WB7.1 Contract Awarded March 3, 2009

[Billy Catringer]

I was on the list that got Dr. B's e-mail when the contract for WB-7 was let. I had no idea he was close to death. I can tell you that he seemed to be a very happy man.

And to have Dr. N say on Cosmic Log that bloggers were a great help in making that happen? I'm going to die (when the time comes) a happy man too.

Sorry, Chief. You ain't allowed to die, happy or otherwise, until the job is done.

Here's what I see happening. The Navy will NOT support or get mixed up in another civilian power program. They've been there and done that once. The Navy came out of that welded to the DOE at the hip.

They will eventually meet treaty requirements by quietly releasing research results. This may well be meet the "letter" not the spirit. Tu comprende?

They will do their absolute best to retain Doctor Nebel and his team on their payroll. The Navy will likely lavish money on the whole bunch. They will be buying taciturnity and terseness for a lack of a better terms.

Iffen' a civilian shore-based system of this kind is going to be built, it will be built by civilians, for civilians and with civilian money. The Navy is going to build its own power plants and, as is typical of the Silent Service, they will do so quietly. Oh, and expect the first fusion powered ship to be a surface ship. It will be the modern equivalent of a batttlewagon.

[Helius]

If the DoE had their way, wind would still be "Part of the Mix" for Naval Warfare as it is to them for the entire economy. Sure, the energy density of wind is so low as to be obviously ridiculous for the base case of a Naval Warship. What's curious, is that it can be so ridiculous in such base cases, yet make so much sense to so many people that Power sources of such low power density are good for entire economies.

Look at the DoE's web site. They want to guarantee that dense and cheap energy sources will never injure or destroy industries of the less energy dense.

Lets hope Polywell can upset *that* apple cart too, once the Navy has their great new power dense energy source.

[JohnSmith]

Oy. A little heavy on the DoE hate there. Using wind on boats vs on land isn't curious at all, any more than it's curious that we don't use perchlorate based fuels in motorcycles.
Sometimes, you don't need the densest energy storage possible. Sometimes, it's a Bad Thing.

[Robthebob]

Man, the whole world is doing horrible, the econ is horrible, and the Navy is still trying to build a war toy?

That first functional reactor better be a power plant.

[MSimon]

Man, the whole world is doing horrible, the econ is horrible, and the Navy is still trying to build a war toy?

That first functional reactor better be a power plant.

It will be a power plant. And it will power a ship. And when the world economy is doing badly you really want a lot of war toys. It discourages war.

I recall that on 7 Dec 1941 we were short more than a few war toys. We spent the next 3 years and some paying for a lack of war toys. And the interest paid for that lack was very significant. A lot of the supposedly insured didn't come home.

War toys are a very funny kind of insurance. The more insurance you carry the less likely you are to have to make a policy claim.

[JohnSmith]

Perl harbour, I guess. I don't understand how you think it applies, since it was a navy fleet that got bombed. Having more ships would have helped?
And arms races prevent wars? Wow, was my history teacher ever wrong!

What does discouraging war have to do with helping the economy? Unless I'm completely out to lunch, you've said yourself that it was a war that ended the last major depression.

All that said, of course the navy is trying to build a 'war toy.' They're the Navy, isn't in their job description somewhere? To protect the US with all the resources they can lay hands on? If I were a US citizen, I certainly wouldn't be happy if they weren't even trying.

[Billy Catringer]

Perl harbour, I guess. I don't understand how you think it applies, since it was a navy fleet that got bombed. Having more ships would have helped?

We were perceived as being an easy target with most of our battleships bottled up in Pearl Harbor, lacking the budget necessary for them to stay out on patrol. Additionally, we were seen as being so un-warlike that it seemed that we would sue for peace immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And arms races prevent wars? Wow, was my history teacher ever wrong!

Yes, he was very wrong. I suspect that if the arms race that was terminated by the Washington and London treaties prior to WWII been continued, the US would never have gotten into a war with Japan. Had it continued, the Japanes would have realized that they had no chance of meeting our production capacity. Before WWII fully ended, the USSR tested our mettle in Greece. The war in Greece is the truly forgotten war in American history. After that cames the so-called "Cold War" which, was for the most part, an arms race. That kept us out of a general conflict. The USSR lost because it was never able to take full advantage of its material resources and manpower.

