Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:52 pm

Ok, so I feel the basis of the appeal, in regard the information already requested, should be as follows:


#1:

"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion, and thus to solve the problems posed by excessive dependence on controlled fossil fuel resources - most notably oil. The achievement of full scale IEF clean fusion power systems would allow easy access to energy, both thermal and electrical, for all nations, and all peoples, everywhere - free from cartels and controlled production and pricing. This is a goal worthy of pursuit, and EMC2 will be happy to work with any organization interested in undertaking such a venture."

from "The advent of clean nuclear fusion", R Bussard, EMC2, 57th International Astronautical COngress, Valencia, Spain, Oct 2-6, 2006.


#2:

R Nebel of EMC2 has previously held interviews in which he has indicated this is still the principled position of EMC2 but that they were being gagged by Navy restrictions. [DO WE HAVE ANY REFERENCES FOR THIS ONE TO BACK IT UP?]


#3:

EMC2 is under a sole-supplier contract and therefore there can be no commerical imperative implied or presumed by any such sole contractors.


#4:

Prior patent protection indicates little intent for commercial protection:

"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."

geleto
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:00 am
Contact:

Postby geleto » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:59 pm

To all of these, the EMC2 answer is simple:
We changed our mind.

And their current intentions are all that matters.

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

Postby ladajo » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:09 pm

Actually, based on my experience with this FOIA, that appears to be incorrect.
Everything is based on the date of filing. My interpretation is that the intent of EMC2 has to be demonstrated as of the date of filing, if they have changed their minds after the fact it does not count legally.
If the appeal can demonstrate that as of the filing, proprietary rights and concerns were not clearly demonstrated as a pre-existing condition (sounds so health care like...) then it does not count as protection.
Every statement or action made by a recognised EMC2 representative that shows a lack of proprietary concern prior to filing counts against them.

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

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:21 pm

ladajo wrote:Actually, based on my experience with this FOIA, that appears to be incorrect.
Everything is based on the date of filing. My interpretation is that the intent of EMC2 has to be demonstrated as of the date of filing, if they have changed their minds after the fact it does not count legally.
If the appeal can demonstrate that as of the filing, proprietary rights and concerns were not clearly demonstrated as a pre-existing condition (sounds so health care like...) then it does not count as protection.
Every statement or action made by a recognised EMC2 representative that shows a lack of proprietary concern prior to filing counts against them.


Get your ammunition ready (the clock is running) but wait to see what Alan Boyle says. He often files as late as 8 or 9 PM so I think we have to watch CL until late tonight.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 pm

ladajo wrote:Actually, based on my experience with this FOIA, that appears to be incorrect.
Everything is based on the date of filing. My interpretation is that the intent of EMC2 has to be demonstrated as of the date of filing, if they have changed their minds after the fact it does not count legally.
If the appeal can demonstrate that as of the filing, proprietary rights and concerns were not clearly demonstrated as a pre-existing condition (sounds so health care like...) then it does not count as protection.
Every statement or action made by a recognised EMC2 representative that shows a lack of proprietary concern prior to filing counts against them.

What was the exact date of record of filing?
Of course, it seems self evident that if an appeal were to shake anything loose, it would be heavily redacted.
Aero

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

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:40 pm

I just got word from Alan Boyle that his article may be delayed until Monday for - get this - not enough info.

He would have posted here but his login doesn't work. I sent Joe a heads up and that will get fixed in the next day or so.

However, he did mention the possibility of some news in the next few hours if some one will talk. So keep an eye out.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Re: Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

Postby BenTC » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:07 pm

chrismb wrote:#3:
EMC2 is under a sole-supplier contract and therefore there can be no commerical imperative implied or presumed by any such sole contractors.


The Navy has free-use of it. The commercial harm is in the commercial arena.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:18 pm

I have also [in addition to the 'grounds' as above] been considering how to re-define the request to guarantee there are no commerical disclosures, in any case, to raise such an objection.

For example, we need to re-focus around the plasma diagnostics used in the peer review; input energy, pulse length, output neutrons, background/plasma density/distribution diagnostics. These can't be commercial secrets, these are merely the measures of success and surely there can be no claim to withhold information regarding a 'measure of success' in a project funded from public funds.

There is no need to disclose the method of achieving the plasma conditions [we know this already] only that we wish to know the plasma conditions on which the peer review was based.

Further to emphasise, one point was that proprietary information was provided to the Navy in confidence. But why does the same coverage extend over independent peer review?

So to summarise; apply the rebuttals as above and also focus on the peer reviewed material that EMC2 have not directly supplied, and where those peer reviews contain commercially sensitive materials, then redact them so that we can at least see the plasma conditions/outcomes of the tests on which the agreement to grant public funds was made.

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

Re: Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:21 pm

BenTC wrote:
chrismb wrote:#3:
EMC2 is under a sole-supplier contract and therefore there can be no commerical imperative implied or presumed by any such sole contractors.


The Navy has free-use of it. The commercial harm is in the commercial arena.

Ah, no, you see the 'contract' isn't a contract to pay them to develop IPR for themselves, it is a contract for a paid-up service. Yet, as a sole supplier, they cannot be competed with, by definition.

The contract isn't to develop IPR (as per previosu contracts) it is to deliver a device to an existing design and take measurements, so what is the commercial advantage to be lost? It is only the sole-supplier status, which cannot be the basis on which to demand no information be released. It is contrary to the contract itself.

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

Postby ladajo » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:15 pm

I need documented quotes from Dr. Bussard and Dr. Nebel regarding intention of distribution of the technology for the appeal.

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:32 pm

ladajo wrote:I need documented quotes from Dr. Bussard and Dr. Nebel regarding intention of distribution of the technology for the appeal.
Is the Valencia paper not enough? "free from cartels and controlled production and pricing"

pbelter
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Postby pbelter » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:40 pm

ladajo wrote:Actually, based on my experience with this FOIA, that appears to be incorrect.
Everything is based on the date of filing.


Nowadays the government will do whatever they want , and if they don’t feel like it they will not release any info.

Wikipedia wrote:On December 29, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13526, which allows the government to classify certain specific types of information relevant to national security AFTER it has been requested. That is, a request for information that meets the criteria for availability under FOIA can still be denied if the government determines that the information should have been classified, and unavailable.


I thought that the US constitution prohibited passing an “Ex post facto” law, but they don’t seem to care anymore…
I tried to look up the Treaty that Art mentioned, the one about all fusion research being unclassified, but couldn’t find it.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:13 am

Yet, as a sole supplier, they cannot be competed with, by definition.


Read the contract closely. The only reason they are the sole supplier is because they're the only ones with Polywell expertise and thus the only ones who offered a bid. If other people had access to the date they could bid on the contract.

If WB-8 proves out well, there could be HUGE interest in bidding on the WB-9/D/100 contracts. The only thing stopping anyone else from bidding is lack of access to the data.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:20 am

pbelter wrote:
ladajo wrote:Actually, based on my experience with this FOIA, that appears to be incorrect.
Everything is based on the date of filing.


Nowadays the government will do whatever they want , and if they don’t feel like it they will not release any info.

Wikipedia wrote:On December 29, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13526, which allows the government to classify certain specific types of information relevant to national security AFTER it has been requested. That is, a request for information that meets the criteria for availability under FOIA can still be denied if the government determines that the information should have been classified, and unavailable.


I thought that the US constitution prohibited passing an “Ex post facto” law, but they don’t seem to care anymore…
I tried to look up the Treaty that Art mentioned, the one about all fusion research being unclassified, but couldn’t find it.



It isn't a law. It is a regulation with the force of law. :)

Apart from that, Why would anyone think that Barack and Co. give a care what the constitutional requirements are? They wouldn't even submit a real birth certificate to establish legitimacy. Every other constitutional thing is inconsequential.

Read this guy's take on the constitutional issue.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=19640

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:45 am

This is what's going on at EMC2.

Image
Y-12 security billboard during World War II Manhattan Project.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests