Just some final reminders on what Dr Nebel said.

[chrismb]

Thursday, August 28, 2008
"Whether or not the Navy funds the next phase, the past year's effort has been worth it, Nebel said. "We're generally happy with what we've been getting out of it, and we've learned a tremendous amount," he said. All that learning won't go away. "Regardless of what happens to it, we're going to get this thing well written up and documented," Nebel said.


Thursday, June 12, 2008
The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.


Friday, May 22, 2009
EMC2 has just been awarded a contract for a WB-8 and WB-8.1 device under the America recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.


...."until his funders have made that decision"...

(..an award made - but without a decision, it seems...??)

[bcglorf]

I think it still falls around the "nuanced" results of WB7. I think that Nebel was talking about a decision on a demo scale device.

[TallDave]

I'm not sure what your point is.

[ladajo]

The point made by Chris, Art and others, is that Dr. Nebel always said it was the DOD/Navy's call on data release.
The FOIA was then submitted, and the FOIA Denial was based soely on EMC2's request for withholding based on Proprietary Commercial Data.
This has raised the question of Dr. Nebel's veracity in previous public statements to the contrary.
Nobody thinks that EMC2 should not reap the benefit of the technology. However, reaping the benefits, and protecting that is somewhat different from some discussion or release of performance information and data.
Why all the reluctance to release ANY real information on performance data? especially when it has been indicated previously that EMC2 wanted(s) to do it, but it was the navy that did not. The navy was asked to release via the FOIA, the navy had no issue other than EMC2 saying they did not want to release it. It is not the Navy blocking release, it is the navy agreeing to honor EMC2's request not to release.

[KitemanSA]

Thursday, August 28, 2008
"Whether or not the Navy funds the next phase, the past year's effort has been worth it, Nebel said. "We're generally happy with what we've been getting out of it, and we've learned a tremendous amount," he said. All that learning won't go away. "Regardless of what happens to it, we're going to get this thing well written up and documented," Nebel said.

I pretty much guarantee it is "written up and documented"; we've seen several hundred pages of reports listed. He didn't say YOU would be able to see the documents.

Thursday, June 12, 2008
The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.

I suspect strongly this means that he really doesn't want to discuss the data, but if he doesn't get the money, he may have to in order to get other funding.

Friday, May 22, 2009
EMC2 has just been awarded a contract for a WB-8 and WB-8.1 device under the America recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.


...."until his funders have made that decision"...

(..an award made - but without a decision, it seems...??)

True. The funding he wanted came thru, so he doesn't need to publically discuss the data.

Where is the confusion?

[KitemanSA]

{1} The point made by Chris, Art and others, is that Dr. Nebel always said it was the DOD/Navy's call on data release.
The FOIA was then submitted, and the FOIA Denial was based soely on EMC2's request for withholding based on Proprietary Commercial Data.
This has raised the question of Dr. Nebel's veracity in previous public statements to the contrary.
{2} Nobody thinks that EMC2 should not reap the benefit of the technology. However, reaping the benefits, and protecting that is somewhat different from some discussion or release of performance information and data.
Why all the reluctance to release ANY real information on performance data?

{1}: Would someone find me any statement by Dr. N. that say he wants to release the data that Art... wants him to release? Were I being pressured to release such data and I had a handy excuse like the Navy Ban, I might use it too. I remember statements like "when I was at the Lab, we would... and such like, but "I want to give you all this data, but they won't let me" doesn't ring any bells.
{2}: Folks, this thing is so dang cheap that releasing any REAL data that proves this works is tantamount to opening the gates to massive competition. I think I might want to keep this under my hat until I built up a goodly head start too.

If this actually works out with pB&j, (call it a year or too from now) I suspect there will be a flood of patent applications of important details and then a massive funding search. But releasing data may start a clock they don't want started. Why the heck would she (Dolly) do that?

[MSimon]

then a massive funding search

I don't think it will require much searching.

1. The Navy will want to build one operational reactor as proof of concept.
2. The Air Force will be interested in using the devices for at minimum air base power.
3. I personally know of two sufficiently large commercial entities interested.
4. We know from Famulus that at least one VC group is interested.

[MSimon]

Speaking of air bases.

1. you want to defend them with a Free Electron Laser

2. You build a device capable of huge pulse power and just keep it barely ticking over until there is incoming.

[Art Carlson]

{1}: Would someone find me any statement by Dr. N. that say he wants to release the data that Art... wants him to release?

He told me privately (I hope he doesn't consider this a breach of confidence) "We have been asked by our funding agency not to have any more discussions on our work. ... I hope this won't last long."

[tomclarke]

{1}: Would someone find me any statement by Dr. N. that say he wants to release the data that Art... wants him to release?

He told me privately (I hope he doesn't consider this a breach of confidence) "We have been asked by our funding agency not to have any more discussions on our work. ... I hope this won't last long."

That is what was always likely, nice to have some confirmation.

I can't say it tells us much about whether current results are good or bad, though!

Tom

[TallDave]

The point made by Chris, Art and others, is that Dr. Nebel always said it was the DOD/Navy's call on data release.

It is their call. Are you claiming Rick could release information if they didn't want him to? He also told us, right from the beginning, that he had the people working at EMC2 to consider as well (is Rick even able to make that decision on his own? I'm not sure what EMC2's board of directors looks like). You seem to be confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient.

The navy was asked to release via the FOIA, the navy had no issue other than EMC2 saying they did not want to release it.

Speculative. We have no idea what internal discussions took place. Also, even if that were true refusing a FOIA doesn't mean anything other than they refused a FOIA, which they were legally entitled to do, however inconvenient it is to some guys on the Internet who want to see their data. It doesn't mean they won't, at some time of their choosing, release (or at least discuss) the data. If I were in EMC2's shoes, I'd refuse the FOIA just on the grounds of not wanting to be pushed around.

What do you suppose the FOIA compliance rate is from contractors who have IP at stake? I'm guessing close to zero.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ation.aspx

[ladajo]

"Speculative. We have no idea what internal discussions took place. Also, even if that were true refusing a FOIA doesn't mean anything other than they refused a FOIA, which they were legally entitled to do. It doesn't mean they won't, at some time of their choosing, release the data. If I were in EMC2's shoes, I'd refuse the FOIA just on the grounds of not wanting to be pushed around."

The navy told me that the FOIA had cleared the navy internal process, they had the documents for release, and even gave me the page counts. They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support. This step was the normal final step for release. I was told by the navy that the next thing I would hear would be either, here are your 100 pages, would you like the rest? If so, Please pay $21.50 (approx), or I would hear that it would not be released, based on EMC2's input. It was the latter, and specifically cited in the letter as I have posted elsewhere.

You are making statements based on assumptions and your opinions.

I am making statements based on my factual execution of the FOIA process. Postings I have made here at talk-polywell are direct comment on my letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls I have had to date with NAVAIR Weapons, China Lake.

[TallDave]

They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support.

That's what NAVAIR lawyers told you. NAVAIR lawyers don't fund the project.

You have no idea what internal discussions EMC2 might have had with their funders over the FOIA. You are simply assuming, on no evidence that I can see:

1) Rick can make that call for EMC2
2) Rick decided, on his own, not to release the data, under no pressure from the Navy, which after gagging Bussard for 10 years is suddenly happy to release data to anyone that wants it

Or I guess you can assume Rick and Bussard were both lying, for some reason. It's a conspiracy!

[TallDave]

Keep in mind, too, DOE wants to kill this idea. EMC2 may just want to avoid having DOE cast an unfriendly eye over their shoulders while they work.

[ladajo]

They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support.

That's what NAVAIR lawyers told you. NAVAIR lawyers don't fund the project.

True, after the NAVAIR Lawyers consulted with the contracting POC's and received the requested documents.

You have no idea what internal discussions EMC2 might have had with their funders over the FOIA. You are simply assuming, on no evidence that I can see:

True, however, I do know what the FOIA office told me.

1) Rick can make that call for EMC2

Yes, but not alone, as Dolly still "runs the show". But he is the annointed lead mouthpiece.

2) Rick decided, on his own, not to release the data, under no pressure from the Navy, which after gagging Bussard for 10 years is suddenly happy to release data to anyone that wants it

No, I do not think it was on his own. And for the record, the Contracting Terms were not a gag, it was a <sic> "Don't Release without asking first" clause. Bussard's data from early 90's was all released.
You assume the navy put pressure on Nebel and before him Bussard, "not to release". If that was so, they easily could have either classified the project, or put in the Terms, "Dont even ask us to release info.".
You also assume to know that there was a "secret conversation" between Dr. Nebel and the Navy. And in this conversation the navy begged Dr. Nebel not to release any info, and could he help them out by claiming proprietary. That does not sound reasonabe nor logical. Would it not have been much easier for EMC2 to just say it is proprietary all along, vice repeated statements of <sic>" I wish I could tell you, but THEY will not let me".

Or I guess you can assume Rick and Bussard were both lying, for some reason. It's a conspiracy!

Nope. I think that you are seeing conspiracy in the navy seeking Dr. Nebel's help to block a nefarious FOIA that they had no power over blocking. If the navy did not want anything released, there are much simpler and longer term methods to control it, vice risking careers and such by macchiavellian manuevers. Contractual changes, and stampings of everything "Confidential - Naval Nuclear Polywell Information" would do the trick. It is certainly a proven method and has put the fear of god in to everyone since Rickover thought of it.

I see no conspiracy, I see you seeing a conspiracy.