Rick Nebel comment

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:34 am

chrismb wrote:There's nothing more to say.....
Yes there is.
to see [The achievement of full scale IEF clean fusion power systems] reach conclusion

1) That's saying EMC2 ought to provide that fusion solution to all people, indiscriminately. It doesn't say EMC2 should provide experimental data in the interim. Where's the undeniable evidence that keeping a lid on it would haste success? There isn't (though it's not hard at all to imagine) and so there's no grounds for making a definitive case for or against EMC2's silence.
2) More importantly it doesn't say what I asked: Where did Dr Nebel say what you pretend? Where's the legalese that holds Dr Nebel to keeping with the exact vision and means to execute that vision exactly as Dr Bussard meant to? The above blue quote already fails for reason above in 1).
3) The stance that I've always known of Nebel is the one I quoted above, or in another thread. Turnkey, licensed reactors. EMC2 needing funding for that operation. Nebel having responsibilities WRT to EMC2 employees, etc. Nowhere is contradiction that EMC2 is looking to capitalize, or make the best of opportunities for Polywell to flourish asap and to the max. In fact one of the quotes says so: "ideally I'd like at least a polywell in every congressional district" (from memory).

So like I've said for months now and like Dr Carlson also just said - there's no definitive evidence on it either way. Nebel could be misleading or not. Polywell could work or not. etc. So the only reasonable thing to do is wait. It could be worse: Polywell could be on a schedule like ITER, in the decades instead of a couple of years per phase. We could not have indirect cues via published contracts. Nebel could have not said we'd know in ~2 years; we'd have no time frame to hold him to.

Also - What if there are issues with 1)? What if polywell is, for all EMC2 can see, shaping up to be a competitive energy source but not quite as revolutionarily plentiful as Bussard expected? The bit about no controlled prod & pricing falls through.

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:57 am

Betruger wrote:2) More importantly it doesn't say what I asked: Where did Dr Nebel say what you pretend? Where's the legalese that holds Dr Nebel to keeping with the exact vision and means to execute that vision exactly as Dr Bussard meant to?

"Nebel" does not equal "EMC2". It is EMC2 that, as a corporate identity, claimed commerciality interests AFTER making a statement that it wanted global energy-for-all and freedoms from price-control WITHOUT any adjustments to that statement.

It would resolve the whole matter if EMC2 made a patch-up statement, like "After new data has come to light that clearly demonstrates commercial viability, EMC2 regrets that it now feels it is inappropriate to release information before we implement these new-found solutions. We therefore regret that in the last few months we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to release data."

I mean, what is difficult about saying something like that???

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:09 am

dch24 wrote:Chris, when you quote "EMC2's interest in this effort is simply...such a venture.", are you trying to say you, Chris, are committed to ending our dependence on oil? Are you really anti-cartel and anti-monopoly?
No. I've never claimed to be. What's your point?

(It might be frustrating to read what Dr. B said and see what Dr. N is doing -- you could maybe view Dr. N's silence as bowing to a cartel or the oil industry or something like that.)
Not at all. he can sell his Grandmother to the highest bidder for all is my concern. The issue is double standards - claiming one thing, and doing something else.

Put up or shut up. What are you doing to reduce cartel & monopoly influence?
Nuffin'. Why should I? Better still, you're encouraging me to go buy some oil shares.

What are you doing to reduce your personal dependence on fossil fuels? Document your claims -- pictures would be a good start.
Go do a little digging and research, and you'll find that at least I have disseminated my results, which is more than can be said for post-Bussard-era EMC2.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please, ALL, be very clear that you do not misunderstand me:
I have NEVER said Polywell shouldn't be funded, by public money or otherwise.
I HAVE said it SHOULD be funded.
I have NEVER claimed EMC2 should be obliged to release information (beyond its legal obligations).
I HAVE claimed that EMC2 has no case to claim commercial confidentiality given the standing statements it has made.
I have NEVER claimed EMC2 doesn't have the right to set new objectives (that would then justify its claim for confidentiality).

BUT

I AM totally bamoozled by all the double-talk and dearth of information over the experiments. We've got 3 neutron counts for 30 years of work on this thing, and it has remained this way with no new forthcoming information from an organisation that actually NOW appears to be MORE cagey and LESS open that Blacklight and eestor!

Focus fusion is also a commercial venture - and GO LOOK AT WHAT INFO THEY ARE RELEASING!


http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C73/

Skipjack
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:19 am

Focus fusion is also a commercial venture - and GO LOOK AT WHAT INFO THEY ARE RELEASING!!!!


Yeah and look what it got them. Anyone remember what Art called Lerner? You think he is the only one one that thinks that way?
I can totally understand why Nebel does not want to talk about it. Because as soon as he says anything people will pick it apart, then mangle it until it fits their ideas. And then some will even try to use it to discredit him. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he really just wants to know whether it will work or not. If he does not, he will most likely want to return to his "real" job at Los Alamos.
If he were considered a crook, that might become difficult.
That is at least the way I would think and act in his position.

