Polywell FOIA

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ltgbrown
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Postby ltgbrown » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:03 am

Your FOIU coordinator at China Lake isn't Sandee Roberts is it? Did some work with her 10 years ago developing the requirements for the new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:15 am

Sorry, no.
Out of respect for privacy, I'll not post the name nor contact info for the Coordinator/Office. They have done a great job keeping me up to date, as well as assisting in the process. I do not want misguided curiosity complicating the job they do.
If someone wants to run the process gamut as I have, they are welcome to it, and at the end they will get a point of contact.
No disrespect intended, I understand you are just curious about an old colleague. It is the mob I worry about...

I will PM you if I run into your friend.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:26 am

ladajo wrote: Dunno when. But the dealine is COB tomorrow.
COB California time, as that is where the NAVAIR Weapons office is, and my FOIA Coordinator works there. (China Lake).
To many Navy employees, COB Thursday actually means by mid morning Friday! :wink:

krenshala
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Postby krenshala » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:17 am

KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote: Dunno when. But the dealine is COB tomorrow.
COB California time, as that is where the NAVAIR Weapons office is, and my FOIA Coordinator works there. (China Lake).
To many Navy employees, COB Thursday actually means by mid morning Friday! :wink:

Not just Navy. I saw lots of examples of that when I was in the USAF. :D

Skipjack
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:31 am

The "C" programming language is probably the best thing ever done to destroy software productivity


It is also the fastest programming language (in terms of executable code), other than assembler (and who wants to do that?).
I preferred Basic, but C sure has its merrits when you have to write code that results in fast software ;)

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:08 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The "C" programming language is probably the best thing ever done to destroy software productivity


It is also the fastest programming language (in terms of executable code), other than assembler (and who wants to do that?).
I preferred Basic, but C sure has its merrits when you have to write code that results in fast software ;)


You are obviously unaware of Machine Forth. Or Forth machines.

The threaded interpreted way of doing Forth is gone.

I'm personally working on a Machine Forth for the Z-80 which I can then port to ANY processor.

And speed of execution is only part of the problem. Speed of development is more critical. Think of improving programming productivity by 4X to 30X. With fewer bugs and less bloat.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:08 pm

Ok, so I got a letter from NAVAIR Weapons today. Not an email as expected.

"review of the docs reveal that they are exempt from disclosure in their entirety under FOIA ex.4 as disclosure would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the contractor who submitted the company proprietary docs in confidence."

Now I get to appeal. Appeal will be based on a.) EMC2 Fusion is a Non-Profit. b.) EMC2 Fusion let the patent applications expire, thus demonstrating no interest in exclusive rights c.) They are a sole provider for a government contract, and thus automatically have exclusive position with the government.

It appears that EMC2 Fusion is not the beneficial open research company for the good of humantiy that was painted previously. They have successfully argued from a proprietary standpoint (for now) to withhold results.

Bottom line, it is not the government holding the data, it is EMC2 arguing to hold the data (which is their right...).

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:32 pm

"... It appears that EMC2 Fusion is not the beneficial open research company for the good of humantiy that was painted previously. They have successfully argued from a proprietary standpoint (for now) to withhold results. ..."

Oh dear. A marginally updated website after 4 years as a sop to ardent followers who have just been told politely to "P ... off" when asking for FOI on a tax-payer funded research project?

So who exactly has the evidence for neutrons from fusion in the Polywell? Aren't we right back to where we started in terms of hard fusion evidence in the public domain?

Skipjack
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:34 pm

Interesting...
So we were thrilled about nothing, hu?
Geee, I sure hope you will at least get your money back.
Would have been nice if someone from EMC^2, who I am sure are reading here every now and then, would have at least jumped in and put a hold to it before money was spent. Just saying: Dont do it, it wont go anywhere, no information will be released.
That would have been quite nice, I think.
That said, the info on the homepage today was at least something. Not very much though.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:45 pm

No money spent.
Only time and effort.
The next step would be to pay for the full 235 pages, vice the 100 for free. The extra would cost about $21.

It really surprised me that they would plead proprietary, especially as it was stated on numerous occasions by Dr. Nebel that the info was restricted by the government, vice EMC2.

Now we know the truth. I will file an appeal.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:48 pm

icarus wrote:"... It appears that EMC2 Fusion is not the beneficial open research company for the good of humantiy that was painted previously. They have successfully argued from a proprietary standpoint (for now) to withhold results. ..."

Oh dear. A marginally updated website after 4 years as a sop to ardent followers who have just been told politely to "P ... off" when asking for FOI on a tax-payer funded research project?

Sorry, guys... :?

I was ready with the extra underwear for a good laugh, but actually that outcome makes me pretty sad for everyone who has been so focussed on a good outcome.

Actually, it makes me a bit angry. It's not only 'anti-humanity', I view it as 'anti-science'.

If they have that much of a competitive advantage shown in the results, why the heck do they need to draw on public funds?

Bad show, Rick, bad show.

Make the appeal, especially on the basis that a patent was in the process of being pursued and was dropped at the request of the applicant's agents.

You can quote straight off the USPTO website:

"NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT: Application 11/905,183, Applicant BUSSARD ET AL.

"Office of Applicant's Representative confirmed upon telephonic request by examiner on 10/30/2009 that according to file information the application has been abandoned."

No patent prosecution = no commercial interest.
Last edited by chrismb on Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:51 pm

ladajo wrote:It really surprised me that they would plead proprietary, especially as it was stated on numerous occasions by Dr. Nebel that the info was restricted by the government, vice EMC2.

Now we know the truth. I will file an appeal.

Good point! If we have that in writing from somewhere, we can include that and say "ah! but look - see here EMC2 have indicated no prior objection, only that it is up to [you] the Navy."

Alchemist
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:38 pm

Postby Alchemist » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:57 pm

Ok, maybe we haven't been given any concrete evidence but perhaps we can infer from their "potential commercial competition advantage" excuse that they have proven that there is in fact a commercial value to the system??

Maybe it's a quick way of saying "We're getting ready to move from Non-Profit to an actual corporation"?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:02 pm

Alchemist wrote:Maybe it's a quick way of saying "We're getting ready to move from Non-Profit to an actual corporation"?

No show. The reply "they are exempt from disclosure in their entirety" can only mean the proprietor of that information is demanding a blanket exclusion - surely there must be *something* that need not be redacted? Surely they want people [potential investors] to believe they have something?

Nope. Not a bit of it. The commercial value is embedded in the "research culture". They are selling tickets for the gravy-train, that is where the commerical interests lie.

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

Postby Helius » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:13 pm

Alchemist wrote:Ok, maybe we haven't been given any concrete evidence but perhaps we can infer from their "potential commercial competition advantage" excuse that they have proven that there is in fact a commercial value to the system??

Maybe it's a quick way of saying "We're getting ready to move from Non-Profit to an actual corporation"?


Two other interpretations: One: (really bad) The navy is walking away after the current contract. Two: (really good) The Enterprise is going to fork with the Navy going full speed ahead on the "Marine Propulsion" applications while EMC2 is going to focus on Civilian applications.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests