The discussion revolves around the process of invention, particularly in the context of a proposed idea for a new type of nuclear fusion reactor. Participants explore the challenges of developing new technologies, the importance of mathematical validation, and the protection of intellectual property. The conversation touches on theoretical and practical aspects of scientific research and invention.
Participants generally disagree on the validity and originality of the proposed idea, with some asserting that it is unlikely for a layperson to come up with a novel solution in a complex field like nuclear fusion. There is no consensus on the potential of the idea or the best approach to protect it.
The discussion highlights the limitations of relying solely on conceptual ideas without empirical support and the challenges of intellectual property in scientific innovation.
I don't see any harm whatever in him asking people here to look at it even at this one-day-old stage because it shows, to me at least, he doesn't want to linger on it if it turns out to be easily shown to be in error. In other words, he is trying to do exactly what several are accusing him of not doing: consulting.micromass said:And we are giving him good advice - although we might be somewhat sarcastic. The advice is that the OP should study hard and long until he mastered the specifics of the field. He should also converse with colleagues and other specialists in the field. The Lorenzo oil people you like to reference happen to have done exactly that.
zoobyshoe said:I don't see any harm whatever in him asking people here to look at it even at this one-day-old stage because it shows, to me at least, he doesn't want to linger on it if it turns out to be easily shown to be in error. In other words, he is trying to do exactly what several are accusing him of not doing: consulting.
No, because he flat out said he doesn't guarantee it. If, however, I were some kind of nuclear physicist, I'd look at his schematic for the hell of it. He's receptive to criticism.micromass said:You really have no opinion on the matter?
Let's say you are part of a political committee funding science projects. You see this OP asking you for money for his project, and you see a well-respected professor in fusion asking for funding. Who would you rather give the money to? Would you give the OP any money at all?
He says:micromass said:Uuuh, he's not consulting? His OP asked how he could protect his "invention" from the thiefs (= experts in fusion).
P.S. This idea is relatively new (1 day) but I will make schematics soon. If anyone wants me to send them blueprints or something of that nature, so they could help me see if my idea would work, I can in a week.
zoobyshoe said:No, because he flat out said he doesn't guarantee it. If, however, I were some kind of nuclear physicist, I'd look at his schematic for the hell of it. He's receptive to criticism.
zoobyshoe said:He says:
That was certainly his main concern. How do you protect an innovative idea? Nothing wrong with that question.micromass said:So clearly this thread was not about helping him with his research since his schematics aren't even done yet. The purpose of this thread is how to protect his research from being stolen. Arguing otherwise is just dishonest.
russ_watters said:Not sure if that is a joke or an actual article, but if it exists, I'd like to read it...
zoobyshoe said:That was certainly his main concern. How do you protect an innovative idea? Nothing wrong with that question.
Why shouldn't he? Whatever he's thinking about today, tomorrow he might actually come up with some obviously good idea about something.micromass said:Right. And nothing wrong with our responses that he shouldn't be worrying about that for now.
He got the correct response in post #2, right off the bat, IMHO; "You can patent it".micromass said:Right. And nothing wrong with our responses that he shouldn't be worrying about that for now.
zoobyshoe said:Why shouldn't he? Whatever he's thinking about today, tomorrow he might actually come up with some obviously good idea about something.
The odds against him having "solved fusion" are high. However, as I said, he might have a good idea about something tomorrow, or at some point in the future, at which point he would want to take steps to protect it.micromass said:I don't know how you think science research works. He's not going to come up with a good idea about fusion in one day without doing a lot more studying.
I find your attitude very insulting towards experts who have been struggling with this matter for years. And you think a 15 year old kid can just "solve fusion" in a day? Be serious please...
zoobyshoe said:The odds against him having "solved fusion" are high.
Exactly why you think they are. That doesn't translate to "He's a layman, therefore he is wrong," however.micromass said:Why?
zoobyshoe said:Exactly why you think they are. That doesn't translate to "He's a layman, therefore he is wrong," however.
It isn't just about consulting (education first!) and the harm in looking at and evaluating the idea is that it validates the approach he's taking. That approach is fundamentally flawed and that's part of the reason we don't allow such discussions on PF.zoobyshoe said:I don't see any harm whatever in him asking people here to look at it even at this one-day-old stage because it shows, to me at least, he doesn't want to linger on it if it turns out to be easily shown to be in error. In other words, he is trying to do exactly what several are accusing him of not doing: consulting.
YepArubi Bushlee said:*edit* nevermind muon flux too low. :C
Sophia said:I have no idea if his invention is good. Probably not for the reasons micromass but also zoobyshoe agree with.
But hey, he's a 15 years old boy who is daydreaming- everyone at his age thinks he can save the planet. It seems according to his post that he knows more about Physics than most of his peers. One day he may become a scientist. He asks legitimate questions (is my idea correct? And how does one protect an invention?). He repeatedly says he's not sure about the idea and by posting on PF he's trying to consult experts. This is probably all he can do at his age.
I see no point in yelling at him using multiple exclamation marks and scolding him in "who do you think you are?!" style.
Answering this boy in a normal manner ( eg. I've read your description and there is this problem-as @Astronuc did ) does not mean "disrespecting experts".
I don't know why this innocent thread got so personal and negative.
Of course be needs to hear that he needs to study, get a degree and become a proper scientist. In this I fully agree with you. All I was objecting to was the way it was presented.micromass said:Whenever a thread like this comes up, there are always two different responses. One side is encouraging him to ask more scientific questions. The other side is telling him to drop the attitude, to stop daydreaming and actually do science the way everybody does it. I believe both sides are necessary for him to hear.
It would not work even with much higher muon flux.Arubi Bushlee said:*edit* nevermind muon flux too low. :C
That's a doozy of a show stopper. The OP needs to study the physics behind the process. Proposing to accelerate each deuteron to ~ 8 GeV is way more than can be generated from a fusion reaction, which is ~3.27 to 4 MeV, which is ~1.6 to 2 MeV per deuteron, just won't work.mfb said:Accelerating deuterium to 98% the speed of light needs 8 GeV per molecule, that is a factor of ~500 more than fusion releases.
twiz_ said:What I've learned so far after a week of activity:
PF is where social values and logic collide