TELL ME NOOOW!

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I think its fair to assume WB-7 was good enough to warrant further funding.
I would agree Nebel probably thinks this is true. As for the people who paid the bills, who knows.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Skytreker
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:10 pm

Post by Skytreker »

Look on the bright side of it.
If the program gets classified and all the info suddenly disappears, than it must be working better than expected.
On the other hand, if something went wrong we all would have heard of it till now.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

JohnP wrote:As my Dad used to say, 'Patience is a Vulture.''
How many times did I read that before I read it.

We are seeing what we expect to or want to or fear we will see. :|
Aero

Average Joe
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:48 pm
Location: Maryland

reason for the delay

Post by Average Joe »

It could also be that the funders want to thoroughly explore, document and prove that negative results really are show stoppers, to prevent rumors of a government coverup.

Or that could be the cover story for a real government coverup.

Or... oh, nevermind.
Joe

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Re: reason for the delay

Post by Torulf2 »

There can be more than a “government” coverup. Funders may not wish to go public. Tri-alpha have been totally non-communicative after they get funded.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: reason for the delay

Post by IntLibber »

Torulf2 wrote:There can be more than a “government” coverup. Funders may not wish to go public. Tri-alpha have been totally non-communicative after they get funded.
I think even the navy realizes that commercial exploitation of this is more important to national security than keeping it secret to power some subs or destroyers. Making us totally energy independent means being able to tell Iran, Saudis, China, Venezuela, Russia, and all the other nogoodniks in the world today to shape up and that we dont have to take their bullsh@ anymore.

Stealth and SDI technologies don't have similar dual use applications.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

MSimon wrote:I have heard something directly from Rick recently.

The people putting up the money will make an announcement when they are ready to make one.

I hope that helps.
Sounds to me like this could be getting held as an "October Surprise" for election purposes. No better way to get global headline attention to the technology if it is.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

IntLibber wrote: Sounds to me like this could be getting held as an "October Surprise" for election purposes. No better way to get global headline attention to the technology if it is.

I doubt it and hope not. The result of such an "October Surprise" would be dynamic but unpredictable. Good projects need no enemies. If anything, I think any news would be held off until after the inauguration.

FWIW, I'm moving my guess until late January...

tombo
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:10 am
Location: Washington USA

Post by tombo »

The SDI's dual use, if done properly, would have been to catalyze our breakout into space.
When that comes, it will be as much of a game changer as practical fusion.
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

dual use applications.
Internet, anyone?
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

tombo wrote:The SDI's dual use, if done properly, would have been to catalyze our breakout into space.
When that comes, it will be as much of a game changer as practical fusion.
Speaking of breakouts into space, I'll note that United Space Alliance and ATK are squabbling like kids over the Ares I launcher, effectively bringing NASAs new manned program development effort to a screeching halt. ATK is poaching manpower and contracts from USA, and and USA is squealling like a stuck pig about it.

Now imagine the game changer comes with a test of a polywell fusion rocket in a ground test stand.

Now, Dick Cheney is from Wyoming and has been in the pocket of ATK for decades (hence why Gore's Venturestar program was killed in favor of the retro ESAS program at NASA now that ATK has a dominant role in).

The X-33 airframe, TPS, fuel tank, etc are all sitting in mothballs in a hangar (at Edwards I believe). Imagine if the USAF and US Navy got the balls to use the LOX tank as a Deuterium tank, pull the LH2 tank and make it a big cargo bay, and rebuild the aerospike engines to use polywell superheated D2 with ducted air. x-33 could make orbit with a mass fraction 90% lower than when using chemical rockets, and be capable of launching Lockheeds prototype laser battle sats (two prototypes are built, btw).... giving us the ability to not only deal with rogue state nukes, but possibly ground attacks on iranian nuke facilities....

Skipjack
Posts: 6106
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Well, while I am personally hoping that it wont come down to using RLVs for bringing weapons into space (you know we do it, then the others will do it to and that never goes to well), I do aggree that having something like a real RLV would be awesome (if it is powered by a polywell, be my guest).
Personally I always favoured the DCX and DCY (also refered to as Delta Clipper and when NASA took it over as Clipper Graham). The design was simpler and the approach towards getting the thing into orbit was better (build a little, test a little).
Unfortunately NASA took over the RLV programme from the DOD and cancelled the DCX after a software issue caused a landing leg to not fully extent which led to the destruction of the vehicle.
In any case the DCX got further than the X33 ever did (there was actual flying hardware).
The X33 was overengineered and tried to do to many things at once. Not only was it meant to be an orbital spaceplane, but NASA also insisted on several new technologies being developed for it and tested in it (e.g. the famous composit cryogenic tank problem). What also is a horror thougt for me that all the stuff they learned from it is basically lost. The TPS, the engines, the other structural engineering work that was all good.
A 3 times shame on NASA for screwing that one up like they did back then.
Anyway I think that with a polywell reactor powered propulsion system(provided it works), one might have a much easier time doing a DCX like VTOL than this odd VTHL thing of a X33.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Why shod the government make a coverup?
For they are owned by big-coal?

kraisee
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:44 am

Post by kraisee »

MSimon wrote: There has been no announcement of further funding.
Assuming for a second that there is something here, and also assuming that the next step of the research were to go 'secret' as a DoD project, what are the options for a commercial line into this technology as well?

You, MSimon, were looking into the possibility of a commercial variant of this a year ago. Obviously without proof the money to complete the R&D was going to be difficult (though not impossible, IMHO), but if WB7 does prove the concept sufficiently for the NAVY to want to go grab the ball and run, would that be sufficient to encourage commercial investors to put the money in to make a commercial version completely independent of the NAVY efforts?

I'd guess licensing and patents would be the #1 hurdle, but money usually talks quite loudly in those situations.

What's the possibility?

Ross.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

kraisee wrote:
MSimon wrote: There has been no announcement of further funding.
Assuming for a second that there is something here, and also assuming that the next step of the research were to go 'secret' as a DoD project, what are the options for a commercial line into this technology as well?

You, MSimon, were looking into the possibility of a commercial variant of this a year ago. Obviously without proof the money to complete the R&D was going to be difficult (though not impossible, IMHO), but if WB7 does prove the concept sufficiently for the NAVY to want to go grab the ball and run, would that be sufficient to encourage commercial investors to put the money in to make a commercial version completely independent of the NAVY efforts?

I'd guess licensing and patents would be the #1 hurdle, but money usually talks quite loudly in those situations.

What's the possibility?

Ross.
Every thing is quite unsettled right now. When the VC guys were talking to me it was millions. We are now talking tens to hundreds of millions. Out of my league. At least for now.

Energy is such a national security issue that I can't imagine the Navy bottling it up. It makes no sense.

But as a famous politician recently said: "above my pay grade".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply