Talk-Polywell.org

bennmann wrote:Color me embarrassed, yes.

No need to expiate

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?

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.

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.

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...)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.