KitemanSA wrote:I will word the question more like "Do you object to the military funding research on proprietary technologies for its own purposes that will allow the company owning the technology and doing the research to market the results to the public and thereby make a profit on?"
But EMC2 no longer own any protectable IPR, excepting, perhaps, any later deviations from the original Polywell scheme which, I admit, they *may* have. But it seems fairly explicit to me that, starting with WB6 and working on to WB7 that there were no such deviations either explicitly stated or implicitly denied.
We here are interested in WB7 results. I see no reason that we are being denied any info out of that project. I just don't see it.
chrismb wrote: B) This sounds like you, therefore, know that the reasons you state are the reasons they are quiet. There I was thinking that you were only speculating. How ignorant of me. Please, do illuminate us. When did Nebel get in touch with you to explain these were the reasons for his silence?
I do know, but I am not allowed to talk about it! . Maybe if you contacted them directly and agreed to keep your mouth shut, they would talk to you too. Though by your activities here, I would tend to question the wisdom of that.
chrismb wrote: C) I have NEVER implied dishonesty. I have implied a lack of integrity due to the use of tax payers money for the exclusive profitable motives of the person receiving said tax payers money.
Gee, can you say "splitting hairs"?
chrismb wrote: Go ask some tax payers this question; "Hey, are you happy that your money is being used to fund research that someone else is going to make profit for themselves out of?".... Let me know how you get on. You seem to constantly evade this point. I have never implied dishonest, I have stated that this is immoral. As far as I understand it, the Founding Fathers of the US were of the same opinion. Address this point, if you think you are up to it.
Ok, I will, but not with your loaded question as it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. I will word the question more like "Do you object to the military funding research on proprietary technologies for its own purposes that will allow the company owning the technology and doing the research to market the results to the public and thereby make a profit on?"
The Military REGULARLY and legally pays companies to develop their technologies into products that are useful to the Navy while recognizing that said technology is the property of the company and they are free to make as much money off it in the private sector as they can. There is a large program specifically for that purpose. It is called the SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) program. Is everyone in that program "immoral"? If you think so, my response is "PREPOSTEROUS!" Your objection winnows down to a spoiled child saying "I want it, I want it, I want it, waaaaaa you're mean!" Well, grow up dude. Your wants are not the guiding force in the universe.
I also feel that EMC2 should come clean about its results, partly because I have angst about millions of dollars being spent in the middle of the great depression 2 on this project, but mostly because I think the project is the research equivalent of 300 dollar toilet seats.
Show us it's real and worth the investment, and I for one would back off. As for the government lining the pockets of companies, after the bank bailout one simply cannot be surprised.
KitemanSA wrote: I will word the question more like "Do you object to the military funding research on proprietary technologies for its own purposes that will allow the company owning the technology and doing the research to market the results to the public and thereby make a profit on?"
But EMC2 no longer own any protectable IPR, excepting, perhaps, any later deviations from the original Polywell scheme which, I admit, they *may* have.
You and I seem to have a different definition for the word "proprietary". And maybe mine is colored by the way the US Navy uses it. But "protectable IPR" is not proprietary. It is published information but the implementaton rights are owned. What EMC2 now has is a bunch of company secret information which the Navy terms "proprietary".
chrismb wrote: But it seems fairly explicit to me that, starting with WB6 and working on to WB7 that there were no such deviations either explicitly stated or implicitly denied.
Hunh?
chrismb wrote: We here are interested in WB7 results. I see no reason that we are being denied any info out of that project. I just don't see it.
You are being denied because it is their information and they don't want to give it to you; end of issue. Quite simple really.Perhaps you should start listing all the reasons they might rightfully withhold said information. The list is quite long and the real reasons will be among them.
NRC Policy For Handling, Marking, and Protecting Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
Purpose and Scope
This policy is issued to ensure that sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) is properly handled, marked, and adequately protected from unauthorized disclosure.
“SUNSI” means any information of which the loss, misuse, modification, or unauthorized access can reasonably be foreseen to harm the public interest, the commercial or financial interests of the entity or individual to whom the information pertains, the conduct of NRC and Federal programs, or the personal privacy of individuals.
Hmmmm, good point. If you were to sic IAEA or NRC on them a few well-meaning web bloggers using a FOIA for a project report will have seemed friendly in comparison.
