Polywell: We'll know in 7 months time?!

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:53 pm

Aero wrote: Well Chrismb, it must be quite satisfying for you to know that you get all answers right the first time without needing more time to study the issues. I trust your grades have always been 100% all of your life.

It is a bit annoying being right all the time. I annoy even myself. Clearly, married life has been very trying for my wife, as they like to be right all the time.

yup. 100% all my life.

Actually I got 104% in the very last exam I took in a University. They 'normalised' the grades by adding 5%. Yeah, OK, without that I would've dropped a 1%. Darn... you're right. I got it wrong once.

(I guess I should add, just in case sarcasm is confused for arrogance - I can definitely say that I have, indeed, got 100% in everything I've got completely right.)

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:09 pm

KitemanSA wrote:So, we should know with D-D in ~ 3 months and pB11 in ~20 months.

But then again...

KitemanSA wrote:But then again...

Jokes aside, the sooner we know, the better, i need to decide what to do with my life. From the tone of Dr. N's past posts, I think D-D is pretty much not too hard... which is funny because magnetic confinement people have been working on D-D for the past 70 years...

Okay, no more bashing magnetic confinement, still kinda worried about the whole "they will keep it a secret" deal. Not sure why, the econ at this current moment, with fusion, USA will go back to the top. But I mean if the information was relatively not hard to access (by FOIA), then why's Dr. N and company not saying anything anymore? A drop in update every 3 months is good, just nothing at all. Feels like there's higher ups ordering people to not say anything.

I can see limiting the amount said to a bare minium, perhaps it's better this way, but to cease all communication, why?

EricF · Post by **EricF** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:00 pm

Speaking of D-D, in propulsion concepts like Dr Bussards Ramjet or other plasma based thrusters, what is the risk of the D-D irradiating the thruster itself along with the rest of the ship over an extended operating period, especially in something like a trip to Mars and back?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:44 pm

chrismb wrote:
Aero wrote: In simple words, "Expect the schedule to slip."
The mantra of the gravy-train passengers....

So it was Ben Franklin that invented the first high efficiency AC 1 hp electric motor? Or maybe Thales in Greece?

Perhaps that is being too harsh. Faraday?

Quite a schedule slip between Faraday and Tesla.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:47 pm

chrismb wrote:
Aero wrote: Well Chrismb, it must be quite satisfying for you to know that you get all answers right the first time without needing more time to study the issues. I trust your grades have always been 100% all of your life.
It is a bit annoying being right all the time. I annoy even myself. Clearly, married life has been very trying for my wife, as they like to be right all the time.

yup. 100% all my life.

Actually I got 104% in the very last exam I took in a University. They 'normalised' the grades by adding 5%. Yeah, OK, without that I would've dropped a 1%. Darn... you're right. I got it wrong once.

(I guess I should add, just in case sarcasm is confused for arrogance - I can definitely say that I have, indeed, got 100% in everything I've got completely right.)

A little humor about the arrogance of technical folk is always welcome. Takes some of the heat off me.

BenTC · Post by **BenTC** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:48 pm

chrismb wrote:got 100% in everything I've got completely right.

So now I sitting here wondering whether I'm confusing sarcasm for arrogance.
:P

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:42 pm

"If a job's worth doing then it's worth doing right" implies "if a job's worth doing right then it's worth doing" implies "if a job's not worth doing right then it's not worth doing" implies "if I didn't get 100% in something, then it wasn't worth getting 100%".

(Hey, just practicing my non-sequitur-isms here...)

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:23 pm

You need to put the ladder aginst the other wall, mate...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:52 pm

MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Aero wrote: In simple words, "Expect the schedule to slip."
The mantra of the gravy-train passengers....
So it was Ben Franklin that invented the first high efficiency AC 1 hp electric motor? Or maybe Thales in Greece?
Perhaps that is being too harsh. Faraday?
Quite a schedule slip between Faraday and Tesla.

Have to go with chrismb on this one. I'll bet you that it wasn't Ben or Thales or Faraday et al. that were suggesting the schedule might slip. They were too busy trying to understand things to be worried about a "schedule".

"Schedule" implies external funding implies administrators implies gravy-train for same.

choff · Post by **choff** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:02 pm

My understanding of the contract was WB8 experiments complete end of March, data on experiments delivered to the Navy end of April/2010. We don't know if construction/delivery delays or bug fixes drag it out longer, or they just struggle to get good results. So I estimated 3 months extra for potential delays.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:34 pm

Every time I read that thing I got confuseder and confuseder! And then the light dawned in my non-contractually adept mind. I finally go - duh!

New understanding, all I had to do was read for the umpteenth time.

The 30-Apr-10 date is for delivery of the unit itself, not the results. Duh!
The DATA is not due for another year after that. Duh!
The modified WB8.1, if funded is due 31-Oct-2011. DUH!
The data therefrom is due 31-Oct-2012. Just in time for the end of the world. DUH!!!

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:37 pm

Now I need to go back and read it again...
I am getting a head-ik-ache.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:06 pm

In Section B of the S,O, &A there are 4 items listed.

Item 0001 is the plasma wiffleball 8. This is later refered to as CLIN (Contract Line Item Number) 0001.
Item 0002 is data in accordance with CDRLs (contract data requirements list). It is the CDRL numbers that are in Section C, the statement of work, NOT the CLINs. SOW paragraph 3.1.3 requires the delivery of a report using CDRL A001, NOT CLIN 0001. Whew!

The third and fourth items are both optional, and are for "upgraded plasma wiffleball 8.1" and "Data" respectively.

Ok. There should be no more confusion.
Section F shows:
CLIN 0001 - 30 Apr 2010 (= plasma wiffleball 8 )
CLIN 0002 - 30 Apr 2011 (= Data)
CLIN 0003 - 31 Oct 2011 (= Optional WB 8.1)
CLIN 0004 - 31 Oct 2012 (= Optional Data)

Clear? My appologies for screwing with people's minds!

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:16 pm

All correct. I just looked as well. Page 10 of 51.

Also, in the CDRL (Contractors Data Requirements List), you will notice that they are required to submit monthly updates per A002.
A prime target for a peroidic FOIA!

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:35 pm

However, also note that the CDRL says that the Distribution Statement will be provided prior to first submittal. Unless it is A, it is exempt from FOIA. And if it were A, Dr. N could put it on the web.

I really hope I am wrong on this.