Page 1 of 1

Google

Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:15 pm
by vankirkc
Why did Google elect not to fund Polywell development when they had the opportunity?

They had the money. They have funded other less compelling alternative energy sources (e.g. ocean waves). And, at the time, they had a unique opportunity to work with Bussard himself.

What do they know that we don't or, alternatively, what do we know that they don't?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:45 am
by KitemanSA
It has been reported that DrB got an offer for big money but didn't like the terms. That may have come across in his Google talk.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:16 am
by vankirkc
If that's the case, and there are no IPR barriers, why aren't they pursuing it on their own now?

It's seems more plausible that they didn't like the idea for whatever reason. The question is, what was their reason.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:07 am
by bobshipp
Unfortunately, I think Google has evolved to the point where it no longer wants to take the chance of being embarrassed. In this case, I call it the cold-bubble fusion syndrome. If they were to fund such a project, they would be subject to the type of media hype that accompanied those two ideas or worse. It is inescapable when a discovery of this magnitude is envisioned.

Ironically. we are now in the position that when a true revolution in energy production might be possible there is no one who is willing to go to bat because of the fear of seeming foolish, except the Navy , who is trying to keep their involvement as low key as possible with no one talking and very little money.

Hopefully, the Google 10 to 100 contest and resulting public interest might change things.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:22 am
by MSimon
IMO it is past the time when any of this matters. With results (yes/no) two years or less away there is very little point in any outside funding unless a company wants to take a chance on getting a jump on the competition.

And let me put it clearly: jumping in at this point is clearly a roll of the dice.

It might lead to billions. Or it might lead to nothing.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:44 am
by vankirkc
MSimon wrote:IMO it is past the time when any of this matters. With results (yes/no) two years or less away there is very little point in any outside funding unless a company wants to take a chance on getting a jump on the competition.

And let me put it clearly: jumping in at this point is clearly a roll of the dice.

It might lead to billions. Or it might lead to nothing.
But you want to jump in now, don't you? Or have you changed your mind now?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:57 am
by MSimon
vankirkc wrote:
MSimon wrote:IMO it is past the time when any of this matters. With results (yes/no) two years or less away there is very little point in any outside funding unless a company wants to take a chance on getting a jump on the competition.

And let me put it clearly: jumping in at this point is clearly a roll of the dice.

It might lead to billions. Or it might lead to nothing.
But you want to jump in now, don't you? Or have you changed your mind now?
Yeah. I'm ready to go to light speed if I can kick the control panel in the right place. But for any funders lurking I don't want to give unrealistic expectations.