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:19 am

Hey Chris. I'm not going to insist. You just seem incapable of entertaining anything but your own POV. My last try for a while:

"Nebel" does not equal "EMC2".
You specifically called bluff on Nebel's "No BS, no excuses" WRT experimental developments, by taking it out of its context.
It is EMC2 that, as a corporate identity, claimed commerciality interests AFTER making a statement that it wanted global energy-for-all and freedoms from price-control WITHOUT any adjustments to that statement.
Does it matter outside of extremely anal nit picking? What if EMC2 has since changed its objectives? What if Polywell can't yet (as far as they can see) live up to such an objective? What if aiming for commercial first is the smart thing to do for now? How does Nebel's (and possibly the rest of EMC2's) intent to have Polywells dotting every district go against the sense of goodwill in the old EMC2 mission statement? Where's the legalese that binds Nebel & co to that old statement? How do you know their mission statement hasn't changed?
It would resolve the whole matter if EMC2 made a patch-up statement, like "After new data has come to light that clearly demonstrates commercial viability, EMC2 regrets that it now feels it is inappropriate to release information before we implement these new-found solutions. We therefore regret that in the last few months we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to release data."
Such could be the case and you'd have been throwing such a tantrum for nothing in retrospect and on no certain basis as it happened, just like a few of us have said. Where's the law that obligates those involved in the research to keep you up to date? There isn't one and unfortunately FOIA is a strong-arm method to extract that information at a time when it's not absolutely necessary:

Given the combination of govt contracts keeping us informed like a heartbeat monitor, and the relatively short update period, there's in my humble opinion not a compelling enough case for pulling their teeth with an FOIA request; esp not when the ground for fusion hype is so fertile. We already have enough information to recognize when the research is likely in trouble. On top of that Nebel publicly said "2 years". If you're already thrashing around over nit-picking platonics and calling them liars and others calling them crooks and kooks and comparing them to BLP, what's it going to be like when they fail to live up to that "throw us a bone" ballpark estimate?

IMO the sort of drama you're making is just the sort of thing they might want to avoid by not disclosing info. What if the data (experimental and other) is such that it won't make sense to you until you've seen all of it? Does FOIA legislation accomodate that kind of wise arbitrary?


And again: the above blue mission statement does not specify that EMC2 would take no commercial stake. Only that it would see Polywell development through, and that that would lead to energy free of cartels, production controls, and pricing. That could mean that EMC2 would take no commercial stake, but more realisticly that Polywell fusion would be so cheap and plentiful that no market would capture it. Since EMC2 hasn't spoken on the matter since that 2006 instance, there's no way to know if they haven't changed their stance. And Nebel's comments from mid 2008 (which you conveniently ignore) fit that picture without going against the humanitarian trend Bussard set.

I'll be in agreement when we actually see EMC2 putting profits ahead of max dissemination of working Polywells that do live up to Bussard's projections - Polywells that are such successful fusion solutions that they can shrug off marketing. Only way we'll know that is to know how Polywells work exactly. And there's no way to know that yet. Nor whether Nebel is doing what he does for good reasons, etc.

2 years wait isn't the end of the world.
Last edited by Betruger on Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:36 am

Betruger wrote:IMO the sort of drama you're making is just the sort of thing they might want to avoid by not disclosing info.

No drama from my side. I am merely probing to dig out where the B.S. finishes and the facts start, as any scientist should. If the prob-er were to get all worried about folks feeling put out of place when probed, then is that a reason for the prober to stop?

The ONLY fact that has emerged is that EMC2 are claiming commercial confidentiality over the peer review, which seems wholly unscientific to me, but there it is. I wish ladajo all the best with his appeal. There seems to be an exceptionally strong case to reveal the performance data used in the peer review.

My advice; don't take the King's shilling if you then refuse the King's duty. Publically funded scientific research should be made public.

This isn't a point of view, it is a basic axiom of science that you accept, or head back to the dark ages. Frankly, I think the West is now headed in that direction, at this time. That is no reason to accept it silently, though.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:43 am

Betruger: so in all your pages of explanations of why EMC2 motives are pure and above reproach you haven't addressed an obvious issue:

Why did EMC2 update their website, first time in years (2 or 3?), the same day a FOIA request refusal was released?

Tell me it was a coincidence and I'll know exactly where you are coming from and we leave it at that.

To me, it reeks of perception management, rather ham-fisted but basically a sop. Further, it implies EMC2/Navy expected disappointment with a lack of information from FOIA request, thus the website update. Therefore they are probably aware that it is a bad look for a charitable enterprise to be blocking public requests for information that would verify their very viability.

Quite the pickle.
Last edited by icarus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:44 am

chrismb wrote:
Betruger wrote:IMO the sort of drama you're making is just the sort of thing they might want to avoid by not disclosing info.

No drama from my side. I am merely probing to dig out where the B.S. finishes and the facts start, as any scientist should. If the prob-er were to get all worried about folks feeling put out of place when probed, then is that a reason for the prober to stop?

The ONLY fact that has emerged is that EMC2 are claiming commercial confidentiality over the peer review, which seems wholly unscientific to me, but there it is. I wish ladajo all the best with his appeal. There seems to be an exceptionally strong case to reveal the performance data used in the peer review.

My advice; don't take the King's shilling if you then refuse the King's duty. Publically funded scientific research should be made public.

This isn't a point of view, it is a basic axiom of science that you accept, or head back to the dark ages. Frankly, I think the West is now headed in that direction, at this time. That is no reason to accept it silently, though.
Windmills.

Take that holy axiom and follow it blindly back when DoE would've snuffed Polywell.

"In a perfect world"

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:52 am

icarus wrote:Betruger: so in all you pages of explanations of why EMC2 motives are pure and above reproach you haven't addressed an obvious issue:

Why did EMC2 update their website, first time in years (2 or 3?), the same day a FOIA request refusal was released?

Tell me it was a coincidence and I'll know exactly where you are coming from and we leave it at that.

To me, it reeks of perception management, rather ham-fisted but basically a sop. Further, it implies EMC2/Navy expected disappointment with a lack of information from FOIA request, thus the website update. Therefore they are probably aware that it is a bad look for a charitable enterprise to be blocking public requests for information that would verify their very viability.

Quite the pickle.
What explanations? They're just suggestions. I said before and I'll say again (last time cause I'm really stretching my schedule) I'm agnostic. I'm calling the bias like I see it. You guys insist on being partial to Polywell and EMC2 being false and wrong, by accusing perceived polywell fanatics of sinful partiality. The pot calling the imaginary kettle black.

I've never argued and don't believe EMC2 is pure etc. In fact I think this development is a sorry thing. Where I draw the line is at supposing what the reasons could be. I don't believe one explanation over the other, just see which are clearly more plausible.

Why the update coinciding with FOIA request? Why not? What's wrong with throwing a bone? Are you so jaded that you can't take that as a friendly gesture? There's no need for puppies and sunshine for it to happen that way. And it satisfies Occam's better than all those conspiracy theories. edit -- In fact I correctly predicted that the website update was because the FOIA request was going to fail.

Therefore they are probably aware that it is a bad look for a charitable enterprise to be blocking public requests for information that would verify their very viability.
Not necessarily. Probably in part but not necessarily the major motivator. Anyway, you're dying for someone that's a believer so you can heckle him and I'm not it, so I won't waste any more of your time.
Last edited by Betruger on Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:00 am

Betruger wrote:
chrismb wrote:This isn't a point of view, it is a basic axiom of science that you accept, or head back to the dark ages.
Windmills.

I'd ride with Don Quixote any day. It is that lust to exceed the obvious and visible realm and to strech accomplishment of vision into reality, for the glorification of the principle alone, that means we can even have this conversation today.

The manifestation of vision into reality is human's greatest achievement and lasting legacy - and it doesn't happen by people being secretive.

If you take a look at all the great achievements, it involved people struggling to get facts, that they have established and disseminated, published and accepted. They struggle to get their ideas out from day one and don't stop. Bussard started off like that. Good for him.

I wish EMC2 every luck (as I think they'll need it). But that's no excuse not to enter into the spirit of "discovery for all". You can maintain commerciality and still enter into that spirit - most successful companies have done exactly that, and is why they have been successful because they have been convincing as well as profitable.

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:44 am

MSimon wrote:
Axil wrote:Mums the word; loose lips sink ships. There are a pack of hungry wolves out there always looking for red meat.

I am sure that Bill Gates and his close pack of Microsoft friends will gladly add the polywell patents to their large but still growing collection of intellectual properties at low or no cost. He has made a fair living out of commercializing the good ideas of others and turning these ideas into a pretty penny. Even though he has retired, he can’t resist keeping his hand in the action. Once a picker, always a picker.


I doubt if he is interested in Polywell.


OTOH, wasn't Paul Allen behind the Tri-Alpha VC?

I'd be surprised if Polywell got 8-figure funding for WB-D before WB-9 is well underway. My guess is Rick sees WB-8 operating while WB-9 is under construction, and WB-D being constructed after they get some results from WB-9.

Something to remember -- as with ITER/DEMO, just because gov't funding gets Q>1 from a reactor doesn't mean the tech is commercially feasible. This is especially true for Navy research, because fusion's ridiculous specific impulse has strategic implications that aren't as big a concern in commercial applications.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:59 am

icarus,

EMC2 isn't a nonprofit. The timing of the article and the website update are unlikely to be coincidence; I think Rick & company took pity on us.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

MSimon
Posts: 14299
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:26 pm

ideally I'd like at least a polywell in every congressional district


This is in fact the gist (if not the exact words) of what Rick has posted.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14299
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:28 pm

TallDave wrote:icarus,

EMC2 isn't a nonprofit. The timing of the article and the website update are unlikely to be coincidence; I think Rick & company took pity on us.


Actually Tom suggested that Alan Boyle be contacted in a post here in response to the web site update. I did that.

Now the web site update may have been a bone.....
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14299
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:33 pm

it doesn't happen by people being secretive.


You mean like the Wright Bros.?

Or nuclear fission?

Lots of things start out secret.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests