We'll know in....

[ladajo]

Given the USN reluctance to accede to your previous FOIA request, I wonder if we should take up a collection and prepare to hire a lawyer to sue the U.S. government to follow the law.

I had offers of free legal assistance to pursue a FOIA lawsuit by folks that specialize in that sort of thing, it was predicted to be very much winnable.

I chose to let them be.

[KitemanSA]

The worst thing for us, but the best for the program is that WB8 begets funding for WB8.1. I predict that at that point, it will be very hard for ONR to keep the lid on the project. It would be a defacto declaration of Polywell DD/DT viability. PB&J is another thing (WB8.1).

I think you may be over-stating things here just a bit. What it may also mean is there is no hard proof of non-viability. If there are promising but ambiguous results such that another increase in research machine size is needed (1m?) before going to WB-D, then the Navy may go ahead with WB8.1 as a low cost way of helping define that next intermediate step.

I would TRULY love to see them start pushing immediately for WB-D funding (to include Dr. B's small scale MaGrid designs) while running WB8.1 in parallel. That, to me, would show DD viability!

[ladajo]

I dunno, I am basing my thoughts on the way the contracts are worded.
I also think that given the austere budget environment, that to justify money for 8.1 things will need to be more than not unviable.
But, of course, what do we know? Given the info blackout, with mere dribles via recovery.gov, all we can do is speculate and keep faith. I guess on second thought we can also be greatful we have the window via recovery.gov
In any event, I still think that running a FOIA would be more counter productive than anything else at this point. They are going to close out 8.0 here sometime, and what happens coming off that will give us some kind of indications, no matter which way they may be.
The $64 question remains when that will be...we know they got plasma, but are they running fuel yet? One would think yes, but we can not know for sure.

[Giorgio]

I also think that time wise is probably not necessary anymore pursue a FOIA lawsuit.
By the time you win it we will probably have a clear picture of the situation from the evolution of the contracts on the recovery.gov website.

[rjaypeters]

The USN was happy to hand over the data. It was EMC2 that vetoed it going out.

IIRC, the U.S.N. stood over here and pointed at EMC2 and said "they won't let us tell you what we know!" and EMC2 stood over there and pointed at the U.S.N. and said "they won't let us tell you what we know!" Perfectly confusing, I suspect deliberately so.*

I had offers of free legal assistance to pursue a FOIA lawsuit by folks that specialize in that sort of thing, it was predicted to be very much winnable.

I chose to let them be.

I remember and I was and am of the opinion to "Let them work." At the summer solstice, my opinion will change to "EMC2, you took the government's coil so, some of the data, at least, belongs to the U.S. government" and "U.S.N., you are obliged to follow the FOIA, so cough up the data or see you in court!"

* I'll keep in mind what Napoleon is alleged to have said about incompetence and malice. Especially since I have read representations about how competent the U.S.N. officers running this program are.

[chrismb]

The USN was happy to hand over the data. It was EMC2 that vetoed it going out.

IIRC, the U.S.N. stood over here and pointed at EMC2 and said "they won't let us tell you what we know!" and EMC2 stood over there and pointed at the U.S.N. and said "they won't let us tell you what we know!" Perfectly confusing, I suspect deliberately so.*

No, this was never mutually true at any one given moment in time.

Bussard said that about the USN, and it may or may not have been true at that time.

So I suggested a FoI to test EMC2's probity on this. I didn't follow that through, but someone did and it emerged that EMC2 was not limited by the USN. We've never heard from EMC2 since. It's all 'proprietary' now.

EMC2 have definitely changed their tune on this, because once Busard was saying it was all about getting results and energy for all, then the next moment, once he was no longer around it's all gone 'proprietary' and 'single supplier contracts'.

The whole point of me being annoyed about this is that EMC2, as a company, clearly and unequivocally said they were in it for the results and benefits for all, even setting up a charity to which some here have contributed. Now it is all 'commercial interests' on EMC2's behalf and screw everyone else who wants to know anything. It's two-faced hypocrisy. And I don't like that. If they want to keep it all secret, they should've made that crystal-clear by announcement to recant on the things Bussard had promised.

