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