We'll know in....

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:38 pm

Chris,
How many times have you "quit" the Forum now? You keep coming back. Is it to kick a dead animal? Or is there something alive that catches your interest from time to time?

Right now, EMC2 and ONR choose not to release info for reasons of their own. The stated claim is proprietary control, regardless of what validity is placed by Forum parties on the position. It is what they are doing. How long or how effectively that can continue are unrelated matters.

In the mean time, this Forum provides a vehicle to compare notes on others efforts, track what little we do have in the public domain, as well as have some fun crossing swords and learning from each other on a variety of interesting topics.
I am with Giorgio in this Forum being very much alive, even the most alive point for Polywell.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:02 pm

ladajo wrote:Chris,
How many times have you "quit" the Forum now? You keep coming back. Is it to kick a dead animal? Or is there something alive that catches your interest from time to time?

Once. I went once, and someone was asking questions about something I put and I got dragged back in. Maybe a mistake all around. Can't tell. I guess a couple of things have popped up since, but the noise/interest ratio is pretty high these days. I can't say I am innocent to adding to that noise, by any means, but there it is. I'd tend to consider the lack of signal as the significant issue.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:22 pm

chrismb wrote: 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.

Sorry, don't see how either Rossi or EMC2 are doing classical "science" and, therefore, I don't see how they are beholden to any definition of scientific "scrutiny" that you are think is appropriate. They are independent businesses with inventions that they are trying to make work. So I agree, this is not science.

In the case of EMC2, they have a contract to follow and obligations of that contract that involve scrutiny as defined by the contract but not by any other measure.

This is like saying that Edison can't make a light bulb without a full scientific review and publication. It's the difference between inventors and scientists, between companies and universities. Publication and scrutiny may come out of it, but it is not necessary to the process.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:00 pm

chrismb wrote:Name me a species which has grown stronger by allowing the weak individuals to flourish.

Define "strength." Define "weakness." I believe you are invoking the Darwinian struggle for survival. No one can tell what will survive until everything else dies.

However, your point is well made. The data on polywell fusion derived from the U.S.N. contracts should have been released. Polywell fusion, IMO, would have benefitted from everything you have advocated from public scrutiny.

I have not written my own FOIA because I am trying to be patient. I am not satisfied with the current status, I won't be happy with merely indirect indicators of success (e.g. the U.S.N. funds the WB8.1 option, etc.), but we have waited this long, a little longer won't make much difference I think. Beyond the summer solstice I am not willing to wait. Which is why I asked if we should get ready with a lawyer.

If, after the summer, ladajo doesn't want to proceed with his FOIA request, want write to one or help me write my own?

"bunch of sycophantic cheer-leaders": please. If you mistake patience for sycophancy, well...perhaps you use a different definition than most.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:30 pm

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: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.

Do you really not understand the context of that statement? Are you unaware that he was offered a goodly sum by venture capitalists but declined the money, it seems, due to ownership and control issues?

That quote in NO way implies he was planning to give it away to the world. It merely indicates to me that he believed it should remain in the control of HIS company which HE thought would keep it free from "cartels and controlled production and pricing."

Your appearant belief that he planned, or promised, to give it away to the world is truly bizarre, and totally unsupported by any statement I have EVER seen!

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:35 pm

rjaypeters wrote:"bunch of sycophantic cheer-leaders": please. If you mistake patience for sycophancy, well...perhaps you use a different definition than most.

This is in reference to comments along the lines 'but Nebel said XYA, which is gospel and not open to question'. I regard that as sycophantic. If you [the reader] has not made such comments, then it doesn't apply. But there are several here who seek to take what Nebel and Bussard have said without any sense of demanding the comments undergo scrutiny.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:37 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Are you unaware that he was offered a goodly sum by venture capitalists but declined the money, it seems, due to ownership and control issues?

Nope, I was not aware of that. So what changed at EMC2 HQ?

Your appearant belief that he planned, or promised, to give it away to the world is truly bizarre, and totally unsupported by any statement I have EVER seen!

I disagree. We merely disagree over the interpretation of that quote. Maybe I will look some more, and I suspect I am more likely to find words covering my interpretation more than you are yours.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:44 pm

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Are you unaware that he was offered a goodly sum by venture capitalists but declined the money, it seems, due to ownership and control issues?
Nope, I was not aware of that. So what changed at EMC2 HQ?

Nothing, as far as I know. Dolly is still running the show the same way. What makes you think there has been a change?

chrismb wrote:
Your appearant belief that he planned, or promised, to give it away to the world is truly bizarre, and totally unsupported by any statement I have EVER seen!
I disagree. We merely disagree over the interpretation of that quote. Maybe I will look some more, and I suspect I am more likely to find words covering my interpretation more than you are yours.

Good luck!

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:37 pm

chrismb,

rjaypeters wrote:If, after the summer, ladajo doesn't want to proceed with his FOIA request, want write to one or help me write my own?

I guess not.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:40 pm

rjaypeters wrote:chrismb,
rjaypeters wrote:If, after the summer, ladajo doesn't want to proceed with his FOIA request, want write to one or help me write my own?
I guess not.

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore that line. Maybe we can, if my disappointments haven't turned into disinterest by then.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:02 pm

Great. If it comes to that, I hope ladajo will kind enough to put the lawyers he mentioned in contact with me...I suspect at least one will be needed.

Keep what little faith you have, sometimes the believers are right.

Speaking of hopeless causes, I started a thread (in which you participated) concerning the U.S. attack against Libya late last month. I merely want President Obama to be impeached and, at the least, censured by the Congress. I have less hope for that effort than for finally getting some data out of the U.S.N. or EMC2.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:08 pm

I don't think any lawyering will be required. I feel his FoI was too broad and I would ask for something much more narrow.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:57 pm

Chris, in the back and forth process, revisions, clarifications, et all that I went thorugh, the final tabled package was very specifc, and included a caveat to leave out proprietary information. The end result was that the specific reports requested were deemed completely proprietary by EMC2.

The FOIA was boiled into specifics, and then denied via the one mechanism that could justify. If you file now, you may see something by Fall after the back and forths. And that would not include an appeals process, which would in turn roll over a good part of the Winter. Once the Appeal is completed, depending on what degree of success you may have, at that point it could be filed in court for FOIA compellance. Then that would run its course.

All in all, the Appeal would more than likely generate a success, with the reports being reviewed for redactions. However, the degree of success would remain to be seen. The other result of this process would be to elevate visibility and undue scrutiny of the program, and make it harder to fund and continue support for as it would be probably deemed a problem child program, not worth the pain and effort.

If you want Polywell to have the best chance for free and open access technology, give EMC2 a chance. The Navy has no interest to take this black, and hide it. In fact it would be nigh impossible. IMHO the greatest risk would be the EMC2 would find itself lacking for navy funds, and have to make a deal with a large corporate devil to bring this to fruition (or get quietly killed by lawyers).

I am happy for now to let this play out. I can wait for neutron counts and whatnot. If it is going to work, we will find out soon enough, and then everyone and his brother are going to try and build their own. A blanket patent on this is impossible. For one thing, many other countries will not care. They are just going to do it once it becomes known it can be done.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:07 pm

So, if EMC2 are reading this - and if they are not then more fool them, if the commercial interests are that significant - why don't they release some limited and controlled information that will help folks understand where the plasma measurements are at?

I have no sympathy. If it were to be killed as a consequence of someone asking questions, it is killed because of EMC2's own intransigence in not addressing those questions before that stage.

I am unsympathetic to your position, as I do not think it holds water.

We've never asked for 'all' information here. We know and understand there may be proprietary details they want to hold on to. So why doesn't Nebel come back and agree to answer some questions of where they are at? This way, we get some satisfaction and they get to control the level of disclosure.

It is a 'lightweight' attitude to roll over and hope that someone else knows what they are doing with tax payers' cash, without scrutiny. It is up to EMC2 to actively demonstrate what they are doing with the cash and where they are at. If there are issues due to interested folks chasing them for info, why is that the 'fault' of anyone, other than EMC2?

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:20 pm

ladajo wrote:Chris, in the back and forth process, revisions, clarifications, et all that I went thorugh, the final tabled package was very specifc,

Excellent. Your package, so specifically tailored, contains the information we need.

ladajo wrote:If you file now, you may see something by Fall after the back and forths.

What back-and-forths? If you share youre package, we will know exactly what to write.

ladajo wrote:All in all, the Appeal would more than likely generate a success, with the reports being reviewed for redactions. However, the degree of success would remain to be seen.

You have told us the volunteer lawyers say there is a "very winnable" chance. So let's take it.

ladajo wrote:The other result of this process would be to elevate visibility and undue scrutiny of the program, and make it harder to fund and continue support for as it would be probably deemed a problem child program, not worth the pain and effort.

Let me see if I understand. You contend one (or two) FOIA requests will be sufficient trouble or cause sufficient visibility for the ONR to walk away? Straining my credulity.

ladajo wrote:If you want Polywell to have the best chance for free and open access technology, give EMC2 a chance.

We have. By the beginning of summer, time's up and long passed.

ladajo wrote:IMHO the greatest risk would be the EMC2 would find itself lacking for navy funds, and have to make a deal with a large corporate devil to bring this to fruition (or get quietly killed by lawyers).

How will it die now? If EMC2 makes a deal with a behemoth, it will be obvious, won't that attract attention?

ladajo wrote:I am happy for now to let this play out.

I know. But beyond the start of summer 2011 is ridiculous. Do you promise to appeal by summer? Else, given the lengthy timeline, chrismb and I should get started now. If you really want to help us, please provide the specific text of your latest submission. That step would greatly speed our effort.

I'm sorry if I'm extra cantakerous today, I dealt with some (un)Civil Servants.