Tax-payer funded basic research.

[krenshala]

Please reprint the actual sentence that you claim I said you can patent an idea. I would, indeed seem to have forgotten, if that is you claim and you are correct. So, just reprint the sentence in that post. I can't see it.

So, you deny the part of your post I previously quoted is from you?

It seems pretty obvious that when someone says, "You can't patent X" and you reply, "Yer wrong, you know nothing about patents" that you are saying, "You can patent X".

[krenshala]

I guess the issue is that the Navy may think it's 6.1, we are likely to find a majority view it's 6.2, and EMC2 are arguing it's 6.3!

It can't be 6.1, because of the phrase "without specific applications toward processes or products in mind", which rules out the what the WB7+ experiments/studies (and probably most of the earlier experiments in this chain of projects done by Dr. Bussard) have been about. I think its 6.3, myself, but I can see the argument for 6.2 being its actual classification.

[KitemanSA]

The navy thinks it is Basic Research. I personally think it is 6.2 seeking justification for 6.3, but the navy believes it is 6.1 (probably until April). This also may have something to do with the protection of the project aspect.

Why do you think the Navy thinks it is 6.1? Everything I read in the SO&A indicates at LEAST 6.2 and edging into 6.3.

Please note that the statement is VALIDATE basic physics and ... potential applications. This says "6.2" at least. 6.1 would have been the shooting of materials with other materials to determine cross section and stuff like that.

[icarus]

If the Navy views this project as anything other than "Basic Research" they open themselves to ridicule. Until they can demonstrate net power feasibility then it is unquestionably a tool of basic research, perhaps no more than a curiosity that will end up next to the mechanical tide calculators in the Smithsonian.

[chrismb]

Please reprint the actual sentence that you claim I said you can patent an idea. I would, indeed seem to have forgotten, if that is you claim and you are correct. So, just reprint the sentence in that post. I can't see it.

So, you deny the part of your post I previously quoted is from you?

It seems pretty obvious that when someone says, "You can't patent X" and you reply, "Yer wrong, you know nothing about patents" that you are saying, "You can patent X".

You need to read the whole of texts rather than picking and choosing.

The bit I was saying he was wrong to was that a thing has to be developed before filing. I have said nothing about the patentability of an 'idea', but still if the 'idea' can be put into a set of claims and has an original inventive step then it is still possible.

If a person claims "A AND B" and I say he's wrong, I only have to show that A is wrong to prove that the whole is wrong. I said nothing about GIT's "B" statement relating to 'an idea'.

IT IS NOT AS GIT HAS CLAIMED - IN NEED OF BEING DEVELOPED BEFORE FILING. Providing the idea contains the essential inventive step, you can file it.

this is too boring now....

[chrismb]

I guess the issue is that the Navy may think it's 6.1, we are likely to find a majority view it's 6.2, and EMC2 are arguing it's 6.3!

It can't be 6.1, because of the phrase "without specific applications toward processes or products in mind", which rules out the what the WB7+ experiments/studies (and probably most of the earlier experiments in this chain of projects done by Dr. Bussard) have been about. I think its 6.3, myself, but I can see the argument for 6.2 being its actual classification.

SPECIFIC is the key word. So far it has been for the GENERAL production of energy. Until one has demonstrated the power output, how can one know what specific applications it can be put to?

Navy must see it as 6.1. I'm with the burning bird-man on this one.

[KitemanSA]

If the Navy views this project as anything other than "Basic Research" they open themselves to ridicule. Until they can demonstrate net power feasibility then it is unquestionably a tool of basic research, perhaps no more than a curiosity that will end up next to the mechanical tide calculators in the Smithsonian.

I do believe that you and they have different understandings of the term "basic research". You write "unquestionably a tool of basic research" and I think, "this guy is nuts, it is unquestionably a combination of mostly applied research (Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met) and a bit of work on advanced technology demostration (the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests). Anything else is ludicrous.

[chrismb]

it is unquestionably a combination of mostly applied research (Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met) and a bit of work on advanced technology demostration

Of course it is 'questionably' so. That is far too strong.

SO, what you are saying now, then, is that if a specific need can be envisioned then EMC2 now KNOW how much power this thing will give out to meet that need?

If I say to you 'hey, kitey, I have a special battery and I want it to power a car' you're gonna say, 'OK so how big is the battery and what's its max current draw' because this'll make a difference between a toy car and a real one.and then a city car to a big 4x4. And I say 'hey, chill, I dunno, I'm just doing some work to see if it works out first!!" . This is CLEARLY not a scenario of a SPECIFIC application.

Your arguments to date are cogent, even if I don't agree with them. But this is too far. This is like saying I have a project for ZPE that will power a starship, and therefore (because I have identified the need) it is now BEYOND basic research. That's a bit crazy. Just think it through a little.... there is no dishonour in backtracking a little.

[KitemanSA]

it is unquestionably a combination of mostly applied research (Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met) and a bit of work on advanced technology demostration

Of course it is 'questionably' so. That is far too strong.

SO, what you are saying now, then, is that if a specific need can be envisioned then EMC2 now KNOW how much power this thing will give out to meet that need?

Definitely not. I am saying that the research they are doing now is to gain the knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met which makes it research toward an application and thus "Applied Research". Very simple really.

And it doesn't say a "specific application", it says a "specific NEED" and providing power to a CRUDES size ship is a specific need. Research leading to the "knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which" than need MAY be met is by definition "applied research". This should be so obvious to anyone who isn't trying to support an untenable position that further discussion seems pointless.

And by the way, in specific instances, the task provides for design work toward hardware for a specific "fielded" application and thus the contract could be considered at least in part to be 6.3.

[chrismb]

Like I say, I think you should think this through. Merely being able to state a future application does not evidence 'applied research'. Some basic level of understanding performance must be achieved before you can consider what applications it may have.

Just explain then, in your understanding, whether the battery example above would be applied or basic research.

[KitemanSA]

If I say to you 'hey, kitey, I have a special battery and I want it to power a car' you're gonna say, 'OK so how big is the battery and what's its max current draw' because this'll make a difference between a toy car and a real one.and then a city car to a big 4x4. And I say 'hey, chill, I dunno, I'm just doing some work to see if it works out first!!" . This is CLEARLY not a scenario of a SPECIFIC application.

First, if you came to me as a navy R&D funder with that attitude I'd probable say "get out of here you snotty dipwad".

But more pertainant to the issue, this is a strawman because a goodly number of batteries exist right now but no power-source currently exists that can or is projected to be able to economically provide an alternative to fossile fuel on CRUDES size ships. Your silly scenario and the EMC2 scenario are quite different and attempting to conflate them demonstrates a degree of despiration in your arguement.

Now if you had come to me and said, I have this idea for special battery that can provide an energy storage density equivalent to fossile fuel, are you interested?
I might say yes, I have any number of applications that would benefit from that. What do you need to provide an ATD? (advanced technology demonstrator, 6.3+ R&D.
You might say, well I have to do these tasks to determine exactly how to package the electrods safely and also how to charge the battery the first time to instill a charge memory... Here is my concept and such data as I have to back up my contention that this can be made to work.
Then I might say, well, your presentation is sufficiently convincing and the cost is sufficiently low that I will risk some R&D to develop this technology for my need.
TaDaa... 6.2.
Even if it turns out not to work, it was a good and proper call.
If you aren't failing in at least half of your R&D efforts, you aren't taking enough risk!

[chrismb]

I remain confused by where you are with this. (Sounds like pedantery to me, but, hey, I'm up for pedantery!)

Anyhows, let's try it the other way around; give me an example of some 6.1 type work then, that the Navy would fund?

[ladajo]

Polywell remains an unproven concept. The current phase of research is in pursuit of the predicted scaling laws. Once this is done, then maybe we are looking at 6.2, because they have a proven observed phenomena and would then look to apply it to net power filling a specific need.

[GIThruster]

Chris, all Poly work has always been carried out with the expressed goal of developing a commercial reactor. None of the work is pure research. All of it has always been applied research and development. All of it. All to the goal. All. That makes it "applied" as opposed to "pure" research.

Pure research concerns things like discovery concerning the way the world works. If the goal of the Poly were to figure out all we want to know about Brehm, but had no commercial goals, THEN it would be a pure research project.

Just to be a little more clear about this, lets take the issue of M-E research.

Most of Jim Woodward and co.'s work has been in applied research because almost all of it has been in developing thrusters which have commercial value. There's an exception. The rotator work he did in '08 has no commercial application. It was an experiment designed specifically to demonstrate the existence of Mach Effects (M-E). That experiment succeeded admirably, but it provided only evidence of the science behind M-E. There is no commercial application for the rotator.

The trouble with pure science is that as we handle the evidence, it often provides convincing evidence, without providing compelling evidence. DARPA hasn't stepped forward to say they want to support the work, despite that there are no other explanations for the data from the rotator than the existence of Mach Effects.

So, even in exploratory research, there are good reasons to pursue applied research as opposed to pure research. Pure research seldom motivates the people with the purses. Bussard got this all right from the start when he set out with the goal of developing a commercial reactor.

[chrismb]

Just give me an example of a project that would class as 6.1 that the Navy would fund?

Why are my simple questions so difficult for you folks?