5 ms·

Bussard was a genius who couldn't get funding. Less than a year before he died of cancer, he asked Google for a paltry sum to continue his research, shortly aft

Bussard was a genius who couldn't get funding. Less than a year before he died of cancer, he asked Google for a paltry sum to continue his research, shortly after the government cut him off. I have wondered why Google didn't jump on this. Do you know? And now, ironically, the Navy, the very entity which tossed him out, has not only picked up his research, but has apparently gone all quiet about the results. Here's the video of his excellent (and, in retrospect, sad) presentation at Google. I say "sad" because it shows an intellectual giant, nearly on his deathbed, practically begging an Internet giant, for what was really the tiny amount he needed to continue with what had become his life's work. Anyway, it's an intense, fast-paced, insightful, and (likely) final public look into his mind, his work, and his character. http://youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU http://youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU (Should Google Go Nuclear?) http://youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 (archive copy) UPDATE: I found a good paper covering the above talk. It's a 25-page PDF, of less than 2MB, with color photos and charts from the video. http://askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf http://askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuc...

dalke 14y ago
I watched the video of his Google presentation. It seemed to be more of the "overwhelm them with slides" sort of talk. It did not instill in me a sense of that what he was talking about was practical, but rather that he was in his own world and that if he just showed how neat the physics was that he would get funding.
- ThaddeusQuay2 14y ago
  It was more of a "slides, with a whole lot of words coming out of his mouth, the mouth of one of the world's foremost experts on the subject matter" sort of talk. I got the sense that it was practical to proceed to the next level, which is all he was asking of Google. I also got the impression that he was in his own world. That tends to be how geniuses talk. There was no introduction, no covering of the basics, no time to settle in. It was like jumping into the ocean of his mind, and you either sank or swam with his thoughts. He was 78, and possibly already sick with cancer at that time, yet he came off as a young visionary with unwavering optimism. That, combined with his accomplishments, made him amazing, and one of my heroes.
  - dalke 14y ago
    "which is all he was asking of Google" He was asking for funding. For funding, you need to convince people that it's worthwhile. There are many ways to do that. One is to say "trust me", another is to persuade through education, a third is to use money which was promised for another purpose, and so on. He used the first approach. Only, he did it in a way that's similar to what a lot of kooks do - throw graphs up on a screen, without the time to review them, and on a topic which few in the audience will understand. That is not a way to convince people to fund your project. You say "That tends to be how geniuses talk." That is incorrect. Look at Fermi, Feynman, Gould, Sagan - all considered geniuses, and all renowned for their ability to explain things. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was meant for a wide audience, and was not a technical monograph. Freeman Dyson has written some marvelous essays, including his "A New Newton" book review of Gleick's Newton biography. Just take a look at the Nobel Prize lectures and you'll see good evidence that Nobel Prize winners are also able to explain their work using something other than a blizzard of viewgraphs. Those people are ones I admire. Instead, I think this sort of presentation tends to be the way that people who are convinced of their genius-ness talk. And again, it's the sort of way kooks talk. I want to be clear here. I'm not saying that he's a kook. The polywell reactor may be the power source of the future. But that presentation detracted from his goal, I presume, of getting funding for the project. Really, if you didn't know it was Bussard, would you be convinced? If I had given the same talk, in the same style, would you be willing to contribute $10 million in funding?
zokier 14y ago
BTW what's the difference between the youtube urls? I've never head of tech talk archive before.

dalke 14y ago

I watched the video of his Google presentation. It seemed to be more of the "overwhelm them with slides" sort of talk. It did not instill in me a sense of that what he was talking about was practical, but rather that he was in his own world and that if he just showed how neat the physics was that he would get funding.

ThaddeusQuay2 14y ago
It was more of a "slides, with a whole lot of words coming out of his mouth, the mouth of one of the world's foremost experts on the subject matter" sort of talk. I got the sense that it was practical to proceed to the next level, which is all he was asking of Google. I also got the impression that he was in his own world. That tends to be how geniuses talk. There was no introduction, no covering of the basics, no time to settle in. It was like jumping into the ocean of his mind, and you either sank or swam with his thoughts. He was 78, and possibly already sick with cancer at that time, yet he came off as a young visionary with unwavering optimism. That, combined with his accomplishments, made him amazing, and one of my heroes.
- dalke 14y ago
  "which is all he was asking of Google" He was asking for funding. For funding, you need to convince people that it's worthwhile. There are many ways to do that. One is to say "trust me", another is to persuade through education, a third is to use money which was promised for another purpose, and so on. He used the first approach. Only, he did it in a way that's similar to what a lot of kooks do - throw graphs up on a screen, without the time to review them, and on a topic which few in the audience will understand. That is not a way to convince people to fund your project. You say "That tends to be how geniuses talk." That is incorrect. Look at Fermi, Feynman, Gould, Sagan - all considered geniuses, and all renowned for their ability to explain things. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was meant for a wide audience, and was not a technical monograph. Freeman Dyson has written some marvelous essays, including his "A New Newton" book review of Gleick's Newton biography. Just take a look at the Nobel Prize lectures and you'll see good evidence that Nobel Prize winners are also able to explain their work using something other than a blizzard of viewgraphs. Those people are ones I admire. Instead, I think this sort of presentation tends to be the way that people who are convinced of their genius-ness talk. And again, it's the sort of way kooks talk. I want to be clear here. I'm not saying that he's a kook. The polywell reactor may be the power source of the future. But that presentation detracted from his goal, I presume, of getting funding for the project. Really, if you didn't know it was Bussard, would you be convinced? If I had given the same talk, in the same style, would you be willing to contribute $10 million in funding?

zokier 14y ago

BTW what's the difference between the youtube urls? I've never head of tech talk archive before.