Lawaranceville E-Newsletter

[Skipjack]

RIP yeah. But how long can they run on the fumes of a visionary ... in the black?

Well, the ones only having "fumes" for information, is us here. I am sure that the navy has more than that. If they dont, they wont fund it anymore.

[KitemanSA]

So what are you saying exactly?

Anybody who can come up with a three-neutron experiment, a half-plausible fusion scheme and a vocal fan club should be given $7mill from the Navy and told to shut up already?

If they do it with that background, that theoretical underpinning, that drive voltage and power loss, that etc., then yes!

[D Tibbets]

For what it is worth, Dr Bussard was not "anybody".

RIP yeah. But how long can they run on the fumes of a visionary ... in the black?

I don't know. How long was the Manhatten project run, the U2, the SR71, the B2, the F117, etc, etc. The use of the "black" term implies the information is held close in order to frustrate enemies, competitors, and yes- sometimes critics. (global warming anyone?). But to use such an argument is also egocentric. If you are not in the loop, there is no real reason for you (or me- #*&^#) to have access to the information. The political and financial game may alter this as the company tries to evangelize, or otherwise promote their project. Bussard threatened to publicly disperse all of his research results IF he could not secure further funding. Did that play a role in the Navy refunding and subsequently expanding the program? It is possible. If that was at least part of the motive, does it imply confidence in the approach, or just a desire to limit the access to information that might have usefulness for other reasons? EG: Like RFC, and possibly other approaches, even if it cannot reach breakeven, it may be useful in a fission - fusion hybrid, a high powered neutron source, x-ray source, a rocket engine, etc.

Dan Tibbets

[pfrit]

You can't run a fusion project in the "Black". Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids it. Some secrecy is of course allowed in the manner of slow reporting, but it cannot be black or have trade secrets. Its not just a good idea, its the law.

[chrismb]

You can't run a fusion project in the "Black". Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids it. Some secrecy is of course allowed in the manner of slow reporting, but it cannot be black or have trade secrets. Its not just a good idea, its the law.

I am not sure where you get that impression from. The non-proliferation treaty focusses squarely on fissile materials, as far as I read it.

Maybe we should have a thread specifically on the treaty, to discuss it.

[pfrit]

You can't run a fusion project in the "Black". Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids it. Some secrecy is of course allowed in the manner of slow reporting, but it cannot be black or have trade secrets. Its not just a good idea, its the law.

I am not sure where you get that impression from. The non-proliferation treaty focusses squarely on fissile materials, as far as I read it.

Maybe we should have a thread specifically on the treaty, to discuss it.

It is the third part.

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

The upshot of that part is that if it is nuclear tech that can be used peacefully, it must be shared. Fusion tech falls into this realm. Indeed, as the treaty is interpreted, failed tech needs to be shared as holding it back frustrates research in other countries. The treaty does not distinguish between types of nuclear tech either. Fission, fusion, and LENR are all covered.

[chrismb]

The upshot of that part is that if it is nuclear tech that can be used peacefully, it must be shared.

Sorry. That doesn't follow. Article 1 states that signatories with nuclear weapons [specifically] undertake not to share any nuclear weaponry materials to, or encourage, non-weapon signatories.

Article 3 refers to fissile material [only] for energy.

Article 4 says all signatories have a right to develop nuclear energy and participate in materiel exchanges. That is a right to do so, if others so engage with you like that, not a right to oblige others to let you.

If there is any question whatsoever and Navy/EMC2 don't want to release any info, they simply say 'it may relate to generating weapon materials' and instantly they disallow themselves from giving out any info.

[pfrit]

The upshot of that part is that if it is nuclear tech that can be used peacefully, it must be shared.

Sorry. That doesn't follow. Article 1 states that signatories with nuclear weapons [specifically] undertake not to share any nuclear weaponry materials to, or encourage, non-weapon signatories.

Not an issue as that refers to countries who have NOT signed the treaty.

Article 3 refers to fissile material [only] for energy.

That article is refering to storage of nuclear materials, NOT the sharing of peaceful tech

Article 4 says all signatories have a right to develop nuclear energy and participate in materiel exchanges. That is a right to do so, if others so engage with you like that, not a right to oblige others to let you.

You left out the key part

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

If there is any question whatsoever and Navy/EMC2 don't want to release any info, they simply say 'it may relate to generating weapon materials' and instantly they disallow themselves from giving out any info.

That would fly for about 3 minutes. Russia and China would have a major cow and the IAEA is the ultimate arbitor of whether it is peaceful tech or not. Not the US government.

<Edit> This is not meant as a endorsement of the treaty. While I tend to believe that this CAN be good, it does push nuclear tech that is not weaponized, but is useful to the military, into the public sector. The question of whether or not we should share tech that allows for building better nuclear subs or not is a seperate issue. Withholding tech on the grounds that it provides a strategic miltary advantage from the peaceful use of the tech in miltary systems is not in the spirit of the treaty, but it has not come up before as far as I know. <Edit>

[chrismb]

I think your interpretation of the words of the treaty is very strange.

There is no 'right to demand' in the treaty, there is only a 'right to accept, if offered' - which needs to be said else it may be otherwise denied by the earlier articles.

Private organisations doing whatever they want to do within the laws of the country they are in are not touched in the slightest by the non-proliferation act. Not at all.

In any case you want to spin it and whatever the arguments you are following, they only apply to the 'competent authorities' of each signatory, not to private citizens of those signatories.

[pfrit]

I think your interpretation of the words of the treaty is very strange.

There is no 'right to demand' in the treaty, there is only a 'right to accept, if offered' - which needs to be said else it may be otherwise denied by the earlier articles.

Private organisations doing whatever they want to do within the laws of the country they are in are not touched in the slightest by the non-proliferation act. Not at all.

In any case you want to spin it and whatever the arguments you are following, they only apply to the 'competent authorities' of each signatory, not to private citizens of those signatories.

They do have "the right to participate in". And of course private citizens are covered. What else prevents a private citizen in a signatory state from building nuclear weapons on their own to sell? GE is quite capable of doing that.

I am not saying that this would void patents, indeed it does not, but the tech must be available to signatory states if it is not a weapon or tech to make weapons. Polywell (and all LENR tech) is clearly is not a weapon. And some countries are well known for not paying on patents.

I think you may be missing the distinction between weapon systems and peaceful nuclear tech here. The treaty is a Carrot-And_stick deal. You seem to be looking at the stick and not seeing the Carrot

[KitemanSA]

Article IV, part 2 states in part:

Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,

Since the data is owned by EMC2, neither the US Navy nor the US Government is in a position to give it away. End of issue.

[pfrit]

Article IV, part 2 states in part:

Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,

Since the data is owned by EMC2, neither the US Navy nor the US Government is in a position to give it away. End of issue.

I really do not read it in general nor specific that way. And the IAEA does not either. That reads to me as saying that "if you got the tech, you gotta help". The exception seems to say that Namibia does not need to help New Zealand, not that the US can withhold tech just because it wants to. In general, there is no such thing as private information between states. That is what patent law is all about. And in the specific case, EMC2 was paid by the Navy to develop this tech. If they were paid to make tech for better weapons, it would certainly be covered.

To sum this up, EMC2 tech is most definetly covered by the Non-Proliferation treaty. The US does not have to give the tech away for free (well, sorta) or void patents, but it does have to make it available to signatory states. That does not mean next week, but there would be a ticking clock if it goes into production. This kind of tech cannot be black. That is a major part of the treaty

[chrismb]

And the IAEA does not either.

So you've discussed this with the IAEA, then?

Because, actually, I have! I wrote to Yuri Sokolov some years back about the relationship of fusion research done by private individuals to the IAEA and the various treaties and missions that are done in the name of 'internationalism'. I can tell you that his reply made it very clear that there is no connection whatsoever between the IAEA/international treaties, to anything done by private individuals.

The only connection with international treaties and bodies that an individual can possibly have is through the competent state authorities. If those are not interested in connecting a private person's work to the 'international proceedings' of nuclear research, to which they are obligated, then none exists.

I like your efforts here to draw out some pedantry from the non-proliferation treaty, because I tend to run with the same sort of pedantry, so I am sorry to say that you are the only one that believes your own pedantic points at the moment.

The essential reality here to recognise is that the international bodies recognise only state authorities, because it is inconceivable to them that any privateer could do any useful fusion research. It is, then, also inconceivable to the state authorities that any approach other than токамак is ever going to work. That is the 'fusion-world-order' as it is today - whether we like it or not - and that is my summary of comments made directly to me by the IAEA Head of nuclear energy.

[pfrit]

And the IAEA does not either.

So you've discussed this with the IAEA, then?

Because, actually, I have! I wrote to Yuri Sokolov some years back about the relationship of fusion research done by private individuals to the IAEA and the various treaties and missions that are done in the name of 'internationalism'. I can tell you that his reply made it very clear that there is no connection whatsoever between the IAEA/international treaties, to anything done by private individuals.

The only connection with international treaties and bodies that an individual can possibly have is through the competent state authorities. If those are not interested in connecting a private person's work to the 'international proceedings' of nuclear research, to which they are obligated, then none exists.

I like your efforts here to draw out some pedantry from the non-proliferation treaty, because I tend to run with the same sort of pedantry, so I am sorry to say that you are the only one that believes your own pedantic points at the moment.

The essential reality here to recognise is that the international bodies recognise only state authorities, because it is inconceivable to them that any privateer could do any useful fusion research. It is, then, also inconceivable to the state authorities that any approach other than токамак is ever going to work. That is the 'fusion-world-order' as it is today - whether we like it or not - and that is my summary of comments made directly to me by the IAEA Head of nuclear energy.

Well if we are going with appeals to eminent reference, then I will say that my father was one of the engineers of Atoms For Peace, was involved with overseeing the AEC, worked on weapons design (mostly developing fissile materials), and then ran Nuclear power plants for decades. I actually called him and he agreed with me as much as he ever does. And if you knew my dad, you would be impressed with me calling him.

The Navy paid for this research. There is no way you can argue that this is an effort outside of the government. No court in the world would agree with you. This is the entire intent of the carrot part of the treaty and has been US policy since Eisenhower. The diplomatic fallout of making Polywell black, which is completely impossible without the government BTW, would be destabilizing.

Accept it. This tech MUST be completely patented or made freely available. There is no other end-game possible here. They could shield parts of the process and make them available to signatory states if they so wished, but the end result is the same. And I completely fail to see any issue with that.

[Axil]

The concept of a nuclear chain reaction was first hypothesized by Hungarian scientist Leó Szilárd on August 12, 1933. The neutron had been discovered in 1932, shortly before. Szilard realized that if a nuclear reaction produced neutrons, which then caused further nuclear reactions, the process might be self-perpetuating. Szilard, however, did not propose fission as the mechanism for his chain reaction, since the fission reaction was not yet discovered or even suspected. Instead, Szilard proposed using mixtures of lighter known isotopes which produced neutrons in copious amounts. He filed a SECRET patent for his idea of a simple nuclear reactor the following year.

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDeta ... 6&KC=&FT=E