[KitemanSA]

However, it is in the exemptions to solicitation of information under these acts that problems and discrepancies arise. The nine exemptions to the FOIA address issues of sensitivity and personal rights. They are (as listed in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552):[4]

1.(A) specifically authorized .. to be kept secret in the interest of national defense ;
2.related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;[5]
3.specifically exempted from disclosure by statute ...;
4.trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
5. yada;
6. yada;
7. yada...

[chrismb]

"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion... EMC2 will be happy to work with any organization interested in undertaking such a venture." ("The advent of clean nuclear fusion", R Bussard)

What trade secrets?

[KitemanSA]

"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion... EMC2 will be happy to work with any organization interested in undertaking such a venture." ("The advent of clean nuclear fusion", R Bussard)

What trade secrets?

The ones they will use when they are "happy to work with any organization interested in undertaking such a venture." Certainly you don't think that "working with any organization" means they are going to give their trade sectrets away to EVERY organization! Do you understand the distinction between "any" and "every"? Seems that the Navy constitutes the current "any organization" that is interested in Polywell Power reaching a conclusion. And oh by the way, that conclusion doesn't seem to include giving YOU the data. Too bad!

If you are so bloody interested in the data, offer them ~$25M to build the WB-NG and then you will need to deside whether YOU want to give away your data. Make sure it is in your contract to allow you to do so. Might find that the $25M becomes $250M or more.

[chrismb]

Certainly you don't think that "working with any organization" means they are going to give their trade sectrets away to EVERY organization! Do you understand the distinction between "any" and "every"?

OK, let's look at the rest of Bussard's quote;

"The achievement of full scale IEF clean fusion power systems would allow easy access to energy, both thermal and electrical, for all nations, and all peoples, everywhere - free from cartels and controlled production and pricing."

er.. no. I think 'any' and 'every' are the same in this context. I see no distinction in this context.

If you are so bloody interested in the data, offer them ~$25M to build the WB-NG and then you will need to deside whether YOU want to give away your data. Make sure it is in your contract to allow you to do so. Might find that the $25M becomes $250M or more.

That is a stupid thing to say, and you damned well know it.

If *I* had 25M then *I* can do what I like with it. Bit if *I* spend 25M of tax payer's on a project, then, damned right I would want everyone to benefit from the data.

Talk-polywell is an organisation. The folks here have already expressed, and demonstrate, a desire to participate and contribute. Nebel has even been here. But, SLAM, no information any more.

I will say/reiterate;

1) polywell research was definitely supposed to usher in access to the research by and from a wider set of folks, under Bussard's remit, which has been axed for profit motives now he's gone

2) The information that lead to funding of WB8 isn't going to change. EMC2 has a responsibility to release that information. It has not done so.

3) I do not understand the purpose of talk-polywell. It is demonstrating itself as being merely a bunch of sycophantic cheer-leaders, because no-one seems to be saying here 'yeah, I want to know the information NOW'. If this 'community' is happy to wait for an outcome, then at that point everyone else will know, so what's this waiting-around-for-that-news about if we're not here to push for it? If WE are not going to push for it, and all we are going to get is leftovers once EMC2 go straight to the press [are you daft enough to think they'll post info here first!?!?!] then what the crap is the point of THIS FORUM? It's not like anyone's got any theory worth talking about any more, it's been gone over time and time and time again.

As no-one has commented that they have any interest in seeing and discussing data, until it is already released into the public forum, then I conclude this forum is now dead to its purpose.

[ladajo]

Chris,
Is not the purpose of the Forum to support the project as best we can?
In this context, if we take actions that could politicize or disrupt the main source of funding for EMC2 would that not bring some level of harm to the project?
I am all for something along the lines of Focus Fusion or Marc Suppes type approach. However, for reasons know to ONR and EC2 they believe they need to stay low key for now. Is this from a malicious desire to vampire money from the US Taxpayers? Or is it a self protection act to minimize unwanted influence or interference from other competing interests within the navy, government, and/or private sector?
I am inclined to believe the later vice the former. And in this, I am inclined to think that for now, it is better to leave them be, and be ready to support if and when asked.
It is a very volatile money environment right now, and funding control folks are taking head shots at programs left and right. The EMC2 relative issue I see right now is that it is a small project, with iffy payoff. That makes it much easier to justify ONR and other fund sources to walk away, and let someone else pay. Right now EMC is on a funded track with product target dates and accountability (at least to ONR).
Will they get to a point where it is a wash or they can no longer keep the genie in the bag? I think absolutely yes. And I would prefer to think that it will become a genie out of the bag issue, but that is merely my personal speculation and faith.

