yes. that is a good point. and probably for the best at this stage in the game.ScottL wrote:... where as there is no such claim from the polywell project.
but i want more. so much more. so do we all, i dare say.
(continues wait-state-on-interrupt).
That is what the contract says. 8.1 is contigent on 8.0 working well enough. It could not be clearer.rcain wrote:guys, well done on the watch. without this thread we would be totally in the dark... rather than being... totally in the dark.
just wondered what level of 'confidence' we might put on such claims as:
- do we seriously expect any such technical announcement/public report?ScottL wrote:...Not sure what you're expecting or your definition of success, but what I do expect from a final report on WB8 is that so far the data substantiates the scaling theory....
and
- do we have a definitive fact/paper trial for this deduction?ladajo wrote:... As, by definition, it {WB 8.0} means that DD worked, and worked well enough to take a crack at PB&J. {WB8.1}...
if so, i think it very newsworthy.
and how 'well' do we know that DD was successfully performed on 8.0?ladajo wrote:...That is what the contract says. 8.1 is contigent on 8.0 working well enough. It could not be clearer.
If they enact the 8.1 clause, that is a clear statement that 8.0 was good enough.
Dan,ladajo wrote:Dan,ladajo wrote:I poked around on my laptop and have not found the file.
I am thinking it is back in the office via the desktop.
Once back in the land of "no goats on the bus" next week, I will pull it up and see what numbers I churned.
Well, I am back in the land of spoiled teenagers, but go figure, went right out the door again. A couple of days visiting one of my favorite places (Lincoln Labs) and then will finally get back to homebase to look for my napkin math.
I have not forgotten. Not that you probably care anymore...
MSimon wrote:Are indicatinos like neutrinos? The barely leave a trace.We still do not have indicatino that they have enacted the 8.1 clause. We should see it via the money trail.