Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2250
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:59 am

bennmann wrote:Color me embarrassed, yes.
No need to expiate :)

bennmann
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:56 pm

What's the next step after November 1st passes and there is very probably not a recovery report?

More interviews on a regular basis with our dear Mr. Boyle?

Contact Mr Park ourselves as politely as possible through linkedin (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jaeyoung-park/0/a41/152)?

Or a heavier fight for more FOIA info?

ladajo
Posts: 5926
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:23 pm

IMO a December or right after the New Year query by Alan Boyle would be fair. Of course, Alan may already have a revisit plan, and we just don't know.

choff
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby choff » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:21 am

There's probably going to be a six month lag between the end of the testing and when the Navy decides on a new contract, so we could hear nothing until July 2012.
CHoff

ladajo
Posts: 5926
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:55 pm

The issue would be that they have plussed up the staff. Doing something like that would mean they would be hard pressed to keep the experienced talent onboard. There would either need to be a quicker move to follow on funding or an interim keep alive funding package.

I really think if the testing proves scaling, regardless of PB&J utility, the navy and EMC are going to jump fast on pushing forward. Be it 8.1 or DEMO DD (or both...)

bennmann
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:52 pm

Would the review panel for WB8.0 be the same as the review for WB7? Or would review of the scaling properties of polywell be a more prestigious, international affair?

I suppose the WB7 review panel was accredited enough, why not the same?

ladajo
Posts: 5926
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:50 am

My guess is that they will go for the same line up. After all, they were the ones who provided the critques for 7, so it would only make sense for them to see the updates and changes, and improvements, etc as they already have the background. Maybe there will be onesy-twosy swaps for availability. Dunno for sure, but intentionally changing the panel lineup would not do them a service IMO. They would have more credibility if the panel was more or less the same, and the panel then says, "well would you look at that! Great work guys, we are now believers..." or somtehing of the sort. All public reports said that the panel was tough but fair. That is the way it should be.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:07 pm

I think it is safe to say that the Polywell concept is dead in the water. And using the same standard of skepticism as that afforded to Signor Rossi et al., and others who spurn independent verification for whatever reasons, we'll wait until we see a working reactor model available on the market.

ScottL
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Postby ScottL » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:21 pm

icarus wrote:I think it is safe to say that the Polywell concept is dead in the water. And using the same standard of skepticism as that afforded to Signor Rossi et al., and others who spurn independent verification for whatever reasons, we'll wait until we see a working reactor model available on the market.


Actually we'll wait til we have data released so that we can either tear it to shreds or see something novel towards confirmation. The fact that they hired someone recently would lead me away from the "dead in the water" position, but that's me.

ltgbrown
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Albania

Postby ltgbrown » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:41 pm

Why go "Black"? What does it buy the US? Think of the repercussions (sp?) when, not if, the world finds out we had the solution to the world's energy and environmental problems, but decided to classify it out of existence instead of bringing it to the world. Besides, how would you use something powered by a Polywell and not be able to say it is fusion powered? Its not like it would be a single seat fighter.

It will not go "black". Some key portion of it might be classified, but "it" will not be.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

Betruger
Posts: 2250
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:27 pm

If it can't be black, then the incentive in treating it as black anyway is to get the country as much of a head start as possible.

choff
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby choff » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:54 pm

The navy might have to demonstrate to auditors why the Polywell is a military experiment that can't be performed by a civilian agency, hence the argument it gives a lead edge until the rest of the world catches up. If it works they can claim it makes the world safer by stabilizing the global economy.
CHoff

mvanwink5
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:05 am

choff wrote:The navy might have to demonstrate to auditors why the Polywell is a military experiment that can't be performed by a civilian agency, hence the argument it gives a lead edge until the rest of the world catches up. If it works they can claim it makes the world safer by stabilizing the global economy.


Simple, have them talk to icarus.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Skipjack
Posts: 5770
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:21 am

I dont think that they would be able to keep this a secret, at least not for very long. As soon as they would use it in practical applications, it would get out. Too many people would be involved and I think that a lot of them would spread the word that there is a world changing energy source being used by the US military.

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:06 pm

ladajo wrote:My guess is that they will go for the same line up. After all, they were the ones who provided the critques for 7, so it would only make sense for them to see the updates and changes, and improvements, etc as they already have the background. Maybe there will be onesy-twosy swaps for availability. Dunno for sure, but intentionally changing the panel lineup would not do them a service IMO. They would have more credibility if the panel was more or less the same, and the panel then says, "well would you look at that! Great work guys, we are now believers..." or somtehing of the sort. All public reports said that the panel was tough but fair. That is the way it should be.
Plus, the IEC community doesn't seem to be that large anyway.

I like the new end to the wiki:
The 3Q FY11 report states: "As of 2Q/2011, the WB-8 device has demonstrated excellent plasma confinement properties. EMC2 is conducting high power pulsed experiments on WB-8 to test the Wiffle-Ball plasma scaling law on plasma energy and confinement." [38] This report is shown as the "Final Report" suggesting either that the task is complete or a different funding source has been found.
If they want to keep it quiet to avoid DOE flak, we might not be able to tell much other than whether the lights are still on. Although, you'd think a reactor attempt would be pretty hard to keep quiet.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests