Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:04 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4784
Location: North East Coast
If this did not surface before here,

long but good read;
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009power/may6LTriola.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
My goodness! Even Tom Ligon's article gets a mention in amongst this huge paper on US energy security! Though it misses out on a very large number of other potentials (the author clearly didn't get to see my list!!)

Not read it all yet, but looks highly un-balanced:

"A spinoff
from a form of nuclear fusion developed in the 1960s by
Farnsworth and Hirsch has achieved groundbreaking success
recently. This Polywell fusion device..."

"As far as can be determined without actually building a fully
power-producing nuclear fusion plant of the Bussard Polywell
kind, this technology has been demonstrated and is being
developed."

I think even Nebel would blush at such unfounded accolades!!..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am
Posts: 2046
Or he knows something you and everyone else don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
Gosh! I'm so convinced by people not discussing things! Far more convincing than actually saying something!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am
Posts: 2046
Instead of passing off conjecture as absolutes. You don't know any more for sure than anyone else outside of EMC2.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
Betruger wrote:
Instead of passing off conjecture as absolutes. You don't know any more for sure than anyone else outside of EMC2.

What absolute have I suggested that you are referring to?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4784
Location: North East Coast
Check out pages 11 o f73 and 12 of 73.
Seems that some folks in DOD are very satistified with results. Enough to stick it in a high vis document for the bean counters and OSD Level program managers. These Rapid Developement items get flashy slides and "This is the business!" statements when briefed to the powers that be. Be interesting to see what the actual "sales" package for Polywell looks like right now in the program offices. If they are staying low key, or going for broke.

This tends to parallel what was said in the Energy Paper.

It does appear that they know things that we do not. To the tune of $8 to $12 million in awards post peer review. The curious point that I keyed on out of the Energy Paper was the 2015 taget date. That could well tie in with the WB8.1 and WB9 design options. It also appears they are positioning to spin up funding fast if WB8(.1) plays as predicted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4784
Location: North East Coast
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... 826D8Z.pdf

Here is the link, I forgot it! :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
ladajo wrote:
Check out pages 11 o f73 and 12 of 73. http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... 826D8Z.pdf

To my mind, that merely reinforces my suspicions. Why would someone state "objectives" and then, for 2008 "accomplishments" simply delete the word "objectives" from the objectives and repeat verbatim!? If they can only be as specific as the objectives themselves, without any refinement of what was actually done, then I fear my previous observation is probably right:
> http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... 3661#23661 <


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13217
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Blogged it at the usual places.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4784
Location: North East Coast
Chris - I remember that discussion, and still disagree. The fundamental point here, is that there has been a peer review for WB7, and the results justified a substantial increase in navy project support. The post peer review contracting has also implied that things are going on that are not well understood, and thus further instrumentation and mapping are required. Also, it is implied(contracts, etc,) as well as stated (by Nebel) that results have been positive. Put these two together, plus the $12 mil, and you have a clear indicator that they think they can make a go of it.
The navy is not in a position these days to piss money away. Every spending decision gets scrutiny. We the navy do not have money to put ships to sea and support manning, we have become and will get even more frugal. That polywell has gotten a giganto-huganormous (coining credit to my six year old) increase in funding depth that represents about half of total previous funding is a big positive sign.
I will un-attributed quote a discussion I had with a navy flag regarding funding, "both I and the CNO know that we have downsized too far manning and support for the fleet, and we know we need to buy it back. We also have no idea where the money will come from.". The navy continues to reduce underway sailing days to save money due to fuel and operating costs, while we were already short on sailing days. Spending is a huge deal.
Nobody here at talk-polywell is publicly admitting they have seen the WB7 results, nor the Peer Review. However, they are both complete, and on the table for the navy. The navy has felt justified to increase support to the project in an extremely thin fiscal environment. In the mean time, we get little glimpses and "tit" bits of the decision process via bean-counter papers and documentation. All of these point toward meeting goals and successful testing. The current OSD Rapid Funding statement was published prior to the current awards for polywell, thus do not reflect them. The next update should provide further insight to justifications for the funding. They knew the money was going to flow, and therefore added the line item. But in doing so, also knew that it would substantially increase program visbility, and thus scrutiny. None of these folks are in a position to make wild gambles like some British and American stock brokers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4784
Location: North East Coast
Chris - To further the point (from: http://www.defenselink.mil/recovery/pla ... Mar_09.pdf);

"The Components submitted multiple energy-related RDT&E candidate projects, studies and
proposals for review in five broad areas listed below. Candidate projects were submitted to the
Energy Security Task Force, which is comprised of representatives from the Military Services,
Defense Agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense staff, and chaired by the Director,
Defense Research and Engineering, for review and to de-conflict funding being spent on the
same kinds of research. Another goal of the Energy Security Task Force review was to place a
priority on RDT&E projects for near-term demonstration."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Posts: 5862
Location: OlyPen WA
Both of these (the $.3M and the $2M funding lines) have been discussed at some length since the beginning of FY09. Indeed, the $2M Recovery Act pot has grown to $8M with a $4.5M rider.

This is evidence to me that either the Polywell has proven itself ambiguously, or that folks in the Navy are just really stupid. I choose to believe the former. chrismb seems to choose the latter. Maybe I am just hearing him/her wrong.

I say ambiguously because if it had been unambiguous, I suspect they funding would have been ~$200M over many years. But I could be just totally wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4784
Location: North East Coast
Please note that the decision for Recovery Act funding was made by the Energy Task Force which is above the navy. It was an OSD level decision. this includes the funding plus ups (which presumably was made from the un-assigned reserve funds from the total budget). The commmitee would have reviewed the brief package which would have had the highlights from WB7(.1) and Peer Review, as well as Current Project Status.

"Candidate projects were submitted to the Energy Security Task Force, which is comprised of representatives from the Military Services,
Defense Agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense staff, and chaired by the Director, Defense Research and Engineering"

I do not think this group is dumb, and given the visibility that a project gets when it is put on the "President's Fund" list, along with required reporting to OWH and Congress, they are not going to make stupid choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Posts: 5862
Location: OlyPen WA
ladajo wrote:
I do not think this group is dumb, and given the visibility that a project gets when it is put on the "President's Fund" list, along with required reporting to OWH and Congress, they are not going to make stupid choices.
Neither do I, which is why I believe that Polywell has proven itself ambiguously. If it had been UNambiguous, I suspect the push would have been for MUCH bigger bucks. I could be wrong. It could happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group