Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:54 pm

First plasma! That's good to hear.

I had assumed they were going to have a full year of testing, and were just being coy with us regarding the reporting. I hope six months is enough for them to find what they're looking for.

ltgbrown · Post by **ltgbrown** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:15 pm

With luck, it is currently providing the data needed to demonstrate how fusion scales with machine size and field strength. Perhaps somebody already knows if the polywell when fully scaled up will produce Q < 1 or Q > 1 or Q > 25, or whatever. And they know if a fully scaled up machine will require a 1.5 meter^2 cube or a 130 meter ^2 cube. etc.

If they got plasma in November, then someone most likely knows if the scaling laws hold true for a reasonably sized reactor capable of producing net power. Man I wish I was that someone! April can't get here fast enough.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:19 pm

ltgbrown wrote: [If they got plasma in November, then someone most likely knows if the scaling laws hold true for a reasonably sized reactor capable of producing net power. Man I wish I was that someone! April can't get here fast enough.

I wouldn't put too much hope on learning anything concrete in April unless it is a complete bust. In this case, I hold the "no news is good news" opinion.

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:14 pm

Go ahead on WB-8.1 is probably the only, and best news we can hope for. If it turns out to be a failed concept - well, there is not much news in that.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:19 pm

If there is NO news, it may mean that the results were nuanced; not good enough to charge ahead with WB8.1 but not bad enough to scrap the effort. If that is the case, the front may be quiet for quite a while. Is that "good news" or "bad news"? I think nuanced is still good news. Maybe not GREAT, but good enough!

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:06 pm

Moving Parks to CEO role likely means increased work required for the EMC2 CEO, work R. Nebel was not interested in. In my mind, that implies WB-D effort is heating up ( I have gazed into my tea cup glop of leaves to determine this, best I can do for now).

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:04 am

It could be that R. Nebel is simply distancing himself from the effort for whatever reason. (bad results, good results, EMC2, Navy, other?)

results could be so bad ... no need to stick around, phase out of it ...
results could be so good ... whole new black project, get on with it ...

Its all just guesses as it has been for years now.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:30 am

If if if if if ...... if only.

Sad lot.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:16 am

I don't know if Nebel was ever the president of the company. I was under the impression that he was chief scientist.

Dan Tibbets

pbelter · Post by **pbelter** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:24 am

Roger wrote:Acting President CEO

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jaeyoung-park/0/a41/152

Have you seen the recommendations Dr Park made?

"Jon Hamby
Real Estate Agent
I was very happy to work with Jon. He was very knowledgeable and well qualified to handle difficult assignments. He worked diligently on behalf of us and provided us with several well devised options. His market knowledge and negotiating skills are impressive and he has been instrumental in securing very attractive terms for our facility. I recommend him for any and all commercial real estate matters. December 17, 2010
Top qualities: Great Results , Expert
Jaeyoung hired Jon in 2009.

The recommendation was recently made, but Dr Park hired the agent in 2009. This could mean that the deal was recently finalized and could mean that Dr Park was in a position to hire the agent in 2009, so the change in his title to acting CEO could be just reflection of the status quo.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:23 am

D Tibbets wrote:I don't know if Nebel was ever the president of the company. I was under the impression that he was chief scientist.

Dan Tibbets

When a scientist ceases being a company CEO and an actual business person takes over that role, this means that something commercially viable is happening and/or the scientific work is taking up too much time and the scientist has to focus on that and have a business person handle the administrative junk.

Either one of these options is good news to me.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:55 am

IIRC, Park leans more toward experiment and Nebel more toward theory.

Maybe Polywell theory has been validated, leaving less work for a theorist.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:01 pm

Why is everyone assuming this is a change? Is there ANY indication that Nebel and Park aren't still doing exactly what they had been?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:28 pm

Why is everyone assuming this is a change? Is there ANY indication that Nebel and Park aren't still doing exactly what they had been?

Exactly my point earlier.
I had never heard that Nebel was the CEO. CEO and chief scientists are two very different jobs. I co- own my company with our CEO. I do the development, because that is what I am good at, he does the business part, because he is good at that. I love doing development and I would not want to touch the business side unless I absolutely have to. I dont think that this is any different for Nebel at EMC2. Also, considering the signifficant amount of paperwork that any government funded project requires, Neble would not get to do much science if he was involving himself to much with the business side of things.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:24 am

ltgbrown wrote:
If they got plasma in November, then someone most likely knows if the scaling laws .........

First plasma with WB-7 was HE, and it was months later that "Nuanced" came out.

Wb-8 is larger, has more powerful magnets, possibly LN2 cooling, and possibly lots of diagnostics to be set up in comparison to WB-7. I have trouble imagining any conclusions concerning scaling being reached until March or April.... when the WB-7 timeline is considered in relation to a hypothetical WB-8 timeline.