Enginerd,
It was not a matter of filing, i had already done that via two routes. It was the appeal process for what was not released that I was working on. I had several avenues to pusue it including legal support. I am not completely sure, but my understanding also is that if there is a FOIA in process under the same class of submission, that the agency can lump the new requests under the original as they are for the same info. So the lead active FOIA remains the driving force. Basically a follow on submitter would get told there is one in progress for the same info and to await the results of that.
But as you said, it is true any US Citizen can launch one, but what happens with it is another thing.
Either way, I have decided to pause my process, and see what happens.
I do not think that EMC2 is misusing the funding, I think they are following the plan that was promulgated. I do wish they would give some form of progress reporting, but given the import of the potential final outcome, and the fact that the current experiment is the "make or break" scaling test, I now have a much better appreciation for why they (and the navy) may wish to stay low key. Those 800lb Gorillas can move REALLY fast when they want to. And the Gorilla will do what he wants, not what everyone else may wish.
Polywell FOIA
I was debating putting a FoI in myself for this some time ago. Actually, I thin the US law is sufficiently permissive that anyone can ask under the FoI - I saw nothing that limited it to US citizens.ladajo wrote: it is true any US Citizen can launch one, but what happens with it is another thing.
Of course, they may be a bit more picky on getting money out of non-US, but that aspect did not seem to be a restriction. It is the same as written into UK law "Any person...is entitled"... You can see why - if a resident non-national pays taxes and wants information, should they be denied? Or if it is someone trying to decide whether they can do business coming into the country. Or whatever. It is too restrictive to be useful to limit it to nationality or residence.
But there again, we're talking about a project that has already finished, WB7. We want to know about a project that has concluded, not one that is in progress. I still don't get the argument that says it will interfere with their work, when it is merely a matter of a request for documentation that must already be extant. This is what is sus about it. Don't they have this documentation? Any normal project would have sanitised versions of the final report in a brief and disseminable format. I know every project I have ever worked on (under external grants) has, so why not this one? Fishy smells....ladajo wrote:I do wish they would give some form of progress reporting, but given the import of the potential final outcome, and the fact that the current experiment is the "make or break" scaling test, I now have a much better appreciation for why they (and the navy) may wish to stay low key.
Chris,
I agree on the surface that it seems(ed) relatively innocent to ask for the finals on WB7 and 7.1. But consider that those reports jumped funding from $1.7 mil for WB7/7.1 to $12 mil for WB8/8.1. In this and that they did state clearly that Confinement has been proved, but did not give details of such ie: whiffleball, any neutron counts, etc, says to me, that it was done that way on purpose. In a sense, say if they got pretty encouraging results, such that might talk folks on the funding side into jumping funding by a factor of 8, and they put those full results out on the public table for all to see, think of it as a big crate of bananas and cabbage, any nearby or not so near 800lb Gorillas may get interested and rumble on over to get their bananas. The Gorilla doesn't care who put it there or why, he just wants it, so he can do as he pleases.
Now say the results are very nuanced and iffy, but enough to say Confinement is proven, and questionably enough to justify a big jump in funding, you also may not want to attract the Gorilla in the event he just takes the funding you have so he can go get a banana somewhere else, cause you obviously aren't going to give him a banana from his point of view.
In the event that they got nothing from WB7/7.1, I really doubt they would have gone on record and said Confinement is proven, and it runs like a top. I also really doubt that given the austere funding environment that DOD is in and facing, that ANYONE would suggest supporting something that was a no go. Even for High Risk RDP and QRT items, (of which Polywell previously got funded under, but now moved over) there are great debates about lost dollars, and those projects routinely get funding randomly yanked, even once they are stood up.
My read based on somewhat knowing the system and challenges faced by projects in DOD, is that they moved in the positive direction, enough so that they were able to shift to a more reliable funding source, but still are not ready to put what they have on the table due to fear of external politics and control. They need to have a solid answer either way before they go final. WB7/7.1 was a step in the plan, and those results taken out of context (ie: no follow on WB8/8.1 data) could cause issues either way in regards to control and funding.
