Talk-Polywell.org

rcain wrote:re: Disclosure: they (EMC2 + USNavy), have nothing to gain and everything to lose by it. So they say nothing.

Makes perfect sense to me.

re: emc2 website posting - I see no new information here whatsoever.

onwards.

I agree. The WB8 image has no detectable consistency of scale. By pixels, all 6 magnets are the same diameter as the diameter of the 14 inch seal ring, and the cross section is 20% of the diameters.

The only new information is the blanket statement that WB-6 results were confirmed. No nuances, just the flat statement and not at all informative. The new posting is nothing more than a bone to placate the dogs at talk-polywell.

rcain wrote:re: Disclosure: they (EMC2 + USNavy), have nothing to gain and everything to lose by it. So they say nothing.

But they have no right to, if the claim of exclusion from FoI is not sustainable.

What they have to gain is that funding can continue for them because they are complying with the law. Else, stop the use of tax payers money on the project, if the colour of it isn't good enough for them.

No-one said "hey, EMC2, you'd better make sure you use taxpayers' and not go looking for private funding of your own", so as they came knocking on the taxpayers' chest-o-gold, so it has strings attached.

They have everything to gain - they can show themselves not to be ignorant hogs of other people's money.

tomclarke wrote: I don't hold out high chances for viable fusion power from Polywell: it must be a long shot. But worth pursuing.

yeah, sure. Worth doing - and funded by those who think it'll work, not by forced payments extracted from those who don't!

chrismb wrote:yeah, sure. Worth doing - and funded by those who think it'll work, not by forced payments extracted from those who don't!

Speaking as a US taxpayer, I'm willing for my $0.0267 share (per capita) to go to EMC2 to work on Polywell fusion.

Taxes are not paid on a per capita basis, your "share" calculation is a complete fiction, bordering on misinformation.

icarus wrote:Taxes are not paid on a per capita basis, your "share" calculation is a complete fiction, bordering on misinformation.

So is the assumption that tax money once collected is still "my taxes" and that I then have any say, except through my elected representatives and Senators, in how they get spent.

Hint: To correctly estimate your "share" that will be going to EMC2;

NB: More than one half of the population pay no income tax at all or are net beneficiaries of state funding (like EMC2 employees), so a "per capita" share calculation is nonsensical.

1: Remove your entitlement complex cap and focus on what you are putting in to the system, not what you are getting out ... e.g. JFK.
2: Begin by stating your taxable income (or your total taxes paid).
3: Estimate as a proportion of total tax take.
4: Estimate proportion EMC2 receives of total tax take.
5: Do the math from there ...

icarus wrote:Hint: To correctly estimate your "share" that will be going to EMC2;

NB: More than one half of the population pay no income tax at all or are net beneficiaries of state funding (like EMC2 employees), so a "per capita" share calculation is nonsensical.

1: Remove your entitlement complex cap and focus on what you are putting in to the system, not what you are getting out ... e.g. JFK.
2: Begin by stating your taxable income (or your total taxes paid).
3: Estimate as a proportion of total tax take.
4: Estimate proportion EMC2 receives of total tax take.
5: Do the math from there ...

I do believe I have cause to find point 1 to be an insult. I don't believe I said anything about what I was getting out of it. In fact, I believe I explicitly said I have no say in how it's spent.

Perhaps I should state instead that I have no problem with 0.0002% of the 2010 US Federal Budgeted Expenditures going to EMC2 for Polywell support? My point was not to emphasize that I felt entitled to say where the money goes, but rather that, in the grand scheme of things, the amount paid on Polywell research is miniscule.

I do believe I have cause to find point 1 to be an insult.

I could care less how you take it. I'm merely pointing out that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, if you truly want to perform the calculation that you purported to be doing at the beginning of this inane dialogue. Over and out.

chrismb wrote:They have everything to gain - they can show themselves not to be ignorant hogs of other people's money.

That's if there's no politics to it like there was at Dr Bussard's time.

icarus wrote:

I do believe I have cause to find point 1 to be an insult.

I could care less how you take it. I'm merely pointing out that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, if you truly want to perform the calculation that you purported to be doing at the beginning of this inane dialogue. Over and out.

Just to jump in here. (and get my arse creamed by some arrogant bastich - probably just deserts)

In the grand scheme of things it is as good a place to waste money as many others. Just think of it as money that didn't hit the pockets of o's minions.

I did not mean to prompt a debate on taxes, merely that if any perosn or company gets any amount of small change in their cap on the promise of future research then it becomes onerous on them to share information.

There is no issue on how trivial, or good a cause, a thing is. This is merely that if you take from the politi then you must expect to give to the politi. If the Navy find it, it is with the future visionary management to put defence in place for our future - that is their return to "us". But after that acceptable reason, if a company working for them, and thus for that purpose, has no real claim as to commerciability if otherwise the Navy are happy to explain what they are up to.

This is defence money. That bit is OK (in my book - at least in a margin somewhere). So why is it going to help someone do some work with which they will then claim commerciality? This situation might be slightly different if it is a DoD outright-purcase of a proprietary thing for which the vendors are keeping details secret, but it isn't that scenario either.

chrismb wrote:But after that acceptable reason, if a company working for them, and thus for that purpose, has no real claim as to commerciability if otherwise the Navy are happy to explain what they are up to.

This situation might be slightly different if it is a DoD outright-purchase of a proprietary thing for which the vendors are keeping details secret, but it isn't that scenario either.

So your question is whether this is Work For Hire? (PDF)

... and I had always put you down as a great british cynic Chrismb, yet you are sounding like a righteously indignant idealist. do you even pay US taxes?

just a joke.

the only way to test your theory would be through appeal and the courts - who knows, you (or a US citizen at least) might even win, but i suspect it would take more that the 30MUS$ pledged to the project itself and a great many years to see it through. personaly i would rather see that sort of money in the hands of research scientists than lawyers. i'm sure this is the sort of equation they (EMC2+USNavy) are banking on.

i am quite surprised however, that they didn't cite national security as the issue.

frustrating either way, but neither unusual nor unexpected. save your fury for ITER, the LHC and bailouts of the criminal banking industry.

I think they are having some success, however it is still just like I said, they are not going to say anything at this point if possible.

If the navy funds, then they get use of the technology for free, however EMC2 gets to sell it everywhere else.

If not EMC2 per say then in some other stucture or form.

Nuances become patents. Patents are not applied for always as the breakthroughs occur (timing). You see, file a patent and I can go and pull it up and read it, not very smart if I am not at the ending point or I wanted to block a competitor.

It would be totally inane to release tech or data so that competitors could pick right up and run with it.

They probably don't have it in it's totality yet, but they have some things that point to it and along the way, in the path of discovery are nuances, which when understood become IP.

I believe if there was not something there, Rick and Park would move on to something more interesting, I would bet that is more in their natures because it is not like they don't have a job anyway. I believe they are square guys.

So it is not about rice bowls.

The update on the website was just a way of them saying that they are very excited, but we are not going to shoot our mouths off and if I were the navy I would say "oh hell no"