Talk-Polywell.org

chrismb wrote:Surely they want people [potential investors] to believe they have something?

Only if they want to milk the public. If you're aiming for first-mover advantage, you don't tell the public, you just talk to private investors.

FWIW, I vote to leave them be. They don't want to have us know, well :shrug: alrighty then.

-Dave

Prediction: here's some info you won't be needing a FOI request to find out ... cost over-runs and schedule delays.

I've seen this "show" before, yawn, wake me up when they have a commercial reactor.

ladajo wrote: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."

I knew it.. Just like I said. I guess the consolation will be Alan Boyle's article.

I have to tell you this sure shakes my faith.

You would think that they might at least release the conclusion of the review board.

"(redacted) ....and therefor we think given the uncertainties and the potentials that the device warrants some further research to settle the uncertainties." Or some such.

I'm going to sleep on it before I comment at the blogs.

All we can do is take them at their word or speculate, WAG. In the speculation camp, perhaps they didn't have time due to current WB-8 work, just bad timing for FOI requests, quicker to give an interview.

ladajo wrote: Now I get to appeal. Appeal will be based on a.) EMC2 Fusion is a Non-Profit. b.)

EMC2 Inc. is not now, nor has it ever been a not-for-profit organization.

The EMC2 Fusion Development Corporation was (and I think still is) a donation arm of the New Mexico Community Foundation which is a not-for-profit organization able to receive tax-exempt donations. I suspect that any data developed by EMC2 under contract with EMC2 Fusion Development Corp due to monies provided via the NMCF route would be public information. But maybe not.

But data developed by the FOR profit EMC2 Inc. under contract with the Navy might be proprietary.

mvanwink5 wrote:All we can do is take them at their word or speculate, WAG. In the speculation camp, perhaps they didn't have time due to current WB-8 work, just bad timing for FOI requests, quicker to give an interview.

In that same vein, maybe they told us on their website, in summary, the results of the review by stating that WB-6 results were confirmed by WB-7. Unfortunately, that doesn't give us anything to chew on, and nothing to work with in the theory area.
I am not surprised that nothing was forthcoming re: WB-8 as that is a work in progress.

WB 8 is due for delivery in about 6 weeks.

SIX

Ok, I'll shut up!

"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."

I told you guys this was going to happen.

I mean, think about it. The military is constantly giving out contracts to research things that might be useful to them. If every time anyone developed anything interesting they had to make it public domain the demand for such contracts would be greatly diminished.

If you got your hopes up, shame on you. Don't blame Rick for doing what every company in this position does.

Alan is supposed to have an article tomorrow. Let's see what we learn.

MSimon wrote:I have to tell you this sure shakes my faith.

You would think that they might at least release the conclusion of the review board.

"(redacted) ....and therefor we think given the uncertainties and the potentials that the device warrants some further research to settle the uncertainties." Or some such.

I'm going to sleep on it before I comment at the blogs.

Me too....
....and me too... (without the bloggin part).

I will still pursue the appeal. After sleeping on it.

It appears that EMC2 Fusion is not the beneficial open research company for the good of humantiy that was painted previously.

It's a bit early to assume that; they could eventually license the technology for relatively nominal fees.

Release of the information now could allow other companies to bid against them on future contracts. It just wouldn't make sense. Altruism is one thing, common sense is another.

Betruger wrote:

ladajo wrote: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."

I knew it.. Just like I said. I guess the consolation will be Alan Boyle's article.

This is a legit exemption from FOIA. The Climategate coconspirators were trying to use proprietary IP rights for years to avoid FOIA requests.

Either way, this still shakes my faith.

There have been many opportunities for Dr. Nebel to state it is proprietary work. He has not ever. He has always said he could not talk because of the contract. Granted it is in the contract for him to ask permission to share, but in the end, he has apparently not asked, and even went so far as to claim proprietary rights (after they let the patents drop). NAVAIR had no other reason for denial of release, as stated in the letter. It was done only on proprietary rights claim by EMC2.
Dr. Bussard made it abundantly clear in his speaches and writings that he wanted this work shared and spread as much as possible. He wanted it to change the world as fast as possible. That is one of the reasons I got on the bus. I believed. Maybe I am naive.

I am also not sure how legal it is to solicit as a non-profit for donations, and on the other hand act as a for profit organisation using the money to the same ends. Does not seem right.

I need to sleep on this. Some distance may settle me down. At this moment I am inclined to use every avenue at my disposal to drive the appeal. I am not sure if that is somewhat emotionally based or not. I need to think on it.

IntLibber - I didn't argue legitimacy. The website update just cued it, for me.
If anything, I probably agree with Ladajo. Doc Bussard meant for max spread and progress. How does holding cards to chest on proprietary grounds further this objective?

I don't recall seeing this one before. Anyone know what that was about?

http://www.nmsbaprogram.org/LinkClick.a ... &tabid=202

Page 15.

J