What does discouraging war have to do with helping the economy? Unless I'm completely out to lunch, you've said yourself that it was a war that ended the last major depression.

It can be overdone. If too much of the country's GDP goes into weaponry and manpower to operate that weaponry, the economy slows to a crawl. Why? Because of taxation.

All that said, of course the navy is trying to build a 'war toy.' They're the Navy, isn't in their job description somewhere? To protect the US with all the resources they can lay hands on? If I were a US citizen, I certainly wouldn't be happy if they weren't even trying.

Agreed. I would be upset.

[Betruger]

Wow, was my history teacher ever wrong!

It's a liability to learn history from a single teacher.

[JohnSmith]

Heh. Probably true, at that. It's good to balance your bias.
Still, I'm thinking of the naval arms race that occurred before WW1. It's agreed by pretty much everyone at this point that it was a contributing factor to the hostilities.
Sorry Billy, but I suspect you're wrong about an arms race helping to prevent PH.
I admit that I don't see a way to avoid them, but all arms races do is escalate tensions and produce more destructive weapons.

And Billy, cite your sources on the war economy overload. I've never heard that before.

[Betruger]

Tensions wouldn't escalate if Switzerland doubled or tripled their arms volume. An armed society is a polite society. We're off topic now; maybe you could start a new thread in the General forum if you want to discuss this further.

[Rick Kwan]

What I read into this is that the Navy doesn't want to derail the program by putting it on DoE's radar. I understand this to a degree.

The problem is, we really do need some better civilian energy alternatives to what exists. There are a couple of other approaches using p+B11 as fuel which are getting private funding, and are probably going to attract more because they can talk about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone else can really run with Polywell because EMC2 has all the relevant patents. No venture company is going to take this on under these conditions. Unless EMC2 can license to someone else (with Navy permission) or the Navy completely lifts the gag order, it might as well proceed in the commercial space at the rate of ITER.

[Billy Catringer]

And Billy, cite your sources on the war economy overload. I've never heard that before.

Sorry, John. I am not about to send you copies of my tax returns.

[MSimon]

Perl harbour, I guess. I don't understand how you think it applies, since it was a navy fleet that got bombed. Having more ships would have helped?
And arms races prevent wars? Wow, was my history teacher ever wrong!

Yes. Your history teacher was wrong. Had we had a few more carriers on the West Coast and in the Atlantic it would have been very helpful in either preventing WW2 or bringing it to a speedier conclusion.

One only need look at the war with the Soviets. We never got into a direct confrontation with them because the odds of them being victorious was not good enough for a roll of the dice.

What does discouraging war have to do with helping the economy? Unless I'm completely out to lunch, you've said yourself that it was a war that ended the last major depression.

There are much less destructive ways to engage productive machinery. But if you think killing a 1/2 million Americans (roughly), and 30 to 50 million others is a good way to end a depression why not just say so. It is not something I favor. In fact I prefer to work against that sort of thing.

All that said, of course the navy is trying to build a 'war toy.' They're the Navy, isn't in their job description somewhere? To protect the US with all the resources they can lay hands on? If I were a US citizen, I certainly wouldn't be happy if they weren't even trying.

OK. We agree on something.

[MSimon]

John,

It wasn't the arms race per se. It was the fact that no trusted power had unquestioned superiority. The Brits handled that job until 1914 to 1919. After that they abdicated. And America was not willing to take on the job (mainly for cultural reasons) until the devastation of WW2 changed a lot of American minds.

[JohnSmith]

Yes, having more ships probably would have sped WWII up. Maybe prevented it altogether. Who can say? Also possible would be a buildup of arms on both sides, until an attack happens anyway.

One only need look at the war with the Soviets. We never got into a direct confrontation with them because the odds of them being victorious was not good enough for a roll of the dice.

Speculation. I tend to disagree, though it's certainly possible.

There are much less destructive way to engage productive machinery. But if you think killing a 1/2 million Americans (roughly), and 30 to 50 million others is a good way to end a depression why not just say so. It is not something I favor. In fact I prefer to work against that sort of thing.

Did I say it was a good thing? You said preventing war is good for the economy. I disagreed.

I think Betruger is right, we've hijacked this thread. Let's either move to general or call for closing arguments.