Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:40 pm

Senate Commitee has posted the lastest budget for FY12. No single line item for EMC2. However there are lanes that are well funded that ONR could draw from. Of particular note is the commitee applauded DOD energy research initiatives, but did not make specific mention of Polywell. None-the-less they have upped funding for energy research and development. But, to be specific, again, there was no specific line item for Polywell. This could also be a reflection that they have not yet gone to review panel again (behind schedule) as far as we know.

In particular, the Navy Energy Program got $70M (Pg181, Line 58 ), and Polywell could easily be funded to move forward by Rapid Technology Transition or Quick Response funding (as it was before).

http://www.dtic.mil/congressional_budget/

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:43 pm

Do you know how much was the "Navy Energy Program" budget last year?

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:01 pm

No, not off the top of my head. I would have to pull last years and compare, as there was not committee adjustment for this cycle, thus it does not show last years in 122-77. Page 187, line 5 shows Alternative Energy in General at $156M for FY 11, to $196M for FY12. So that is a $40M plus up.

Here is the quote though regarding energy (Pg216):

Energy Security and Renewable Fuels.—The Committee notes
that today’s national security challenges are increasingly complex
and require a wide range of military capabilities and a large and
reliable supply of energy. According to the Department’s Operational
Energy Strategy, issued in May 2011, the Department of
Defense consumed nearly 5 billion gallons of petroleum in military
operations at a cost of $13,200,000,000 in 2010. The Committee
supports the Department’s efforts to develop and implement an energy
security strategy that includes reducing energy consumption,
transitioning to alternative energy sources, and building more fuelefficient
vehicles and weapons. The Committee is aware that promising
research is underway on renewable energy technologies that
do not displace food production, including deepwater offshore wind
energy, and wood-to-jet fuel and waste-to-energy conversion, and
encourages the Department to continue to support research on
these innovative technologies.

Skipjack
Posts: 5785
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:56 pm

From what I understand, the Senate has completely slashed the budget for any non toroid fusion project:
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/a ... ion_budget

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:35 pm

If I am not mistaken, that is DOE centric. DOD has thus far kept fusion work away from Naval Reactors and their DOE Puppetmasters. IMO, this is one of the core reasons that ONR desires to keep EMC2 a low observable on the radar scope for now. It does not make sense to have a fight until viability is proven. Pick your battles.

choff
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby choff » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:29 am

Avoiding the funding route via the DOE is looking more sage all the time.
CHoff

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:36 pm

I have to agree on this.

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

Postby icarus » Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:09 pm

ladajo wrote:Senate Commitee has posted the lastest budget for FY12. No single line item for EMC2. However there are lanes that are well funded that ONR could draw from. Of particular note is the commitee applauded DOD energy research initiatives, but did not make specific mention of Polywell. None-the-less they have upped funding for energy research and development. But, to be specific, again, there was no specific line item for Polywell. This could also be a reflection that they have not yet gone to review panel again (behind schedule) as far as we know.

In particular, the Navy Energy Program got $70M (Pg181, Line 58 ), and Polywell could easily be funded to move forward by Rapid Technology Transition or Quick Response funding (as it was before).

http://www.dtic.mil/congressional_budget/


So the rabbit-hole of govt./navy funding is where you are now looking for that elusive Polywell neutron data?

Everybody here still ready to bag someone calling for open science?

Or do you need to be deluded and disappointed by your pay masters for a few years longer?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:49 am

icarus wrote: So the rabbit-hole of govt./navy funding is where you are now looking for that elusive Polywell neutron data?
Don't be silly.
icarus wrote: Everybody here still ready to bag someone calling for open science?
Nobody here ever bagged anyone for calling for open science.
icarus wrote: Or do you need to be deluded and disappointed by your pay masters for a few years longer?
It is this needless stupid nastiness that folks give umbrage to. And you never seem to "call for open science" without the needless stupid nastiness.

Try positively calling for open science once and see what happens.

