ARPA-E looking for new Energy Technologies

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:39 am

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show ... =217200483

I'm wondering if polywell is ready for this yet?? Dr. Nebel any input?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:52 pm

The FOA states in part

B. Cost Sharing (or Matching)
The recipient must provide cost share of at least 20% of the total allowable costs for R&D projects of an applied nature (i.e., the sum of the Government share, including FFRDC contractor costs if applicable, and the recipient share of allowable costs equals the total allowable cost of the project).

Can we gather the 20% quickly enough? It's only $40M!

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:36 pm

The centers are expected to employ 1,800 university, industry and government researchers. Each center will receive between $2 million and $5 million a year "for an initial period of five years," the Obama administration said.

I'm thinking it would be 20% of max $5 million, min $2 million.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:32 pm

gblaze42 wrote:
The centers are expected to employ 1,800 university, industry and government researchers. Each center will receive between $2 million and $5 million a year "for an initial period of five years," the Obama administration said.
I'm thinking it would be 20% of max $5 million, min $2 million.

I'll give you $10M to $25M vice $200M as the upper limit of available funds. So we need to come up with $2M to $5M if we want to do any real good. Could a truly valuable contribution to the Polywell effort be made for $10M to $25M? What I have seen so far is that some more expressive folks on this forum think we need AT LEAST $40M to take the next logical step. Anything else is just playing at research. Could it be done with less?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:34 pm

IIRC I asked the same question and MSimon's estimate was 10M$, revised from 20.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:32 am

So the real question is: can we come up with $2M in a way that is acceptable to EMC2 and it's owners. I have a few ideas on that. It might require selling the rights to build NotForProfit plants in some third world countries.

Anyone know someone who might be interested?

DrN? Dolly?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:27 am

Betruger wrote:IIRC I asked the same question and MSimon's estimate was 10M$, revised from 20.

That is correct. MRI 1T magnets. Close to break even.

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:33 am

The way I see it any money for research would be a good thing for polywell. Something like ARPA-E would push Polywell into mainstream research, instead of on the fringe. I really don't know why any of you would be against that?!

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 am

MSimon wrote:
Betruger wrote:IIRC I asked the same question and MSimon's estimate was 10M$, revised from 20.
That is correct. MRI 1T magnets. Close to break even.

Cheap Magnets do not save as much as I thought. I'm back to around $15 to $20 million.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:19 am

gblaze42 wrote:The way I see it any money for research would be a good thing for polywell. Something like ARPA-E would push Polywell into mainstream research, instead of on the fringe. I really don't know why any of you would be against that?!

Any money woiuld, but not from ARPA-E. They are not looking for incremental results. Breakthrough only please.

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:17 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
gblaze42 wrote:The way I see it any money for research would be a good thing for polywell. Something like ARPA-E would push Polywell into mainstream research, instead of on the fringe. I really don't know why any of you would be against that?!
Any money woiuld, but not from ARPA-E. They are not looking for incremental results. Breakthrough only please.

Yes so? there's only two things that would stop polywell as candidate for ARPA-E.
1) a Navy exclusivity signed agreement.
2) or Polywell isn't viable.

I believe it's the number 1.

Every researcher knows that their research may not pan out, it's the potential of a breakthrough that ARPA-E would be looking at.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:44 pm

gblaze42 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
gblaze42 wrote:The way I see it any money for research would be a good thing for polywell. Something like ARPA-E would push Polywell into mainstream research, instead of on the fringe. I really don't know why any of you would be against that?!
Any money woiuld, but not from ARPA-E. They are not looking for incremental results. Breakthrough only please.
Yes so? there's only two things that would stop polywell as candidate for ARPA-E.
1) a Navy exclusivity signed agreement.
2) or Polywell isn't viable.

I believe it's the number 1.

Every researcher knows that their research may not pan out, it's the potential of a breakthrough that ARPA-E would be looking at.

I believe the way the Navy is looking at this is not as a one-shot possibility, but that it may either "pan out" as is, or lead to a set of techniques that will. ARPA-E would be a one-shot deal, and therefore isn't for "us" whom advocate science with respect to Polywell. A one-shot deal could kill this type of research which has some real potential for both understanding Polywell and maintains the potential for a real breakthrough for maritime propulsion.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:02 pm

The way I read the FOA, ARPA-E would possibly fund it IF

It resulted in a break-even, continuous demonstrator;
It cost less than $5M a year for 5 years; and
$1M of that $5M per year was provided by someone else.

Can we do this, yes or no? If not, no ERPA-E

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:18 pm

Looks to me like ARPA-E's first call is a self-confounding one. If a company/venture is prepared to stick 25% into something which is already so risky but may yield some game-changing technology then why would it want any of ARPA's money? What I mean is that it's relatively easy to get leverage on a project - for each X I stick in, you put in X aswell as it's fairly developmental work and likely to give a descent margin, and we go halves on the profit. That's a fairly easy sell to investment money.

Here is ARPA-E's first timid call; I'll stick in X and you, APRA, will stick in 3X for this game changing technology that will totally revolutionise everything.

So what they're *actually* asking for is something that is about twice as risky as a normal business venture (but not more risky than that) that will have the originality to totally change the technology landscape.

They want their cake and eat it.....maybe two cakes....

yeah - right, they're gonna have just queues of really fantastic whacky ideas just flooding in!!

If they are seriously talking about game-changing ultra-high risk technologies, then they need to be talking 100% funding. I'm not sure what this is about, but doesn't look to be in the spirit of the DARPA model on which it is supposedly based.

Oh yes, and they want reasonably well tied down programme paperwork within one month flat, not a minute longer. Y'know, loads of time to make sure that all those folks already working flat out on current stuff have just oodles of time to get everything ready!!! They merely have to drop everything their doing to get this relatively miserly leverage for the best ideas this side of the 20th century.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:25 pm

That one month delay is definitely on the short side... What were they thinking?