Kiteman- might it be that one cannot FOIA a corporation. I think so.
See if the Navy (part of the US gov.) Said yes, its appealable. By the Navy passing the buck to EMc3, wouldn't corporate law apply.... Just saying.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
KitemanSA wrote: I will word the question more like "Do you object to the military funding research on proprietary technologies for its own purposes that will allow the company owning the technology and doing the research to market the results to the public and thereby make a profit on?"
But EMC2 no longer own any protectable IPR, excepting, perhaps, any later deviations from the original Polywell scheme which, I admit, they *may* have.
You and I seem to have a different definition for the word "proprietary". And maybe mine is colored by the way the US Navy uses it. But "protectable IPR" is not proprietary. It is published information but the implementaton rights are owned. What EMC2 now has is a bunch of company secret information which the Navy terms "proprietary".
chrismb wrote: But it seems fairly explicit to me that, starting with WB6 and working on to WB7 that there were no such deviations either explicitly stated or implicitly denied.
Hunh?
chrismb wrote: We here are interested in WB7 results. I see no reason that we are being denied any info out of that project. I just don't see it.
You are being denied because it is their information and they don't want to give it to you; end of issue. Quite simple really.Perhaps you should start listing all the reasons they might rightfully withhold said information. The list is quite long and the real reasons will be among them.
This is a bit rich. As far as I know, the entire sum of Polywell knowledge has been funded by the government. How on earth can you say that that body of knowledge, ALL of which was paid for by the tax payer, doesn't belong in the public domain?
Can you please give some examples of where tax-funded 'basic research' was done for a sole-company's benefit and the results NOT circulated??? Which IT company was it that benefitted, then, because that is what you have just inferred, that there is only one IT company that benefitted?
As a matter of language, I imply, you infer.
Yes, typically a single company benefits. I don't know why you think EMC2's contract is special in that regard. This is a common practice.
ladajo wrote:Nope, NRC is not in the game (yet...)
If the reactor is declared to be a military or research facility it could potentially be built without fully completing the NRC’s usual licensing procedures. But, even if this is the case the regulator will still be strongly involved.
Scott Burnell, public affairs officer at the NRC has previously told NEI that the Agency has authority regarding licensing of civilian reactors. “Unless DOE declares something to be a research facility, or unless the executive branch declares something to be a military use, the NRC has overall authority regarding nuclear reactors. A vendor cannot unilaterally claim either of those exemptions, and neither exemption would confer any benefit in an NRC licensing review.”
vankirkc wrote: This is a bit rich. As far as I know, the entire sum of Polywell knowledge has been funded by the government. How on earth can you say that that body of knowledge, ALL of which was paid for by the tax payer, doesn't belong in the public domain?
Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.
The government does not own the data because, it seems, the government did not buy the data.
It merely paid EMC2 to develop the data for its own reasons.
Whether you think the government should have spent the extra dollars it would have taken to buy the data is immaterial. It seems that it did not.
ladajo wrote:Nope, NRC is not in the game (yet...)
If the reactor is declared to be a military or research facility it could potentially be built without fully completing the NRC’s usual licensing procedures. But, even if this is the case the regulator will still be strongly involved.
Scott Burnell, public affairs officer at the NRC has previously told NEI that the Agency has authority regarding licensing of civilian reactors. “Unless DOE declares something to be a research facility, or unless the executive branch declares something to be a military use, the NRC has overall authority regarding nuclear reactors. A vendor cannot unilaterally claim either of those exemptions, and neither exemption would confer any benefit in an NRC licensing review.”
This is where the difference between a fission reactor and a fusion reactor get ... interesting. An argument could be made that the NRC is a commission regulating nuclear fission reactors, and thus the Polywell (and/or other fusion reactors) do not fall under its domain.
That will be and probably already is a discussion between the Naval Reactors and ONR.
The mandate that gives NR power and authority was and is designed around fuel cycle control. The plant safety and operations aspects are outgrowth of fuel cycle control. Simplified: fuel is a source of bomb material, accidents are a source of public outcry.
Polywell will have neither of these issues, so it should be an interesting drama as it plays out. Consider that if viable, Polywell is the end of NR (unless they get control of it).
Good fun.
. Maybe if you contacted them directly and agreed to keep your mouth shut, they would talk to you too. Though by your activities here, I would tend to question the wisdom of that.