Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

djmelfi
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:54 pm
Contact:

they threw money at everything that moved.

Postby djmelfi » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:03 pm

given the apparent track record of the Recovery projects I wouldnt assume anything administratively accept they threw money at everything that moved, or stood still.

To think anything useful could be gleaned from the Recovery Act administration seems naive.

It may prove beneficial that all that money was thrown around because of this and similar projects that benefited from the rain of dollars, but to believe any judgement was made based on data is to fly in the face of everything we know about the recovery act.
In Search of conservative principles

Aero
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:38 pm

DeltaV wrote:The (D-D) neutron counts keep going higher and higher... Luna is the best place to avoid injury lawsuits AND keep the Deep Black options open.

I don't know - Luna is risky close for future liabilities from long lived radiation sources. Hide the lab in the asteroid belt.
Aero

ladajo
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:19 am

So I finally got a response from recovery.gov, they said that they are looing into the failure to report from EMC2. They also have noted that the two seperate reporting lines are for the same contract. That will probably get fixed going forward.
They said also that DOD is going to post next week on non-reporters, and I asked what they (recovery.gov) will do about it regarding EMC2.
Still may just be a filing error. We shall see.

Giorgio
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:18 pm

Late reporter file was out today:
http://download.recovery.gov/recipient/ ... Q2.xls.zip

I wasn't able to find our friends inside it. Pretty strange........

BenTC
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Postby BenTC » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:25 am

Giorgio wrote:I wasn't able to find our friends inside it. Pretty strange........
So they are moving off the map? So... then we can at least thank the Iraq war - for cancelling Bussard's the original contracts - else we may have never known...
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Antice
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:04 am

Postby Antice » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:24 am

isn't it a tad more likely that some clerk somewhere messed the entry up or something? They already managed to turn it into a double. The report may have been filed, but then disappeared due to incompetence.
Never blame on malice that witch may be adequately blamed on incompetence.

ladajo
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:54 am

I got further word back from Recovery.gov.
The DOD has not yet posted their list of non-reporters. They are expected to do so this week. When someone fails to report, they(and project) are reviewed by the Recovery Board. They are carefully reviewed by the Board’s Accountability investigators who gather as much information as they can about the company and the award. After completing the investigation, if they deem it warranted, they give the information that they’ve gathered to the appropriate Inspector General for additional review and possible action.

I do not think that EMC2 is going down the waste and fraud path. They are certainly getting attention for not meeting reporting guidelines. It will be up to the investigators to decide if they are simply having admin issues. Apparently this happens each time that someone fails to report.

As I said before, playing with fire are they...Recovery Act got them the much needed funding, but it does come with strings.

Maui
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Maui » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:40 am

ladajo wrote:As I said before, playing with fire are they...Recovery Act got them the much needed funding, but it does come with strings.

As it should. These aren't unreasonable strings at all.

Giorgio
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:37 am

They should just post their results here and let us do the reports for them.
They will have more time to do real experiments and we could probably make a much better work than them to crunch their results and data and transform them into a presentable report.

Of course I am just daydreaming, as this will never happen.....

ladajo
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:00 pm

Recovery.gov finally posted the non-reporters list, I am checking it now. I got an email from my contact there advising me of the update.

EMC2 is not listed. Apparently, the non-reporters list is for a contract awarded that quarter (ie first report). There is another list put out for significant non-compliers, but to make that list you must miss two quarters. So in effect, there is a gap in public visibility. If you miss once, you get a buy (as long as it is not your first report), if you miss twice, (now 6 months no info), you will get listed about two months after as a x2 non-complier. (so up to 8 + 2 months from last update). Genius.
Although, each quarter, anyone that does not report, the contract gets put up to a commitee and they decide to send out investigators or something to check it out. That is not visible to us, the public.
I am still learning how this animal functions.

ladajo
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:43 pm

Well, I guess it is time for a recovery.gov update.
They are looking deeper into why EMC2 does not show a posted report from last quarter. This now involves OMB and the Fraud Team. They have updated the site structure and rearranged some stuff to make it more user friendly.
They are also looking into why there are no DOD "non-compliers" shown for last quarter as a outgrowth of EMC2.
The agency reported info vice recipient reported data is now available, and I have been working through that.
I did find this:
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
Plasma Fusion (Polywell)
1.944
1.944
1.753
The overall effort of this program is to lower carbon footprint and reduce reliance on petroleum through the Polywell fusion concept which has the potential to provide a compact, practical, and radiation free fusion power generator for 20-200MW power range for installations and ship applications. End-state: Demonstrated technologies to TRL 2-3. This additional funding will allow continued experimentation to understand the Polywell plasma formation and properties to allow systematic scaling to larger power units.
Verbage is a little different from other Project explanantions. Note they are now looking at 20-200MW plants.
The numbers the verbage are money, allocated, and paid out. These do not match other $ postings.
I also found another database entry by DOD saying they have allocated $3.2 mil to EMC2 to date.
"ENERGY/MATTER CONVERSION CORPORATION 12142 Department of Defense--Military N6893609C0125 $3,216,825.00 NOT COMPETED COST PLUS FIXED FEE "
The 12142 is the award number, the $3.2mil is the award amount. Again this does not match anything else we know.

I will keep you posted as my contact at recovery.gov gathers more info.

vankirkc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:08 pm

Postby vankirkc » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:28 pm

ladajo wrote:The overall effort of this program is to lower carbon footprint and reduce reliance on petroleum through the Polywell fusion concept


Does anyone else find this passage particularly ironic? There is so much rage on this board about funding of AGW initiatives, and this boondoggle happens to be another one.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:10 pm

vankirkc wrote:
ladajo wrote:The overall effort of this program is to lower carbon footprint and reduce reliance on petroleum through the Polywell fusion concept


Does anyone else find this passage particularly ironic? There is so much rage on this board about funding of AGW initiatives, and this boondoggle happens to be another one.
Not really. "lowering the carbon footprint" is just verbiage required by the masses in response to the political forces required to maintain value of fossil related assets. It's got to be said by anyone and everyone in government to encourage pursuit of low power density systems that can not compete with traditional fossil fuel systems.

If polywell were ever seen as being disruptive to the energy status quo, funding would be snapped away, and replaced by a stifling regulatory environment. It's happened before.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:28 pm

vankirkc wrote: and this boondoggle happens to be another one.
Rather nasty characterization of the EMC2 effort isn't it?

Betruger
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:07 pm

For my part the really interesting thing I'm looking forward to finding out is what was really going on WRT to this whole secrecy and consequent public angst. How do you go from a small scientific crew working on something that could substantially change the whole world, to a good chunk of the public wanting their heads off even if it could possibly hinder development of that world changing 'boondoggle'.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests