from the chaff.

As I noted above, in a science fair, it would only win now if it was used in some novel experimental fashion. I would not think ill of anyone with a fusor in any sort of scientific competition.

There is always some pride, at any age, in being able to say, "I have personally done fusion with my own hands and using my own treasure, effort and skills".

Too many arrive here thinking that with a tweak or a new artifice, the fusor can gain 3 orders of magnitude improvment. It is not going to happen using D-D fuel.

As for power ready fusion............Fusion is the energy of the future and it always will be.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
krfkeith
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:38 am
Real name: Kevin Keith

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by krfkeith »

Richard,

You summed up my thoughts exactly. Going slightly off-topic, I should mention I by no means doubt fusion energy is possible. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here talking about it! Okay, all kidding aside, what I really mean is that I have no doubt artificial fusion reactors made by we humans are possible. However, the problem with it is that it does not, and cannot scale down. To get net energy out of fusion, you necessarily need something like an ITER. As I mentioned, fusion energy is basically akin to building a star on earth. To be precise, despite popular belief, net-energy fusion reactors actually already exist. They're called thermonuclear weapons, otherwise known as the hydrogen bomb. The question then, is not how we get energy out of the process of fusion, but rather, how we do it without doing it all at once, and, in the process, flattening everything in a 20-mile radius.

There are many criticisms of nuclear fission energy. There are few of these, however, which are not directed at specific designs, such as the RBMK (the most (in)famous example being Chernobyl), which I think are valid. That being said, there is one drawback to nuclear energy, which I do think there is something to. By its very nature nuclear plants have to be large, and so, by extension, exarcerbate the problem of dependance by the many on the few. Despite the promise of energy "too cheap to meter," as trite as it may sound, where there's a will, there's a way. In theory, you can always build a smaller solar cell, a smaller windmill, dam a smaller river, or for that matter, burn a few lumps of coal. You can't really do that with nuclear fission. And while there are some designs, for example, the SNAP reactor which was used to power satellites, realistically speaking, it just wouldn't be safe or realistic to have a garden shed sized nuclear reactor for every 10,000 people.

Now, you think that's bad, well try fusion. The up front costs are at least two or three orders of magntitude higher than for fission, and despite what some have said, I would posit that can never go down because it is intrinsic to the nature of fusion energy. ITER, for example, has basically taken the entire EU and a good deal of money from other countries thrown in to get built. Are we going to have a few single power plants for the entire world? What happens if one went down, or had to be turned off for maintenance? This is why I think fusion energy is a bunch of claptrap, because it can't be scaled, and it isn't going to be cheap. Things like ITER don't run themselves! You need hundreds of highly trained professionals monitoring it all the time, and that isn't free. Som even if you get to the point where the fuel costs are negligible, the costs of training and paying people to actually run the thing won't be.
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Ross Moffett »

Having worked in coal-powered and natural gas-powered electric plants, I'd like to point out that staffs of highly trained professionals are required to maintain those as well. My field is instrumentation engineering (that is, the automation equipment monitoring, controlling and alarming on process variables). I was told it takes 8 years to master my field in the application of coal-fired steam plants. That's 26% of a 30 year career, not including a bachelors degree, just to master one of the arts of power generation.

Nuclear fission requires the same, in triplicate, in case anything should go wrong (and that's still not enough in at least three cases).

However, comparing the ITER reactor to a for-profit power reactor isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, because after the research is done and the power production method a known factor, lots of the highly trained staff and huge budget problems go away. For starters, a very small amount of the workforce would have a PhD or Masters level of education for sure. Of course it's going to be a huge budget hog.. probably one very similar to the gigawatt scale nuclear fission reactors of today. My guess is that if it ever becomes possible someone is going to muster the funds just to say they've got one.

Despite the cynicism of small-scale fusion reactors, I still hold out hope that one day, someone will figure something out. I'll piddle away and experiment for fun, not expecting anything groundbreaking to happen. Regardless, I'll tell you the same thing I tell people who call me with tech support problems, claiming that their equipment is fine because it was working fine before. "It always works fine, until it doesn't." Similarly, before a breakthrough can be made, it always doesn't work, until the right circumstances occur and it does.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Carl Willis »

This thread is wandering distant from the original topic, which was a particular news item about one of our members and his ISEF experience. General perorations on the old warhorse of fusion power plants (which are not the focus of fusor.net anyway) should be put in a new thread in the appropriate forum.
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Rich Feldman
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:59 pm
Real name: Rich Feldman
Location: Santa Clara County, CA, USA

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Rich Feldman »

krfkeith wrote:... does a fusor really have a place at a science fair to begin with? I don't think so. To be frank, how exactly is replicating an experiment (and I don't mean to denigrate the difficulty here) an example of science? At best, it could be construed as engineering, but I think that would be tenuous at best. What hypothesis are you testing? ...
Our regional science fair has a separate entry category for Engineering projects.
That typically gets a few projects per grade, and would be ideal for a starter fusor.
The judging criteria for Engineering are different from those for Science projects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.)
You can read the details starting 2/3 of the way down in this document, as of August 2013.
https://sites.google.com/site/synopsysc ... dgingguide

A plain old neutron-producing fusor, if entered under Physics project, might not score well for Scientific Thought (which ideally represents only 30% of the total available points).
What's the hypothesis being tested? The variables? The control?

At times I've had to argue with other judges about a project that looked like the obvious #1.
It could have lots of Wow, lots of skill and knowledge, lots of personal charm.
But needs to be knocked down a notch if creativity and science are lacking.
It helps to be able to recognize hardware from kits, or made from online instructions, so that factor can fairly be taken into account.
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

A lot of baloney being thrown around here. ISEF stands for International Science and Engineering Fair. Also, before one goes throwing stones at the projects, maybe one should take the time to go look at them first. All the fusor projects I have examine had some kind of unique science or engineering premise, maybe not Nobel worthy, but good projects nonetheless. They have not been simple repeats of other people's projects.

You have to admire the high school fusor projects if even just for the commitment and passion the kids have shown for science and engineering. Just go ask their competing peers. When my son competed at the 2012 ISEF with several other fusioneers, an MIT bound competitor in the physics category told me that he was impressed by the fusor group for just how deeply they all seemed to have explored the science behind their work. The fusioneers there were no more geniuses than that MIT bound non-fusioneer, but by his own admission they certainly earned the admiration of their peers.

Finally, the Nobel prize winning astro-physicist who spoke with my son directly about his project didn't have a cynical impression of the project at all. I think that says enough.
John Futter
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Disqualified from Intenational science fair

Post by John Futter »

From my point of view it is unfortunate that Conrad's team infringed the rules.
This may have been bought on by "tall poppy syndrome" people finding a flaw to rid themselves of a threat
Rules are rules
I'm presently watching the Americas cup and The Oracle team have been caught cheating and are now paying the penalty.
I am not saying that anyone knowingly cheated here but the outcome is the same.
Conrad
take heart the mistake was not yours but in the team, and in this case your project takes the can.

Jim I agree with all you have said
Keith I think you might be right but do you not have the all encompassing knowledge to dismiss the fusor.

Finally Conrad what you have done so far will already open doors for you.
don't grumble but look at the positive side --and say "I did that"
Post Reply

Return to “Fusion --- Past, Present, and Future”