choff wrote:
If nothing else, the New Mexico landscape looks like a nice place to visit sometime.
small OT: You're in BC so I'm probably preaching to the choir. But some parts of NM you have to see yourself to believe.
Back on topic: One flaw IMNSHO in the poll is that it's phrased as a general philosophical question. With Polywell particulars bleeding thru at each poster's arbitrary... That's no way to debate. The general philosophical case and the specific case of EMC2 corp/EMC2 FD corp/Polywell can't be treated the same.
vankirkc wrote: I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If EMC2 wants to develop a private energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be asking the US government to finance that research...
I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If the Navy wants to have a private company develop a unique energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be demanding the private company give away its proprietary technologies to any yammermouth that comes along and demands to have it.
It should. That's my money they're giving to EMC2, and I have other better uses for it if I will see no intrinsic benefit from the research. If they're going to take money from me, that money should be serving the public good. If you're cool with taking a chunk of your own money and having that line the pockets of some fatcat somewhere, thats fine for you, you can donate your cash directly.
vankirkc wrote:and similarly, the US government shouldn't be financing private research either.
This one I can almost get behind, for any FED ORG EXCEPT the military which needs unique R&D.
I believe that I already called out a caveat for national security interests. Polywell clearly doesn't qualify as a national security risk, though. It's not a weapon system...or is it?
vankirkc wrote: That's fine. The public funding should stop, though, since it's clearly a private project.
Fundamental question for you. Do you believe the military should be doing R&D?
If you see no legitimacy in military R&D, then perhaps your statement above holds merit. But if you think the military should be doing R&D, then this is a classic example of military R&D and, IMHO, should continue so long as there is a reasonable chance of success. That does NOT mean that the military will own the data, just the rights to use it without paying a licence fee.
Sure, the Navy should be doing R&D. I don't think that it necessarily follows, however, that the model employed here is reasonable.
Where weapon systems are involved that are of critical national security importance and the government is the sole source of funding, the IPR should belong to the government. Manufacture could be licensed to whoever developed it, that's fine, but the IPR should remain with the government.
Where national security is not at risk and the government is the sole source of funding, the IPR should be public domain. Had EMC2 contributed its own IPR, capital or both, then the story could be different, but in this case every single penny for the technology has come from the Navy.
The Navy should have insisted on these terms.
If Polywell works out and the IPR associated with it ends up in private hands it's hard to see how that wouldn't mean that the Navy abrogated its responsibilities to the taxpayers that provided the funding to develop it.
vankirkc wrote:It should. That's my money they're giving to EMC2, and I have other better uses for it if I will see no intrinsic benefit from the research. If they're going to take money from me, that money should be serving the public good. If you're cool with taking a chunk of your own money and having that line the pockets of some fatcat somewhere, thats fine for you, you can donate your cash directly.
I'm sure there are about 200 million Americans who have this complaint about publicly funded abortion counseling. If you think about the implications you'll see why this is not a workable complaint nor basis for an argument against. Everyone has something they don't want to be funding. Pick your poison.
vankirkc wrote:I believe that I already called out a caveat for national security interests. Polywell clearly doesn't qualify as a national security risk, though. It's not a weapon system...or is it?
It is a national security interest or it would not be funded by the US Navy. There are several reasons for this, the most direct is that yes, it could be turned into a particle beam weapon. Pulsed reactors like the DPF would be easier to turn into weapons but I'm sure when the Poly works, some clever soul will find a way to weaponize it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
vankirkc wrote:I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If EMC2 wants to develop a private energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be asking the US government to finance that research...and similarly, the US government shouldn't be financing private research either. The disbursement of those funds should be contingent on the research results being in the public domain, unless there is some compelling national security interest in keeping them private..which is not the case here.
Seems to me the trouble with this position is it confuses the way the world works with the way you think it ought to work. What you think ought to be, is not a workable solution for the many reasons already mentioned. When it comes right down to it though, your main confusion seems to be that you think public funds are administrated by the public, which is an absurd notion. Should we all take a vote on every little thing the government wants to fund? Of course not. Public funds are administrated through individuals, not through the public.
I said nothing about public administration of public funds. I don't know where that dig is coming from.
Your stubborn refusal to accept facts like this demonstrates you just don't understand the way the world works.
Last time I checked the U.S. was a democracy, and in a functional democracy the prevailing opinion about how the government should behave is the way the government is made to behave.
Worse is, if someone were to try to institute your unworkable ideals, all federal funding of applied science would stop overnight.
I would wager that you're wildly wrong about that one, but even if it were so, is it such a bad thing? The private sector is also capable of applied scientific research.
vankirkc wrote:and similarly, the US government shouldn't be financing private research either.
This one I can almost get behind, for any FED ORG EXCEPT the military which needs unique R&D.
I believe that I already called out a caveat for national security interests. Polywell clearly doesn't qualify as a national security risk, though. It's not a weapon system...or is it?
If you consider a Navy Destroyer a "weapon system", and the Polywell turns out to have REAL good properties for a Navy Destroyer, then yes! I doubt that you could make it into a bomb. But the Navy certainly could have interest for its own benefit, no?
vankirkc wrote: Sure, the Navy should be doing R&D. I don't think that it necessarily follows, however, that the model employed here is reasonable.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But as a taxpayer, I am glad the Navy does business the way it does, at least with SMALL businesses. Corporate mega-giants may have other issues.
AcesHigh wrote:in my own concept, if the government is spending money on something, it should be considered "partner" in the company. Think of the government as a shareholder. I think its simple as that.
to what kind of things do shareholders have rights when when investing in private research?
if you are not happy with those terms, go try to get your funds from the private sector.
Seems the Navy isn't happy with those terms, which suggests they are a bit wiser than you.
well, not my money anyway. And when the time comes when maybe my money will be spent on Polywell, it may be better that it is entirely private anyway.
vankirkc wrote:Last time I checked the U.S. was a democracy, and in a functional democracy the prevailing opinion about how the government should behave is the way the government is made to behave.
vankirkc wrote:Last time I checked the U.S. was a democracy, ...
nit pick: a constitutional republic.
nuther nit pick:
Started as a Constitutional Republic form of statistical democracy;
Has become as Representative Republic form of bureaucracy.
It is true, but let us see if you can explain it!
KitemanSA wrote: It is true, but let us see if you can explain it!
Can you specify?
Try "statistical democracy" first. Heck! Try "democracy" first! 99+ out of a hundred will get that wrong. Remember, I try to use the original meanings whenever possible.
The key part of the poll which I would like any further voters to pay attention to is the aspect that it is asking after BASIC RESEARCH.
I see this as founding information from which commercial development may be made.
I am NOT asking after what to do with basic scientific findings that can be exploited by private companies.
In this regard, I feel I am closer to some of these comments, KiteSA for example, than might first appear. If a Gov decides that it needs to support a commercial development of some basic science so as to take it to being a useful contribution to the national 'technology bag', then, OK, I'll buy into that argument, if only for 2 cents worth.
The issue here, to my mind, is that a confusion has descended on a number of technologies - alternative fusion technologies being one such example. It is confused because there is a half-indication that the science is 'proven' but we don't know what that is, so has never really qualified as 'basic research' of public interest. Or is it? Or is it not? Dunno. We're still in this guessing game, and it is this aspect that I do not care for.
If the Navy made a clear statement saying 'this is the material on which we have concluded that the basic science has been proved, and now we are commissioning private build of that tech to strengthen our arsenal.' then I can see the arguments over the commissioned business keeping its subsequent data findings quiet.
But the info of interest is the basic science statement. So, when you look at that poll, read it literally - this is just for the basic science aspect of publically funded science. I'm not asking about commercial engineering projects.
Re-reading some of this thread, I think some of the 'argument' is over a mis-understanding that I am only talking about the foundation science.
I would tend to agree that the FoI requesting everything was too much. Nonetheless, I see no reason why it could not have been refused, but along with the peer review. It is not for the ask-er to determine what is or is not permissible. This is an action which, I feel, should've attracted a little attention and discrimination as to what should or should not have been granted for the FoI by EMC2.
Well, I will reiterate my position which reflects the way life actually is: that no federal grant funding should require anything to go into the public domain. Lets take a "for instance" of something that really isn't even close to basic research. The EEStor story continues to entertain:
Now these folks claim they have a truly disruptive technology that if it were to work as they say, obviously would revolutionize not just defense technology, but electric cars. It is my contention therefore that USG ought to write EEStor a $10 million grant immediately. POTUS claims he wants to find future energy technology, so why doesn't USG write EEStor a check? It's worth vastly more than $10 million just to find out if this technology works! It would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and revitalize several industries, including automotive, aerospace, solid state, laser, defense and many others. So what's wrong with USG giving them a leg up? There's sinply too mch to gain and too little to lose and of course, EEStor would NEVER agree to this sort of aid if it meant they'd lose their trade secrets.
'nuff said.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
KitemanSA wrote: It is true, but let us see if you can explain it!
Can you specify?
Try "statistical democracy" first. Heck! Try "democracy" first! 99+ out of a hundred will get that wrong. Remember, I try to use the original meanings whenever possible.
Heck! Try "democracy" first! 99+ out of a hundred will get that wrong. Remember, I try to use the original meanings whenever possible. 
