Rick Nebel comment

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

dnavas
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:59 am

Postby dnavas » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:11 am

chrismb wrote:the fact I was referring to was That EMC2 stated their restriction came from the Navy. Fact: this was false. Fact: EMC2 has stated it is not interested in holding commercial rights. Outcome: EMC2 lacks probity on what it say.

Sorry to be hard on this (Rick) but it is what has been said.


The perfect example of that was the cold fusion mess. That was funded out of Advanced Energy Projects at the DOE. The Utah people got paranoid and went public before their work was adequately reviewed. Advanced Energy Projects no longer exists at the DOE. We’re not going to let that happen. We’re going to have a credible, independent review, and we won’t prejudge what they have to say.


Hmm, my reading on what was said was that Rick has no desire to jump the gun and release data before it's been properly reviewed. The outcome of such a stunt can wind up pigeonholing you into the cold fusion arena of non-play. EMC2 refuses to release info citing commercial concerns. If EMC2 were to release unready data, future funding could well wind up in jeopardy. That seems like a commercial concern to me.

As for your fact about being uninterested in holding commercial rights:
My previous research at LANL (POPS for instance) was always public domain. The reason we did it that way is because we figured that the patents would run out before we could commercialize it and the benefits of having it critiqued outweighed the drawbacks of getting "scooped". I still feel that way, but I have a little different responsibilities at EMC2. We have a responsibility to get this technology developed in a timely manner and I also have a responsibility to look after the interests of our employees and the corporation.


That doesn't sound like what you are suggesting.

-Dave

Betruger
Posts: 2285
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:13 am

rnebel wrote:One of the things we have been considering is selling a "turnkey" version of the WB-7. In this case we would design, build, license and deliver an operating Polywell, probably on the scale of the present machine. Operator training and tech support would also be part of the deal. The model is to use a plug and play concept where the user could substitute their own parts (electron sources, for instance) in an open architecture system. This is similar to what IBM did with the PC in the early 80s. It would give people who are interested in Polywells a chance to develop their own new patentable concepts and new companies without having to go through the entire learning curve that we have been on for the past several years. This struck us as a way to jumpstart the industry and get a lot of new ideas and people involved in Polywells. These devices could be funded through government grants (we have found a mechanism) or privately. I think we could do a turnkey machine for a ~ $500k-$1000k depending on how many people are interested. The idea would be for the government to make grants to institutions and then we would be able to competitively bid on providing the hardware. Ideally, I would like to see at least one Polywell in every Congressional district in the US. Since the cost is cheap, this is a tractable. Is this something you might be interested in?
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=5251#5251
rnebel wrote:to all:

The IEC contact in Australia is Joe Khachan at the University of Sydney. I know Joe reasonably well. My experience is that he is a very nice person to deal with.
Obviously, my suggestion for selling turnkey Polywells is not one of complete benevolence. We could use a revenue stream at EMC2, and this would do a lot to help us grow. We need to learn how to manufacture these things, as well as how to engineer safety systems and all of the rest of the peripherals.

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=5267#5267

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

Postby TallDave » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:17 am

Betruger wrote:He said the Navy was holding them back. That was then. The FOIA request now came and EMC2 now say they want opacity. Navy might've been telling them to keep a lid on it, but FOIA overruled it. EMC2 now considers things in the perspective that FOIA request puts it, and changes their mind (simplest of all possible explanations). No lies required. That's Fact #1.


Very true. It's also possible the sponsors cast an unfriendly eye at the FOIA, and EMC2 was under pressure to deny it. They have a lot of leverage. But it seems more likely EMC2 just doesn't want to release proprietary information, as this would tend to be harmful to the company. As Rick said, he has other people's careers to consider here. Our curiosity should be pretty low on his list of concerns. The opinion of the scientific community at large is probably a bit higher, but if they think they have a path to commercialization they're under no obligation to give anything away.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:07 am

chrismb wrote: ...or is that a promise for real, honest to goodness "no B.S." release of evidential proof sufficient to demonstrate functionality within 2 years [of that statement], or otherwise the project stops?
Sorry, I guess I missed it. Where exactly did Dr.N. promise a "no B.S." release of data?

Anyone?

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:09 am

KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote: ...or is that a promise for real, honest to goodness "no B.S." release of evidential proof sufficient to demonstrate functionality within 2 years [of that statement], or otherwise the project stops?
Sorry, I guess I missed it. Where exactly did Dr.N. promise a "no B.S." release of data?

Anyone?


I will consider the funding of WB-D sufficient. And should I live so long the functioning of WB-D definitive.
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

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:12 am

TallDave wrote:I imagine it will be hard to keep a 100MW fusion reactor under wraps if it works, so if WB-9 is picked up by ~2015 we should know a lot more about whether there is useful tech here.
WB9 design is per Navy contract which mentions 100mW output. WB-D is for 100MW. WB-D is being extolled as a commercial (or NFP) activity. They seem to be two different things. Until we get some REAL info to equate them, please keep them seperate in you mind.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:13 am

KitemanSA wrote:
TallDave wrote:I imagine it will be hard to keep a 100MW fusion reactor under wraps if it works, so if WB-9 is picked up by ~2015 we should know a lot more about whether there is useful tech here.
WB9 design is per Navy contract which mentions 100mW output. WB-D is for 100MW. WB-D is being extolled as a commercial (or NFP) activity. They seem to be two different things. Until we get some REAL info to equate them, please keep them seperate in you mind.


Sounds right to me.
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

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:28 am

MSimon wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote: ...or is that a promise for real, honest to goodness "no B.S." release of evidential proof sufficient to demonstrate functionality within 2 years [of that statement], or otherwise the project stops?
Sorry, I guess I missed it. Where exactly did Dr.N. promise a "no B.S." release of data?
Anyone?
I will consider the funding of WB-D sufficient. And should I live so long the functioning of WB-D definitive.
If you mean that said funding would be tantamount to a release of data, I guess I could go along with that. But I still don't find ANYWHERE where Dr. N. promises a "no B.S." release of data. Do you know where he might have said that?

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

Postby TallDave » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:58 am

KitemanSA wrote:
TallDave wrote:I imagine it will be hard to keep a 100MW fusion reactor under wraps if it works, so if WB-9 is picked up by ~2015 we should know a lot more about whether there is useful tech here.
WB9 design is per Navy contract which mentions 100mW output. WB-D is for 100MW. WB-D is being extolled as a commercial (or NFP) activity. They seem to be two different things. Until we get some REAL info to equate them, please keep them seperate in you mind.


Good point, that is definitely something to keep in mind.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Axil » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:45 am

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.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:56 am

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.
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

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:54 am

chrismb wrote:The 'court jester' - the only court attendee who dared tell the King the truth [whilst trying to make fun of it].


Which truth? Non one has yet solid experimental evidences that polywell physics CANNOT work.


(edited for spelling corrections)

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:00 am

Giorgio wrote:
chrismb wrote:The 'court jester' - the only court attendee who dared tell the King the truth [whilst trying to make fun of it].


Which truth? Non one has yet solid experimental evidences that polywell physics CANNOT work.

(edited for spelling corrections)


Yep.
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

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:52 am

Betruger wrote:
Fact: EMC2 has stated it is not interested in holding commercial rights.
Where'd they say this?



"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.

There's nothing more to say.....

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Postby dch24 » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:31 am

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?

(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.)

Put up or shut up. What are you doing to reduce cartel & monopoly influence? What are you doing to reduce your personal dependence on fossil fuels? Document your claims -- pictures would be a good start.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests