Walpurgisnacht!ladajo wrote:A little birdy told me last week the new contract mod should be signed by the end of the month.
Thought you all might want to know.
I do find it encouraging that ONR has not only continued the project, but furthered the funding.
That said, it is not certain it will succeed as a viable device. But, we shall see. Good science.
Recovery.Gov Project Tracker
CHoff
thanks for the news Ladajo. but what does it mean? can much be inferred?ladajo wrote:A little birdy told me last week the new contract mod should be signed by the end of the month.
Thought you all might want to know.
I do find it encouraging that ONR has not only continued the project, but furthered the funding.
That said, it is not certain it will succeed as a viable device. But, we shall see. Good science.
'computer and software' - 96k$ - simulation, instrumentation, creative accounting? 96k doesn't buy much. what is the bigger picture? if my memory serves, they are funded in the next phase (8.6?) over the next year or so. (?)
we hear - some 'unexpected' results during scaling experiments - posher e/i-guns required, etc.
maybe good science - i truly hope 'science' gets to benefit from their work - i would hate to think of all those results sitting in a secure vault for the next 30 years. but by past account the US Navy have been fairly relaxed about Doc Bussard releasing stuff after his contract expired, i hope they continue that ethic.
That was a different EMC2, DUNS no. 083941799. The EMC2 we all know and love/hate is DUNS no. 939528956.rcain wrote:'computer and software' - 96k$ - simulation, instrumentation, creative accounting? 96k doesn't buy much. what is the bigger picture? if my memory serves, they are funded in the next phase (8.6?) over the next year or so. (?)
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
-
happyjack27
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
96k$ doesn't buy much computers and software for a what, 3 person team?!?! you need a better purchasing manager / hardware consultant! for that price i can build you an RSA encryption cracker, and a darn good one at that!Ivy Matt wrote:That was a different EMC2, DUNS no. 083941799. The EMC2 we all know and love/hate is DUNS no. 939528956.rcain wrote:'computer and software' - 96k$ - simulation, instrumentation, creative accounting? 96k doesn't buy much. what is the bigger picture? if my memory serves, they are funded in the next phase (8.6?) over the next year or so. (?)
I think two things will come out of the impending signing.
One for watching is the completion dates.
We already know from the December signing that they pushed WB8 to September 30th, this year, and full completion (I infer WB8.1) to March of 2014. I do not put much stock in the WB8.1 date. But who knows.
The other thing that matters is how much money they are going to front.
If my little birdy is correct, they will sign this week. Then soon there after (hopefully) it will post in FPDS, FBO and NECO.
I remain skeptical that we will see another Recovery.gov posting. But, who knows. I have been wrong about the last two. So there is always hope.
In any event, it seems that the current big hurdle is E-guns. And in that, I do recall Dr. Bussard arguing at some point that it would be a problem for smaller machines once they starting pushing the performance envelopes. And was yet another reason to go big. Have to look for it as I do not remember specifically where he said that right now.
One for watching is the completion dates.
We already know from the December signing that they pushed WB8 to September 30th, this year, and full completion (I infer WB8.1) to March of 2014. I do not put much stock in the WB8.1 date. But who knows.
The other thing that matters is how much money they are going to front.
If my little birdy is correct, they will sign this week. Then soon there after (hopefully) it will post in FPDS, FBO and NECO.
I remain skeptical that we will see another Recovery.gov posting. But, who knows. I have been wrong about the last two. So there is always hope.
In any event, it seems that the current big hurdle is E-guns. And in that, I do recall Dr. Bussard arguing at some point that it would be a problem for smaller machines once they starting pushing the performance envelopes. And was yet another reason to go big. Have to look for it as I do not remember specifically where he said that right now.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Didn't he say that in his Google Talk? Not sure.ladajo wrote: In any event, it seems that the current big hurdle is E-guns. And in that, I do recall Dr. Bussard arguing at some point that it would be a problem for smaller machines once they starting pushing the performance envelopes. And was yet another reason to go big. Have to look for it as I do not remember specifically where he said that right now.
Other than labels, this seems to be the significant reference to "guns" from his Google Talk. Guess that wasn't it.
The following photograph is of the 190 cm HEPS machine built for the DARPA project in 1989. In retrospect, it was the wrong design, it had big metal faces that were not magnetically insulated. We didn’t know enough not to do that, in fact the paper that we wrote on the experiments, and published in 1994, erroneously tells you that the electrons got lost in the guns coming into the machine. In fact, after the electrons got into the machine, they hit the non-magnetically insulated metal walls of the machine. While it may seem trivially obvious now, it wasn’t at the time.
- precisely.happyjack27 wrote:... for a what, 3 person team?!?!
+ time on the supercomputer + testing, verifying + writing it all up + republishing code.
i'm presuming they've got some pretty specific nut in mind to crack, and they a probably extending the original code, which tracked pretty well IIRC. purpose maybe associated with the e-gun/injection issues.
my point was we only have their word for it that it was/is to be spent on 'computing'. could just as well be to buy an extra 3 months on the project or a bigger capacitor bank for all we know - creative accounting.
just guessing.
but 96k won't stretch far in that environment.
alternatively, this might all suggest that there are issues with scaling after all, which may look costly, or indeed impossible to overcome - please do not anyone suggest 2-stream instability ;P )
Wasn't the computing reference to the wrong company/contract? Pretty sure Ladajo pointed this out previously.rcain wrote:- precisely.happyjack27 wrote:... for a what, 3 person team?!?!
+ time on the supercomputer + testing, verifying + writing it all up + republishing code.
i'm presuming they've got some pretty specific nut in mind to crack, and they a probably extending the original code, which tracked pretty well IIRC. purpose maybe associated with the e-gun/injection issues.
my point was we only have their word for it that it was/is to be spent on 'computing'. could just as well be to buy an extra 3 months on the project or a bigger capacitor bank for all we know - creative accounting.
just guessing.
but 96k won't stretch far in that environment.
alternatively, this might all suggest that there are issues with scaling after all, which may look costly, or indeed impossible to overcome - please do not anyone suggest 2-stream instability ;P )
I don't know, you say the new contract hasn't been signed yet, and the deadline for submission of the quarterly report was April 14. I'm thinking we'll see one more posting on the 30th.ladajo wrote:I remain skeptical that we will see another Recovery.gov posting. But, who knows. I have been wrong about the last two. So there is always hope.
Guess it takes a while to soak in.ScottL wrote:Wasn't the computing reference to the wrong company/contract? Pretty sure Ladajo pointed this out previously.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.