emc2's website

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
JohnFul
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia USA

Post by JohnFul »

I've lurked for quite some time now and finally registered in February.

The Domain name is parked with Network Solutions. That's why the "under construction" page. There appears to be no host or MX records.


J

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:I like D for Demo.
Or alternatively... DD, DT, or DHe3? Problems with getting Polywell to work with the pB11 fuel cycle?
Come on.. The webpage clearly says Demo. Occam's razor and all. Isn't the most important point that it's going to be a 100MW demo, whatever the exact configuration?
KitemanSA wrote:
Betruger wrote:I can't see nubs or supporting structures either. Seems odd to show such a schematic with essential pieces missing, but then it could be just a communication sketch with some pieces ommited for whatever reason.
The details may be patentable and they don't want to start the "published data" clock.
That's what I was thinking too. The schematic shows three plumbing networks. Red/blue ought to be cooling, so what could the green and single big black pipes be?
Last edited by Betruger on Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Well, as long as I'm not having a psychotic break, welcome to talk-polywell!

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Betruger wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:I like D for Demo.
Or alternatively... DD, DT, or DHe3? Problems with getting Polywell to work with the pB11 fuel cycle?
Come on.. The webpage clearly says Demo. Occam's razor and all. Isn't the most important point that it's going to be a 100MW demo, whatever the exact configuration?
KitemanSA wrote:
Betruger wrote:I can't see nubs or supporting structures either. Seems odd to show such a schematic with essential pieces missing, but then it could be just a communication sketch with some pieces ommited for whatever reason.
The details may be patentable and they don't want to start the "published data" clock.
That's what I was thinking too. The schematic shows three plumbing networks. Red/blue ought to be cooling, so what could the green and single big black pipes be?
Some large vacuum pumping ports/ pipes will be required.

Concerning the company declining to permit the release of information, it may be propriatory concerns, though the system is simple and cheap enough that any interested party with a few million dollers could quickly catch up. From a conspiracy view point it may be only an excuse used by the government, though if the details give significant advantage to the government (military or otherwise), they could easily (?) classify the research. Or, even CB's opinion that they are just covering their backsides due to past foolish expendatures.

On the propriatory front, while the overall concept may not be pantented, alot of subsystems/ techniques may be. Keeping the information restricted could give EMC2 a usefull headstart on possible patent applications. Releasing positibve conclusions without details might not give away possible trade secrets, but it might stimulate aggressive competative endeavors.

I hope it doesn't become another always in the future program.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Betruger wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Betruger wrote:I can't see nubs or supporting structures either. Seems odd to show such a schematic with essential pieces missing, but then it could be just a communication sketch with some pieces ommited for whatever reason.
The details may be patentable and they don't want to start the "published data" clock.
That's what I was thinking too. The schematic shows three plumbing networks. Red/blue ought to be cooling, so what could the green and single big black pipes be?
Are we looking at the same picture? There are NO red, blue or otherwise pipes shown on the WB-8 sketch. The colored piping is on the WB-D graphic which showns no internal details at all.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

IntLibber wrote: They don't have funding for it as yet, though they do accept donations to support their research on their website. Personally I'm not amused by the "Charitable/nonprofit" status of the organization, that automatically shuts it off from most capital sources who expect to see a profit from their investments.
FOLKS:

Please look carefully. There are TWO organizations. One is a for profit corporation and has been receiving $millions from the Navy. The other seems to be a shell organization and may have provided the former a pitance of funding via earmarked donations made to the New Mexico Community Foudation. Based on the IRS site that lists recognized 501c(3) organizations, neither EMC2 nor EMC2 Fusion Development Corporation are recognized not-for-profit organizations.

I suppose there may be another IRS list that I didn't find, but until I see it, this is my best understanding.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

KitemanSA wrote:
IntLibber wrote: They don't have funding for it as yet, though they do accept donations to support their research on their website. Personally I'm not amused by the "Charitable/nonprofit" status of the organization, that automatically shuts it off from most capital sources who expect to see a profit from their investments.
FOLKS:

Please look carefully. There are TWO organizations. One is a for profit corporation and has been receiving $millions from the Navy. The other seems to be a shell organization and may have provided the former a pitance of funding via earmarked donations made to the New Mexico Community Foudation. Based on the IRS site that lists recognized 501c(3) organizations, neither EMC2 nor EMC2 Fusion Development Corporation are recognized not-for-profit organizations.

I suppose there may be another IRS list that I didn't find, but until I see it, this is my best understanding.
There are other forms of non profit organizations, not just 501c(3).