I think they are walking a dangerous road, even more so if they are right and this thing actually works. Can you just imagine what will happen if they table in April that it is viable, and that WB DEMO is a go? I mean really, think about it. You just gave notice to some very unstable economies and power players that they are about to take a major shot in the jimmy. Not to mention the holy cow internal fight that is going to happen within the navy, DOD, and between DOD and other agencies about whose in charge. If this thing "flys", I predict some major drama due mostly to lack of foresight on the powers that be for developing strategies and plans for a way ahead. Kind of like aliens landing on the White House lawn. Yeah, we may have a plan, but it ain't gonna work.
I agree on the surface that it seems(ed) relatively innocent to ask for the finals on WB7 and 7.1. But consider that those reports jumped funding from $1.7 mil for WB7/7.1 to $12 mil for WB8/8.1. In this and that they did state clearly that Confinement has been proved, but did not give details of such ie: whiffleball, any neutron counts, etc, says to me, that it was done that way on purpose. In a sense, say if they got pretty encouraging results, such that might talk folks on the funding side into jumping funding by a factor of 8, and they put those full results out on the public table for all to see, think of it as a big crate of bananas and cabbage, any nearby or not so near 800lb Gorillas may get interested and rumble on over to get their bananas. The Gorilla doesn't care who put it there or why, he just wants it, so he can do as he pleases.
Now say the results are very nuanced and iffy, but enough to say Confinement is proven, and questionably enough to justify a big jump in funding, you also may not want to attract the Gorilla in the event he just takes the funding you have so he can go get a banana somewhere else, cause you obviously aren't going to give him a banana from his point of view.
In the event that they got nothing from WB7/7.1, I really doubt they would have gone on record and said Confinement is proven, and it runs like a top. I also really doubt that given the austere funding environment that DOD is in and facing, that ANYONE would suggest supporting something that was a no go. Even for High Risk RDP and QRT items, (of which Polywell previously got funded under, but now moved over) there are great debates about lost dollars, and those projects routinely get funding randomly yanked, even once they are stood up.
My read based on somewhat knowing the system and challenges faced by projects in DOD, is that they moved in the positive direction, enough so that they were able to shift to a more reliable funding source, but still are not ready to put what they have on the table due to fear of external politics and control. They need to have a solid answer either way before they go final. WB7/7.1 was a step in the plan, and those results taken out of context (ie: no follow on WB8/8.1 data) could cause issues either way in regards to control and funding.
I think they are walking a dangerous road, even more so if they are right and this thing actually works. Can you just imagine what will happen if they table in April that it is viable, and that WB DEMO is a go? I mean really, think about it. You just gave notice to some very unstable economies and power players that they are about to take a major shot in the jimmy. Not to mention the holy cow internal fight that is going to happen within the navy, DOD, and between DOD and other agencies about whose in charge. If this thing "flys", I predict some major drama due mostly to lack of foresight on the powers that be for developing strategies and plans for a way ahead. Kind of like aliens landing on the White House lawn. Yeah, we may have a plan, but it ain't gonna work.
If public statements like 'confinement is proved' then I think the least they can do is say what that actually means. Everything can be confined providing it is on a time scale you are free to specify.
I can say "I can confine water in a blob over my head by means of mental powers".... That means nothing unless you know I mean it is for 1ms and when I say 'mental powers' I mean that I put water in a cup and think the thought that causes me to throw it up in the air! So such statements are nonsense on their own, and all we are looking for here is what such statements actually mean! Is that soooo demanding?!!!!
I wouldn't yet regard tokamak as having 'proved confinement' and several countries are prepared to spend 10s billions on that sucker! But I recognise there is a pulse period for which some description can be constructed from which such a statement can be made and I accept such a statement because the caveats and limitations of the meaning of that statement have been presented publically.
I can say "I can confine water in a blob over my head by means of mental powers".... That means nothing unless you know I mean it is for 1ms and when I say 'mental powers' I mean that I put water in a cup and think the thought that causes me to throw it up in the air! So such statements are nonsense on their own, and all we are looking for here is what such statements actually mean! Is that soooo demanding?!!!!
I wouldn't yet regard tokamak as having 'proved confinement' and several countries are prepared to spend 10s billions on that sucker! But I recognise there is a pulse period for which some description can be constructed from which such a statement can be made and I accept such a statement because the caveats and limitations of the meaning of that statement have been presented publically.
Perhaps they're ramping up.....
At any rate, we should keep an eye on all aspects of what the Navy is doing with respect to Marine Nuclear Propulsion. There's a major construction project proposed for INL...Betruger wrote:And why would they? Maybe that's something he could afford to say out loud back then. A lot of things can change in that time. That kind of political playing field isn't physics.
Consider Ladajo's POV. I reckon he has a better handle on that major aspect of the affair than you do.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/2 ... llion.html
Would this mean nothing is imminent on the horizon, or is it cover that there is?
That is ECF, and a long time coming. I can't imagine what it is going to cost to do the pools alone. Talk about an activated nightmare.
Chris,
What was WB7/7.1 built to do? The project was to validate WB6. What was WB6 for? It was to test electron confinement and corrosponding wiffleball effect for the new "eureka" in the Magrid Design. So if that is the case, and WB7/7.1 "exceeded expectations", and "ran like a top, you can take data all afternoon", and "Confinement confirmed", the next logical step would be to step up the B-Field and see if the scaling predictions hold true. So, lets see, what is the stated purpose of WB8/8.1? To step up the B-Field (factor of 8 or so I believe) and test scaling.
I am not saying the thing is going to work, I am saying that they are following a logical path. And given the potential for outside interference, especially if it looks promising, I think it makes sense to get the ducks in a row before putting it all on the table.
Chris,
What was WB7/7.1 built to do? The project was to validate WB6. What was WB6 for? It was to test electron confinement and corrosponding wiffleball effect for the new "eureka" in the Magrid Design. So if that is the case, and WB7/7.1 "exceeded expectations", and "ran like a top, you can take data all afternoon", and "Confinement confirmed", the next logical step would be to step up the B-Field and see if the scaling predictions hold true. So, lets see, what is the stated purpose of WB8/8.1? To step up the B-Field (factor of 8 or so I believe) and test scaling.
I am not saying the thing is going to work, I am saying that they are following a logical path. And given the potential for outside interference, especially if it looks promising, I think it makes sense to get the ducks in a row before putting it all on the table.
History is littered with the debris of projects that might have gifted us better technologies if not for infighting that killed them prior to fruition, just because they gored someone's favorite ox or ran against the mainstream thought processes of the day. Again, see Kuhn. It's often turned out to be better to labor in relative secrecy until concepts are fully developed.iacrus wrote:The argument that things will progress faster in deep secrecy goes against all the evidence to the contrary.
A hilariously bad analogy. Anyone with a PC could develop and test Linux. If it had required millions of dollars of equipment for anyone to even write a line of code and hundreds of millions to actually see if it could work, Stallman's GNU project would have been rightly laughed off the planet before it began.iacrus wrote:Just imagine what would have happened to the linux (polywell) project
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Any small sized outlying nuclear based electric generation project is doomed to failure because of the sure and certain resistance that will be presented by the light water reactor industry.
Several companies are making billions from current solid nuclear fuel supply contracts. Those contracts are directly threatened by any new nuclear technology. The NRC is the gate keeper for and sponsor of the light water reactor industry and will reject anything that is unlike that technology.
Electrical utilities in the western world have made huge investments in light water reactor technology that they will protect fiercely. But if someone convinces them with hard data that something else is just so much better and it will absolutely solve all their problems, they might go that new route. IMHO, it's the current reactor plant suppliers and fuel manufacturers that will certainly be the active and vigorous opponents.
Several companies are making billions from current solid nuclear fuel supply contracts. Those contracts are directly threatened by any new nuclear technology. The NRC is the gate keeper for and sponsor of the light water reactor industry and will reject anything that is unlike that technology.
Electrical utilities in the western world have made huge investments in light water reactor technology that they will protect fiercely. But if someone convinces them with hard data that something else is just so much better and it will absolutely solve all their problems, they might go that new route. IMHO, it's the current reactor plant suppliers and fuel manufacturers that will certainly be the active and vigorous opponents.
Buggy whip makers began to falter as the automobile took over. Makers of carriage bearings and similar either adapted to the new market forces, or died out. If cheap, non polluting, air cooled, ultra low maintenance fusion reactors begin to dot the land -- I have no doubt the established players (oil companies, the current reactor plant suppliers, fuel manufacturers, etc) will all completely freak out. With good reason. And then they will either adapt or die....Axil wrote:IMHO, it's the current reactor plant suppliers and fuel manufacturers that will certainly be the active and vigorous opponents.
Do you understand the meaning of the word gate keeper. A gatekeeper is defined as someone who controls access to something. The NRC controls access to the world nuclear market place.
There is a difference between the world auto industry and the world nuclear industry. Only the EPA and the Department of transportation license the sale of autos in the US but not in other countries i.e., China. An NRC license is required for nuclear plant operations anywhere in the world… even for small fusion that doesn’t produce neutrons; only the US navy is exempt.
Not even small light water reactor plants are getting examinations let alone small fusion; maybe things will change in 100 years. Look into it.
However, some political action activity against the NRC might be useful.
There is a difference between the world auto industry and the world nuclear industry. Only the EPA and the Department of transportation license the sale of autos in the US but not in other countries i.e., China. An NRC license is required for nuclear plant operations anywhere in the world… even for small fusion that doesn’t produce neutrons; only the US navy is exempt.
Not even small light water reactor plants are getting examinations let alone small fusion; maybe things will change in 100 years. Look into it.
However, some political action activity against the NRC might be useful.
TD:
I suppose you could (will) argue that they weren't possibly providing anything that could ever be useful to the success of a Polywell .... but then who knows? I suppose you could (will) argue that Nebel et al. are the only and best people on the entire planet to get it working but who knows? Lock it down and stfu or the mob will descend upon you ... bunker mentality. USA is toast.
Note that the "Theory" and "Design" sections of Talk-Polywell have ground to an unceremonious halt since the freeze on info.It's often turned out to be better to labor in relative secrecy until concepts are fully developed.
I suppose you could (will) argue that they weren't possibly providing anything that could ever be useful to the success of a Polywell .... but then who knows? I suppose you could (will) argue that Nebel et al. are the only and best people on the entire planet to get it working but who knows? Lock it down and stfu or the mob will descend upon you ... bunker mentality. USA is toast.
That's putting the cart before the horse a little bit. There's excellent physicists, engineers and simulation programmers in Theory and Design, but the fact is Nebel and Park actually have the funds, the equipment, time and specialized expertise. An open forum would only help if the press and vested interests didn't turn it into a zoo.icarus wrote:TD:
Note that the "Theory" and "Design" sections of Talk-Polywell have ground to an unceremonious halt since the freeze on info.It's often turned out to be better to labor in relative secrecy until concepts are fully developed.
I suppose you could (will) argue that they weren't possibly providing anything that could ever be useful to the success of a Polywell .... but then who knows? I suppose you could (will) argue that Nebel et al. are the only and best people on the entire planet to get it working but who knows? Lock it down and stfu or the mob will descend upon you ... bunker mentality. USA is toast.
CHoff