Polywell FOIA

[paulmarch]

Wait patiently, through the Spring of 2011 (takes time to write the reports)

Did you not read the above posts, or read and not comprehend?

The reports for WB7 and WB7.1 are already written, that work was completed over two years ago now. This was the contract Bussard, (M Simon and others also) spent untold hours canvassing to get the WB6 results redone for confirmation, Polywell experiments restarted, etc, etc, (e.g. see google lecture)

It has nothing to do with interfering in current work (of whatever little importance that might be), stop making stuff up.

The longer the WB7, 7.1 results are kept under wraps the longer the ' current experiments' can be spun out without external examination ... it has gone from Bussard's open enquiry science utopia to the classic, 'we have a great technology but we can't show you ruse' nightmare in a quick 2 years. Its indefensible but there yous all go defending it.

Icarus:

You are aware that the Navy peer reviews EMC2's experimental and theoretical work at every funding drop that the Navy gives EMC2? Folks like Robert Hirsh and George Miley to name but two who sit on this Navy review panel. I also ran across this March 24, 2010 Richard Nebel comment at the Nextbigfuture.com site. Read it in light of the Cold Fusion fiasco, think about the possibilities of commercialization of a 100MWe Polywell reactor design, and then think a bit on why Nebel and crew are being very careful in publically releasing any of their WB-7 data. IMO they have a right to make some money on their work if the WB-8 proves their point that they made to the Navy with the WB-7. And remember that the same Navy review board approved the Navy spending $$ on the WB-8 Polywell work. Is this an open public review as you seem to want? No it isn't. However, when the DoD/Navy starts to go quite about a developing technology, it's usually a good indicator that the new technology in question is going to work, and that they will encourage their contractor(s) to keep quite about the details needed to make it work for a number of very valid reasons...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/nebel- ... arify.html

"Richard Nebel has commented to try and clear up some confusion about EMC2 fusion work on Inertial Electrostatic (IEC or Bussard) nuclear fusion."

"As usual, I seem to have created some misconceptions by my comments. First of all, what we said on our website is that the work on the WB-7 has been completed. We did not discuss the results. If you would like to conjecture what those results are, let me suggest that you notice the fact that we are working on the WB-8 device. The WB-8 was not a part of Dr. Bussard’s original development plan. This device came about as a result of the peer review process which suggested that there were issues that needed to be resolved at a smaller scale before proceeding to a demo. This was a conclusion that EMC2 heartily concurred with. I don’t want to leave people with the impression that everything on the WB-7 is identical to the WB-6.

Secondly, in our contract with the DOD, EMC2 owns the commercialization rights for the Polywell. However, commercialization is not something that we can do with our DOD funding. That is what we would like to look at with any contributions from the website.

This will enable us to:
1. Design an attractive commercial reactor package.
2. Identify the high leverage physics items that most impact the design (i.e. how good is good enough).
3. Give us a base design when we are ready to proceed to the next step."

[Diogenes]

Wait patiently, through the Spring of 2011 (takes time to write the reports)

Did you not read the above posts, or read and not comprehend?

The reports for WB7 and WB7.1 are already written, that work was completed over two years ago now. This was the contract Bussard, (M Simon and others also) spent untold hours canvassing to get the WB6 results redone for confirmation, Polywell experiments restarted, etc, etc, (e.g. see google lecture)

It has nothing to do with interfering in current work (of whatever little importance that might be), stop making stuff up.

The longer the WB7, 7.1 results are kept under wraps the longer the ' current experiments' can be spun out without external examination ... it has gone from Bussard's open enquiry science utopia to the classic, 'we have a great technology but we can't show you ruse' nightmare in a quick 2 years. Its indefensible but there yous all go defending it.

Icarus:

You are aware that the Navy peer reviews EMC2's experimental and theoretical work at every funding drop that the Navy gives EMC2? Folks like Robert Hirsh and George Miley to name but two who sit on this Navy review panel. I also ran across this March 24, 2010 Richard Nebel comment at the Nextbigfuture.com site. Read it in light of the Cold Fusion fiasco, think about the possibilities of commercialization of a 100MWe Polywell reactor design, and then think a bit on why Nebel and crew are being very careful in publically releasing any of their WB-7 data. IMO they have a right to make some money on their work if the WB-8 proves their point that they made to the Navy with the WB-7. And remember that the same Navy review board approved the Navy spending $$ on the WB-8 Polywell work. Is this an open public review as you seem to want? No it isn't. However, when the DoD/Navy starts to go quite about a developing technology, it's usually a good indicator that the new technology in question is going to work, and that they will encourage their contractor(s) to keep quite about the details needed to make it work for a number of very valid reasons...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/nebel- ... arify.html

"Richard Nebel has commented to try and clear up some confusion about EMC2 fusion work on Inertial Electrostatic (IEC or Bussard) nuclear fusion."

"As usual, I seem to have created some misconceptions by my comments. First of all, what we said on our website is that the work on the WB-7 has been completed. We did not discuss the results. If you would like to conjecture what those results are, let me suggest that you notice the fact that we are working on the WB-8 device. The WB-8 was not a part of Dr. Bussard’s original development plan. This device came about as a result of the peer review process which suggested that there were issues that needed to be resolved at a smaller scale before proceeding to a demo. This was a conclusion that EMC2 heartily concurred with. I don’t want to leave people with the impression that everything on the WB-7 is identical to the WB-6.

Secondly, in our contract with the DOD, EMC2 owns the commercialization rights for the Polywell. However, commercialization is not something that we can do with our DOD funding. That is what we would like to look at with any contributions from the website.

This will enable us to:
1. Design an attractive commercial reactor package.
2. Identify the high leverage physics items that most impact the design (i.e. how good is good enough).
3. Give us a base design when we are ready to proceed to the next step."

It is still very frustrating for those of us who hunger for information to help our understanding of this design. I would very much like to see if any of the theories (such as edge annealing and recirculation) are actually valid. Anyway, we'll wait because we can do nothing else.

[chrismb]

"Richard Nebel has commented...First of all, what we said on our website is that the work on the WB-7 has been completed. We did not discuss the results.

These last 26 pages of discussion is about this 'type' of claim and what it means. Is it a worthwhile exercise to spend time speculating on the likely meaning of this? That is down to the individual reading this. My opinion is that it is, and my conclusion is that this is the typical tricky-talking of a company proposing 'commercialisation' but that has nothing to show. In such cases, its business is in doing the research, not in aiming for success and commercialisation. It is only fair and reasonable. IMHO, that, on receipt of tax payers money, the statement can be more forthcoming for this. It need not give anything away that is commercialisable, it could simply say - by way of example - something like 'we have taken plasma measurements and it indicates ion densities and energies within the expected range, which is XYZ, and that we have taken neutronomy which has shown the radiation is isotropic'. This is the kinda minimum I would expect and it would not give away any commercial secrets whatsoever. The question from these 26 pages is, therefore, not whether EMC2 have gone from a non-cartel intent to monopoly intent, but why they would stop such a statement [which must've appeared within the material requested] on the basis of the 'commerciality' claim when it would, clearly, not limit nor be permissive in regards their commercial rights? Bottom line, it stinks in the same way that Blacklight, zpe, Bulgarian and Australian magnet machines, that capacitor thing, that heat recovery one, etc.. At least for M-E it seems to have some internal traceability to the effort, so it is not the anti-conventionality of the science that matters here to make the stink, but it is the mode of execution.

I guess the stink smells sweet enough to some and they seem to like it. Maybe they are right and the odour is misleading and just an acquired taste. Maybe it will actually be a very pretty flower once it buds. But whichever way you swing it, the current pungency is definitely there, and it doesn't do anything for me.

[GIThruster]

It is only fair and reasonable. IMHO, that, on receipt of tax payers money, the statement can be more forthcoming for this. It need not give anything away that is commercialisable, it could simply say - by way of example - something like 'we have taken plasma measurements and it indicates ion densities and energies within the expected range, which is XYZ, and that we have taken neutronomy which has shown the radiation is isotropic'. This is the kinda minimum I would expect and it would not give away any commercial secrets whatsoever. The question from these 26 pages is, therefore, not whether EMC2 have gone from a non-cartel intent to monopoly intent, but why they would stop such a statement [which must've appeared within the material requested] on the basis of the 'commerciality' claim when it would, clearly, not limit nor be permissive in regards their commercial rights?

I think the trouble is, once you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. If real, trade secret quality data is coming from the WB, then someone would need to start drawing careful distinctions in order to release the kinds of data you suggest. Then there would be questions, and more pleading for data, and so on, and so on, and so on. . .and there's an endless number or questions, complaints, etc. Endless. Sooner or later, EMC2 has to draw the line and say "no more data" and what we're all disappointed in is that they have drawn the line. We think they should have drawn it somewhere else--somewhere later. Well yes, Chris, they could have drawn it later just as you suggest and put out the kind of data you want to see, but then they'd cut off somewhere else, later, and you and I, and everyone else here would still have the same complaints.

There's no way for EMC2 to draw the line and not get these complaints. We all want to be insiders when in fact, there ARE trade secrets to be protected. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[Giorgio]

We can argue with Pro or Against arguments for years.

What you call trade secrets are just mere indications that a process is developing according or against proposed hypothesis. It gives no indications of what the final result will be.
On the other side, I believe that giving out little info might push more people to test or finance research in this field using the same or a different approach.

The worst thing that people (that are really interested in understanding if this technology can work or not) can do, is NOT TO say anything.

My 0,02$.

[Betruger]

giving out little info might push more people to test or finance research in this field using the same or a different approach.

And what does the Navy stand to gain from this? It's true for e.g. Lerner, but the Navy?

... it has gone from Bussard's open enquiry science utopia to the classic, 'we have a great technology but we can't show you ruse' nightmare in a quick 2 years. Its indefensible but there yous all go defending it.

It's indefensible in a perfect world, where e.g. the Navy doesn't stand to gain from keep a lid on it. Where there aren't e.g. DoE pressures to contend with. So, the only way to definitively justify an FOIA strong arm tactic is to have non-negotiable evidence that EMC2 e.g. wasn't just a string puppet when it put those utopian mission statements or that some power that be didn't eventually come upon this and other potential leaks of info and clamped them down leaving e.g. Nebel in a bind, or if the motivation is suspicion that EMC2 is a crackpot company as a couple predict then definitive evidence of that.

Whatever the scenario, there needs to be that definitive evidence instead of mere clues and speculation, before you can inarguably justify something like an FOIA. We're again in a situation where the only reasonable stance is agnostic. Just like when Dr Carlson was taking the speculated physics explaining PW, it certainly is a compelling argument, but it doesn't definitely, conclusively explain why (it isn't consistent with how) they're carrying on (e.g. positive peer review, "no show-stoppers in sight").

It is still very frustrating for those of us

Irrelevant..

[GIThruster]

What you call trade secrets are just mere indications that a process is developing according or against proposed hypothesis.

I think if that were true, we would still be seeing data. The fact we're not seems to me evidence that they have happened upon discoveries that need to be protected from at the very least, their competitors. Lets remember, EMC2 is not the only group doing this kind of work and they have been much more open than some others. Doesn't it seem obvious that sooner or later, they HAVE to say "sorry, no more " ?

[Betruger]

"Sorry, no more" is what the "two year" estimate is about.

this is the typical tricky-talking of a company proposing 'commercialisation' but that has nothing to show.
[...]
I guess the stink smells sweet enough to some and they seem to like it. Maybe they are right and the odour is misleading and just an acquired taste. Maybe it will actually be a very pretty flower once it buds. But whichever way you swing it, the current pungency is definitely there, and it doesn't do anything for me.

Confusing intuition's smell and probabilities. It's certainly consistent but not conclusive because opposite scenarios are as consistent.

[Giorgio]

What you call trade secrets are just mere indications that a process is developing according or against proposed hypothesis.

I think if that were true, we would still be seeing data. The fact we're not seems to me evidence that they have happened upon discoveries that need to be protected from at the very least, their competitors. Lets remember, EMC2 is not the only group doing this kind of work and they have been much more open than some others. Doesn't it seem obvious that sooner or later, they HAVE to say "sorry, no more " ?

giving out little info might push more people to test or finance research in this field using the same or a different approach.

And what does the Navy stand to gain from this? It's true for e.g. Lerner, but the Navy?

Well, who says that the Navy has to gain something out of EMC2 disclosing few informations? They should disclose some informations as a payback for the citizen for using their tax money. I think this is due to the people and should have nothing to do with any "gaining" that the US Navy might get from this technology.
No one here wants to know their secrets just a lousy update to inform us if things are going good or bad or taking a new twist. Is not that much.

Secondly, I believe that if this technology can be made to work than the Navy "might" get it much faster if there was some heat on the neck of EMC2. After all the US has always been the land where the government used to place companies in opposition one to the other to reach a common goal and always with great results. Since when did this trend stop?

/rant

[Betruger]

Exactly. There's no certainty yet that something stinky's going on, to justify adding an FOIA to EMC2's work load.

Separate point: The consensus is that the Navy benefits from censorship during only the first couple of years of PW development. Only long enough to successfully hide that a useful PW is in the works. To give them a head start on other countries which would have no trouble developing their own PW.

[KitemanSA]

Separate point: The consensus is that the Navy benefits from censorship during only the first couple of years of PW development.

There needs to be a new concensus. That one is ridiculous. Sorry, perhaps stated a bit harshly, but heart-felt none-the-less.

[Betruger]

That's what I remember. Maybe I missed where the new one was discussed.

[KitemanSA]

That's what I remember. Maybe I missed where the new one was discussed.

I didn't intend to imply there WAS a new one, just that a new one was needed because that one doesn't carry the water.

[D Tibbets]

Separate point: The consensus is that the Navy benefits from censorship during only the first couple of years of PW development.

There needs to be a new concensus. That one is ridiculous. Sorry, perhaps stated a bit harshly, but heart-felt none-the-less.

I don't know which is being contested. That the Navy would benefit from a head start, or that the Navy would seek to gain a head start.
If the Navy starts serous implementation of policy and engineering plans that implies a compact, powerful ... er power source that does not need large fuel tanks (like jet turbines), or steam generators, then observers will certainly sit up and take notice. The physics of the Polywell are not simple, but the money and infrastructure needed to investigate them is tiny compared to most (read Tokamak) fusion research. In that regard a head start would only be a few years, unless there are some subtle (or nuanced) considerations that make a big difference and if kept secret allows for exclusive use. I suspect even this would only add a few more years of advantage over a competitor (exclusive military use, or competitive advantage in a commercial sense). It them becomes a simple matter of cost - benefit analysis. Is it better to play by the rules of licensing, patents, etc; or is it cheaper or more satisfying to do it on your own.

Alternately, is it easier to wait and watch, or to strike out on your own, while the current uncertainty persists? Considering the decades that would be needed to fully implement and deploy the technology and typical scientific inertia, the proclaimed justifications for waiting are strong arguments. On the other hand, the modest costs needed to investigate and possibly patent certain components of the process could stimulate considerable commercial competition. Such aspects have driven development of new technology forever, and it has been the wait and see crowed that have generally lost out.

Dan Tibbets

[rjaypeters]

icarus, you wrote to me: "Did you not read the above posts, or read and not comprehend?"

I have come late to the Polywell, and do not remember a clear schedule of what work has been completed.

So, I guess I read and did not comprehend. I'm not defending the USN or EMC2. It's kind of funny... those two groups are going to do as they please regardless of what we write here.

I'd rather have had competent people other than the "peers" review the existing data, but it's not working out that way.

It would take lawyers and courts to possibly force the government to release the data. Do we have the money and the will to go get the lawyers and start the legal process?