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

Post by KitemanSA »

IntLibber wrote: There are other forms of non profit organizations, not just 501c(3).
True, but last I looked, scientific research organizations were 501c(3), AND if you click on the "donate" button on the EMC2FDC web site it takes you to the NMCF web site which stresses that IT is indeed a 501c(3) and therefore your donations will be tax deductable.

I do NOT believe donations made directly to the EMC2FDC would technically be tax deductible.

It has been several months since I last investigated. If someone can show where I am wrong I would be ecstatic to see it.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

D Tibbets wrote: Some large vacuum pumping ports/ pipes will be required.

Concerning the company declining to permit the release of information, it may be propriatory concerns, though the system is simple and cheap enough that any interested party with a few million dollers could quickly catch up. From a conspiracy view point it may be only an excuse used by the government, though if the details give significant advantage to the government (military or otherwise), they could easily (?) classify the research. Or, even CB's opinion that they are just covering their backsides due to past foolish expendatures.

On the propriatory front, while the overall concept may not be pantented, alot of subsystems/ techniques may be. Keeping the information restricted could give EMC2 a usefull headstart on possible patent applications. Releasing positibve conclusions without details might not give away possible trade secrets, but it might stimulate aggressive competative endeavors.

I hope it doesn't become another always in the future program.

Dan Tibbets
Who/what is CB?
KitemanSA wrote:
Betruger wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: The details may be patentable and they don't want to start the "published data" clock.
That's what I was thinking too. The schematic shows three plumbing networks. Red/blue ought to be cooling, so what could the green and single big black pipes be?
Are we looking at the same picture? There are NO red, blue or otherwise pipes shown on the WB-8 sketch. The colored piping is on the WB-D graphic which showns no internal details at all.
Sorry, I was thinking of both sketches in general, and the WB-D 100MW sketch when I wrote about the plumbing.
So vacuum, cooling, and power supply? The red/blue (cooling?) plumbing seems to plug into the orthogonal ribs. Would that be consistent with the ribs being part of direct conversion system like T.Ligon hypothesized, or is it as likely to be that as the ribs being for general cooling?

For the WB8 sketch what I was thinking was the chronology of it. A while back there was discussion on the nubs, as somewhere in the contractese is (or was) said that EMC2 aimed to work on improving them. It would make sense to keep such a proprietary design detail out of a publicity WB8 sketch like this one, if it's a critical detail. Critical either because it's essential to a working reactor, and/or only because it's part and parcel of their commercial intentions. Like D Tibbets says above.
Or maybe it's a minor detail and they simply batch deleted from the sketch everything but the essentials. I don't recall any precedent - any previous EMC2 diagrams of any kind of a reactor or polywell configuration.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

I forget how many new faces are here, compared to the NASASpaceFlight.com crowd from 2007.

When he had no funds, Dr. Bussard decided he would try the non-profit route to collect funds to get some trickle of activity back underway. It is separate from the main Navy-funded activities of the lab. My understanding is that whatever little funding they get via the non-profit is used for activities the Navy has not funded.

The non-profit organization is just a fundraising arrangement, something like a mailbox within an umbrella New Mexico organization. It does not itself make a profit, but essentially contributes to the lab.

A curious arrangement, and a leftover from lean times. It probably does not generate much money, but maybe enough to hire a draftsman to do some drawings, or perhaps some supplimentary talent not on the usual payroll.

tony rusi
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by tony rusi »

Alan Boyle should have a post up on his Cosmic Blog today about it.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Betruger wrote:
D Tibbets wrote: ... Or, even CB's opinion that they are just covering their backsides due to past foolish expendatures. ....
CB was a shorthand attempt to refer to chrismb.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

billh
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by billh »

I thought it was interesting that both WB-8 and WB-D are still cubic. Wasn't there some speculation awhile back about whether Rick might try a dodecahedron design with WB-8?

mvanwink5
Posts: 1811
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

It is just a guess, but my guess is that without a big budget to investigate the dodecahedron, Rick has gone with what he knows can be built based on a configuration he has scaling data for, hence the low budget, low risk design.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

Part of the idea of building a dodec at the same scale as WB-7 was to see if the improved reaction rate matched what the model said would result from being closer to spherical. The improvement was supposed to be something like 3-5 x better. That would then guide the design choices in the 100 MW demo.

In fact, a factor of 3-5 could be made up by making the devices just a pinch larger. The success of the demo reactor will not be judged by a factor of 3-5. If it makes only 20 MW instead of 100 MW, but you know you can expand it 10% and make up the difference, no big deal. If a cubic WB-D comes in a little low, they know they have a few tricks left, including a dodec magrid.

If WB-D makes 100 W instead of 100 MW, then you have a problem.

Post Reply