I don’t have any new information regarding the results of the review process, but I think that some hints have been dropped already. Check my logic, and remember, I’m desperate for news.
Recall a post by MSimon
Assessing research options is challenging when the goals are beyond known physics and when implications of success are profound. To mitigate the challenges a selection process is described where
1) research tasks are constrained to to address only the immediate unknowns, curious effects, or critical issues
2) reliability of assertions is more important than their implications
and
3) reviewers judge credibility rather than feasibility.
I admit that I have selectively sorted Dr. Nebel’s recent posts looking for what I want to see, but I have found these quotes in separate posts.
We've done the calculations. Neutron yield from a P-B11 Polywell machine (nonthermal) is about 1.0e12/sec. for a 100Mwe reactor. That's about 8 orders of magnitude less than a comparable D-T machine.
What the Polywell does is that it eliminates the blanket and sharply reduces the shielding, increasing the mass power density and leading to an attractive device. P-B11 allows you to do this. That's why the Polywell has a customer while the Tokamak doesn't, and hasn't had one for at least 25 years.
If p-B11 works, 5 years isn't unrealistic. The engineering on these systems isn't all that bad. Getting away from D-T makes it a lot easier.
Does anyone else see what I see? Review criteria 2. The results were reliable because wb-7 confirmed wb-6. (That is speculation, but with high confidence.) Review criteria 3. Dr. Nebel and the EMC2 team are quite creditable. Review criteria 1. The review team decided that the critical issue was "Does pB11 work?" Based on the last quote above, I speculate that EMC2 has a new contract to confirm that P-B11 works, or else I don't think he would have said that.
Anyway, that's what I see, we hunger for your opinion.