[chrismb]

Chris,
Is not the purpose of the Forum to support the project as best we can?
In this context, if we take actions that could politicize or disrupt the main source of funding for EMC2 would that not bring some level of harm to the project?

I do not agree with that view. Things are made stronger by testing them. Things become weak if they are not stressed and put under duress. Weak ideas in the project will flourish if there is insufficient scrutiny and no-one thinks anyone has the power to ask questions.

Name me a species which has grown stronger by allowing the weak individuals to flourish. Name me a project which resulted in a better outcome when weaknesses were allowed to remain by people avoiding answering questions and trying to keep them in for their own interests.

Scrutiny and stress is as critical to good science as it is to good democracy as it is to all things. EMC2 have been getting away with a Government comfort-blanket for so long I would bet that the 'ideas' within it have grown fat and lazy compared with how they could be if more eyes were looking and asking questions. EMC2 needs someone to un-gag it from its suckling dummy, then it might make suitable progress for all to see. Spare the rod, spoil the child, &c., &c..

If polywell cannot survive a bit of external scrutiny, then the bottom line is that this isn't science. In fact, it is worse than the Rossi saga, because at least with Rossi he's giving demonstrations. EMC2 aren't even giving demonstrations! So we can't accuse Rossi of being 'unscientific' without casting EMC2 into the same mold.

[chrismb]

Chris,
Is not the purpose of the Forum to support the project as best we can?

So, you are saying that the best way to support 'the project' is to do nothing at all?

Exactly my point, the forum has died. Sometimes it is better to die that to languish and linger around until you are obsolete.

[Giorgio]

Talk-polywell is an organisation. The folks here have already expressed, and demonstrate, a desire to participate and contribute. Nebel has even been here. But, SLAM, no information any more.

True, but you can't oblige someone that is not willing/allowed to participate anymore to the forum to do so.

3) I do not understand the purpose of talk-polywell. It is demonstrating itself as being merely a bunch of sycophantic cheer-leaders, because no-one seems to be saying here 'yeah, I want to know the information NOW'.

Sycophant to whom?
There is no one here that is influential enough to give us some backstage info anyhow.....

If this 'community' is happy to wait for an outcome, then at that point everyone else will know, so what's this waiting-around-for-that-news about if we're not here to push for it?

This community is not happy to wait, and I am certainly not, but is not like we have many options.
If you think that a FOIA could help the cause and you are a US citizen than go along. Most of us are not US citizen, so we can't do much about FOIA.

If WE are not going to push for it, and all we are going to get is leftovers once EMC2 go straight to the press [are you daft enough to think they'll post info here first!?!?!] then what the crap is the point of THIS FORUM? It's not like anyone's got any theory worth talking about any more, it's been gone over time and time and time again.

Why leftover? I believe most people are here just because they want a clear answer about the possibility of having a working Polywell or not.
Sure, having some news in advance is nice, but is not really going to change our life if we just wait until the news is public before discussing them.

[Giorgio]

Chris,
Is not the purpose of the Forum to support the project as best we can?

So, you are saying that the best way to support 'the project' is to do nothing at all?

Exactly my point, the forum has died. Sometimes it is better to die that to languish and linger around until you are obsolete.

It all depends on the purpose you give to the forum.

If your main scope is to find here technical info in advance of public release, than yes, you can consider this forum dead.

If you are looking on a place where to find like minded that can discuss about fusion possibility using a polywell or other means, as well as a plethora of different arguments with quite a level of expertise, than this forum is pretty alive and in good health.

But again, this is a subjective point.