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:29 pm

icarus wrote:
ladajo wrote:Senate Commitee has posted the lastest budget for FY12. No single line item for EMC2. However there are lanes that are well funded that ONR could draw from. Of particular note is the commitee applauded DOD energy research initiatives, but did not make specific mention of Polywell. None-the-less they have upped funding for energy research and development. But, to be specific, again, there was no specific line item for Polywell. This could also be a reflection that they have not yet gone to review panel again (behind schedule) as far as we know.

In particular, the Navy Energy Program got $70M (Pg181, Line 58 ), and Polywell could easily be funded to move forward by Rapid Technology Transition or Quick Response funding (as it was before).

http://www.dtic.mil/congressional_budget/


So the rabbit-hole of govt./navy funding is where you are now looking for that elusive Polywell neutron data?

Everybody here still ready to bag someone calling for open science?

Or do you need to be deluded and disappointed by your pay masters for a few years longer?


I really do not understand the point of your post.

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

Postby bennmann » Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:11 am

icarus wrote:So the rabbit-hole of govt./navy funding is where you are now looking for that elusive Polywell neutron data?

Everybody here still ready to bag someone calling for open science?

Or do you need to be deluded and disappointed by your pay masters for a few years longer?


Probably only waiting until the next quaterly report/final report ? The current evidence of previous reports is strong that we'll get info then.

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

Postby TallDave » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:11 pm

ladajo wrote:Some (lawyers) and FOIA wannabes, might find this interesting...

See page 25 for the summary of our favorite project...

N68936-09-C-0125

www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-076.pdf
Amusing, thanks for sharing.

I guess the next thing to look for is an activation of the WB8.1 option. This, as a far as we can tell, based on what is publically avaliable, should be before December. WB8.1 options exercised should mean that DT is a go, and would be fantastic news.
I agree, though I'm not sure what you mean by DT in this context (DTIC? D-T? though afaik no D-T reactions are planned for any machines). A reactor contract is also possible concomitant with WB-8.1. And they might try to keep that quiet if it happens.

Page 187, line 5 shows Alternative Energy in General at $156M for FY 11, to $196M for FY12. So that is a $40M plus up.
Probably just a coincidence, but $40M/year is the $200M over 5 years we expected for a reactor. (We might not expect budgeting to be that even anyway, of course.)
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

MSimon
Posts: 14299
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:54 pm

ladajo wrote:Some (lawyers) and FOIA wannabes, might find this interesting...

See page 25 for the summary of our favorite project...

N68936-09-C-0125

www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-076.pdf


I finally got around to blogging it at IEC Fusion With a H/T to you.

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2011/ ... nment.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:19 pm

Thanks. I seem to have had a knack to some degree getting things like this on the table. :)

ladajo
Posts: 6000
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:25 pm

TallDave wrote:
ladajo wrote:Some (lawyers) and FOIA wannabes, might find this interesting...

See page 25 for the summary of our favorite project...

N68936-09-C-0125

www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-076.pdf
Amusing, thanks for sharing.

I guess the next thing to look for is an activation of the WB8.1 option. This, as a far as we can tell, based on what is publically avaliable, should be before December. WB8.1 options exercised should mean that DT is a go, and would be fantastic news.
I agree, though I'm not sure what you mean by DT in this context (DTIC? D-T? though afaik no D-T reactions are planned for any machines). A reactor contract is also possible concomitant with WB-8.1. And they might try to keep that quiet if it happens.

Page 187, line 5 shows Alternative Energy in General at $156M for FY 11, to $196M for FY12. So that is a $40M plus up.
Probably just a coincidence, but $40M/year is the $200M over 5 years we expected for a reactor. (We might not expect budgeting to be that even anyway, of course.)


I meant D-D, but also D-T is given if D-D works. Sorry for the confusion. Neutrons are Neutrons...

Yes I think the $40Mil plus up is a cooincidence. They do not even know at this point if 8.1 is a go IMHO. I think it is going to be harder to know where they are at if the "Final" button at recovery.gov means final.

It certainly is arguable that they have been delayed, the question now is how much? Without any recovery.gov reports to base things on, we certainly will have a harder time figuring out how they are getting along. Maybe a late fall/early winter interview again will shed some light in the public realm. I guess we will continue to have to wait and see.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests