R. Nebel at 53rd APS Plasma Physics meeting

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

CharlesKramer wrote:Nebel was supposed to prove Bussard's insight was correct.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Fusion R&D Phase 1 - Validate and extend WB-6 results with WB-7 Device:
1.5 years / $1.8M, Successfully Completed

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

I think the key thing here to focus on is not why Rick Nebel left at the same time he retired from LANL. The key point is to watch what Park and EMC are doing.

Since Rick departed, there have been several positive reports, including the interview. I think at this junction, we have indications they are making progress and moving forward. I do not take that as a sign of distress. The most positive sign I can see is that they have continued funding from the navy. That alone is a big indicator, the navy is not in the business of wasting money these days. Programs are quick to be terminated when they do not perform.

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Post by CharlesKramer »

DeltaV wrote:
CharlesKramer wrote:Nebel was supposed to prove Bussard's insight was correct.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Fusion R&D Phase 1 - Validate and extend WB-6 results with WB-7 Device:
1.5 years / $1.8M, Successfully Completed
Nah.

Bussard had a touch of meglomania -- the meglomania required of someone who (like Bussard) goes contrary to the mainstream, and who claims to have the answer no one else has.

That means fusion that WORKS -- net energy from a practical device.

No one has statistics on exactly what Polywell has achieved -- there are only hints and signs. The phrase "Successfully Completed" may be one sign, but Nebel's unexplained premature departure is another.

Remember, Spitzer was optimistic about his Stellarator in the 1950s: he planned models A, B, C and D, where "D" was the demo for a production model. "A's" and "B's"experiments were also "successfully completed."

Ditto for Polywell -- so far.
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Another bad Nebel sign

Post by CharlesKramer »

The home page http://www.emc2fusion.org/

still lists Nebel as the contact person:

Email: Rick@Emc2fusion.com

So the page hasn't been updated since Nebel left. Could be laziness. Could be hiding the fact of his departure. Could be he's still involved.

This is just more speculation, of course, but prospective investors will be concerned Bussard's chosen successor isn't still working.
Last edited by CharlesKramer on Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

ladajo wrote:The most positive sign I can see is that they have continued funding from the navy. That alone is a big indicator, the navy is not in the business of wasting money these days. Programs are quick to be terminated when they do not perform.
Where do you find info of them receiving Navy money that wasn't already contracted and obligated? Or are you saying that a LACK of a "Stop Work" order constitutes positive evidence?

Would the Navy recoup ANY of the $ from the Recovery Act funding or is it "Use or Lose"?

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

CharlesKramer wrote:
I have seen NO evidence that Nebel and Park were EVER "part of the company"
No evidence.... except, of course, that he was LEADING the research effort as Bussard's chosen successor.

I agree there's no point in drawing any final conclusion from Bussard's departure; I'd love to see Polywell work. Maybe work will go faster thanks to his departure: who knows?

But his departure is not a good sign -- based on the general and well known observation that departures of leaders are never a good sign, especially for a development stage company which claims to be on the eve of success.
I got the sense based on what few interviews and data we got, that Park was taking lead before Nebel left. That was my personal take on it though.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote:The most positive sign I can see is that they have continued funding from the navy. That alone is a big indicator, the navy is not in the business of wasting money these days. Programs are quick to be terminated when they do not perform.
Where do you find info of them receiving Navy money that wasn't already contracted and obligated? Or are you saying that a LACK of a "Stop Work" order constitutes positive evidence?

Would the Navy recoup ANY of the $ from the Recovery Act funding or is it "Use or Lose"?
If the funding is anything like academic funding, it's use it or lose it. I find it terribly annoying though as I get rushed every couple months with requests to spec new equipment.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote:The most positive sign I can see is that they have continued funding from the navy. That alone is a big indicator, the navy is not in the business of wasting money these days. Programs are quick to be terminated when they do not perform.
Where do you find info of them receiving Navy money that wasn't already contracted and obligated? Or are you saying that a LACK of a "Stop Work" order constitutes positive evidence?

Would the Navy recoup ANY of the $ from the Recovery Act funding or is it "Use or Lose"?
It is use/lose.

I would point out, that if they do not file another Recovery Act report, and as the last one was marked "final", then that can only mean that they have used all the Recovery funding. Ergo, the navy is keeping them rolling from navy money. I do not see that happening unless they are making progress. To be fair, I have not found any open source indication of a new contract or funding line yet. I think that Alan Boyle should poke Park again come October to see what is up with progress and funding.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

ladajo wrote:I would point out, that if they do not file another Recovery Act report, and as the last one was marked "final", then that can only mean that they have used all the Recovery funding. Ergo, the navy is keeping them rolling from navy money. I do not see that happening unless they are making progress.
I fully agree on this point.
If we consider the budget squeeze that is going on in the governmental sector than there must be indeed some kind of results to justify additional funding from the Navy.
I guess we can just wait and see how it will evolve.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

ladajo wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Would the Navy recoup ANY of the $ from the Recovery Act funding or is it "Use or Lose"?
It is use/lose.

I would point out, that if they do not file another Recovery Act report, and as the last one was marked "final", then that can only mean that they have used all the Recovery funding. Ergo, the navy is keeping them rolling from navy money.
Hmm, this may not be exactly correct if the money has been "expended" by a job order paid for uncoming support by "Government" employees.

All sorts of potential for hocus pocus without ACTUALLY delving into the illegal or unethical.

A pox on whoever caused the "no talking" order on what by treaty law should be an open reasearch effort. POX, POX and more POX!!!

Me? No, I'm not frustrated or anything! :roll:

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

:D

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

CharlesKramer wrote: Bussard made a wild claim at the end of his life -- that he had figured out the Polywell problem, and had done one last test that confirmed he knew the fix. Then that project ended, and he died. Nebel was supposed to prove Bussard's insight was correct.
If you look up the records, you will see Nebel saying that he actually hadn't gotten to talk to Bussard much at all regarding Polywell, before he passed.
CharlesKramer wrote: No one has statistics on exactly what Polywell has achieved -- there are only hints and signs. The phrase "Successfully Completed" may be one sign, but Nebel's unexplained premature departure is another.
No that is not a straight comparison. One is directly issued from experimental data, the other is bureaucratic data point to interpret and extrapolate from.
CharlesKramer wrote:The home page http://www.emc2fusion.org/

still lists Nebel as the contact person:

Email: Rick@Emc2fusion.com

So the page hasn't been updated since Nebel left. Could be laziness. Could be hiding the fact of his departure. Could be he's still involved.

This is just more speculation, of course, but prospective investors will be concerned Bussard's chosen successor isn't still working.
Their website has always been unreliable - especially out of date.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Betruger wrote: Their website has always been unreliable - especially out of date.
WHO'S web site???

That is NOT a facetious question, nor rhetorical. Please answer.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

ScottL wrote:...
I got the sense based on what few interviews and data we got, that Park was taking lead before Nebel left. That was my personal take on it though.
i sort of got the same impression, though no hard evidence.

does anyone happen to know Dr Parks main skill set/areas of expertise?

i'm taking it he at least is still 'with the project'.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

KitemanSA wrote:...

A pox on whoever caused the "no talking" order on what by treaty law should be an open reasearch effort. POX, POX and more POX!!!

...
amen to that comrade 8)

[edit]though rather 'somniloquy' than pox in this case[/edit]

[edit]ps: maybe that was the reason the original 'no talk' condition was said to have originated from EMC (commercial contract), rather than DOD (public contract) - would have been 'legally questionable' otherwise).[/edit]

Post Reply