Eventually, they will have to come clean about spending tax payer dollars, and what was done with them.
And yes, I do agree that EMC2 and ONR would be better served to give some info on progress vice none. It would more than certainly quell some of the desires to force info out of them. And at the end of the day, the hot potato they are playing with is only hotter than Focus Fusion because they are playing with taxpayer money via a government contract.
I really do not see the harm in leaving them be for now. They have gotten this far, why not let them complete the final stretch in peace?
I reall y do think that one way or another the project is going to come to light. By my estimation, they should be running fuel now. And if they haven't cycled up to full power (I assume they are following the standard incremental build up method) yet, then they are close to doing it. Once they get to full power, then the first run will give them a good indicator of how scaling is tracking, as I am sure they have predicted numbers to post real results against. It will be a rough indicator, but an indicator all the same until they can reduce all the data. I think that given they ran first plasma in November, the Holiday break and all, giev it a month or so, it would make sense that they have fueled by sometime in February. Figure a week or so per power increase test step, another couple of months to get to full power using 10% increases. So say Feb, Mar & Apr for full power fueled runs. Then they will need to make some test repetitions in order to reduce statistical error, and viola, they are tracking for say May/Jun to commence full report data reduction and Analysis. But at this point they already have a good idea how things tracked against predicitions, and are therefore either ready to call it, or press ahead with a review panel report package so they can get WB8.1 funding on tap. That process will take some time to play out, so figure that they will produce and submit the panel report. The panel will take some time to review, then come together to haggle over the results in person, then take a little more time to draft a panel report and recommendations package. Say if they sit down by August or Sep, with a report submitted in a month or so, I would expect the funding to clear the admin process within the following 6 months. So figure that with approval and funding, they can begin the 8.1 program by early 2012. In the meantime, folks are going to be handwringing over the DD/DT results & implications.
If you look back at previous milestone timing from the WB6 and WB7 projects, as well as the gap fillers, I think you will find that the proposed timeline I am laying down is fair.
In regard to getting Dr. Nebel to pop up up the forum and play Q&A with us again, good luck. I think there is some ambiguity of his status with the project given that he has dropped off the Recovery.gov report and been replaced by Dr. Park, but his name still remains on the EMC2 website as a POC email (not that EMC2 has ever been timely about website updates...).
Again, given the time and effort to run all variants and options, it would seem the least cost most productive option is just to let them play out WB8.0.
Maybe Dean can pop Rick an email and ask him for a project update. That should clear up several things. Rick's status, current EMC2 policy regarding information release, and current navy position covering information release. The most current we have is navy saying the release of info is up to EMC2, and EMC2 claiming proprietary, which can be argued that the navy (ONR) when confronted with no direct means to block the FOIA in the short term, suggested to EMC2 to claim proprietary as an option, as has been argued.
In any event, if Chris or Rjay start a FOIA now, based on my experience, they will get nothing meaningful by at least the end of the year, if not longer, depending on appeals and legal avenues. I personally would also wait for WB8.0 to conclude, and thus be able to target the WB8 final report as well as the review panel findings. A FOIA is only required to address those things that exist on the date it is submitted.
All in all, it would seem to be better to wait & see.
We'll know in....
As I recall, you quit, then came back and said, "no, I really mean it I quit." Then lurked hidden for a bit, then popped up again and said against your better judgement you will comment, but fully intend to quit, then quit again after a bit, only to come back again, but that time without the better judgement stance, and no longer claiming you quit.chrismb wrote: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.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?
Must be something about us you can't live without.
Speaking of open source research, how is your secret project going these days?
OK, I think I did try to back out once or twice. I only recall 'a final declaration' once!!! 
Two years [whenever] ago it was 'we'll know in two year'. I've now waited those two years. That's being bloody patient! Before that it was 25 year. When is long enough!? This has [no longer "will"] become a recursive absurdity.
If this goes on, you'll be able to use exactly the same argument next year, and the year after, and the year after, &c....
Why do you think Art left? Why do you think we've not heard from MSimon recently [amongst several other previous regulars]? The answer seems simple; they've got more sense than I have!!
How far? I mean... how far... !?! We've got squat information to get even a Norwegian mile close to comprehending what 'this far' means. They could've just blown the cash so far on a grand 'design workshop conference' at a luxury holiday hotel in the Caribbean for all we know, and claimed it is 'work in progress'.ladajo wrote: They have gotten this far
...&c.. Can't you hear yourself...all if's and maybes. Not a single fact you can lay here. THAT'S the issue!!!!ladajo wrote:By my estimation, they should be ... if they haven't...I assume ...Once they get to full power... I am sure they have predicted ...I think that ...giev it a month or so, it would make sense that they have fueled by sometime in February....So say Feb, Mar & Apr ...Say if they sit down ... I would expect ... figure that
Two years [whenever] ago it was 'we'll know in two year'. I've now waited those two years. That's being bloody patient! Before that it was 25 year. When is long enough!? This has [no longer "will"] become a recursive absurdity.
If this goes on, you'll be able to use exactly the same argument next year, and the year after, and the year after, &c....
Why do you think Art left? Why do you think we've not heard from MSimon recently [amongst several other previous regulars]? The answer seems simple; they've got more sense than I have!!
So this reads to me that you, ladajo, have gone from being the guy who was going to hold EMC2 to account and deliver information to satisfy their public contract, to the guy who is saying leave them alone and wait and see.ladajo wrote:Eventually, they will have to come clean about spending tax payer dollars, and what was done with them.
And yes, I do agree that EMC2 and ONR would be better served to give some info on progress vice none. It would more than certainly quell some of the desires to force info out of them. And at the end of the day, the hot potato they are playing with is only hotter than Focus Fusion because they are playing with taxpayer money via a government contract.
I really do not see the harm in leaving them be for now. They have gotten this far, why not let them complete the final stretch in peace?
I reall y do think that one way or another the project is going to come to light. By my estimation, they should be running fuel now. And if they haven't cycled up to full power (I assume they are following the standard incremental build up method) yet, then they are close to doing it. Once they get to full power, then the first run will give them a good indicator of how scaling is tracking, as I am sure they have predicted numbers to post real results against. It will be a rough indicator, but an indicator all the same until they can reduce all the data. I think that given they ran first plasma in November, the Holiday break and all, giev it a month or so, it would make sense that they have fueled by sometime in February. Figure a week or so per power increase test step, another couple of months to get to full power using 10% increases. So say Feb, Mar & Apr for full power fueled runs. Then they will need to make some test repetitions in order to reduce statistical error, and viola, they are tracking for say May/Jun to commence full report data reduction and Analysis. But at this point they already have a good idea how things tracked against predicitions, and are therefore either ready to call it, or press ahead with a review panel report package so they can get WB8.1 funding on tap. That process will take some time to play out, so figure that they will produce and submit the panel report. The panel will take some time to review, then come together to haggle over the results in person, then take a little more time to draft a panel report and recommendations package. Say if they sit down by August or Sep, with a report submitted in a month or so, I would expect the funding to clear the admin process within the following 6 months. So figure that with approval and funding, they can begin the 8.1 program by early 2012. In the meantime, folks are going to be handwringing over the DD/DT results & implications.
If you look back at previous milestone timing from the WB6 and WB7 projects, as well as the gap fillers, I think you will find that the proposed timeline I am laying down is fair.
In regard to getting Dr. Nebel to pop up up the forum and play Q&A with us again, good luck. I think there is some ambiguity of his status with the project given that he has dropped off the Recovery.gov report and been replaced by Dr. Park, but his name still remains on the EMC2 website as a POC email (not that EMC2 has ever been timely about website updates...).
Again, given the time and effort to run all variants and options, it would seem the least cost most productive option is just to let them play out WB8.0.
Maybe Dean can pop Rick an email and ask him for a project update. That should clear up several things. Rick's status, current EMC2 policy regarding information release, and current navy position covering information release. The most current we have is navy saying the release of info is up to EMC2, and EMC2 claiming proprietary, which can be argued that the navy (ONR) when confronted with no direct means to block the FOIA in the short term, suggested to EMC2 to claim proprietary as an option, as has been argued.
In any event, if Chris or Rjay start a FOIA now, based on my experience, they will get nothing meaningful by at least the end of the year, if not longer, depending on appeals and legal avenues. I personally would also wait for WB8.0 to conclude, and thus be able to target the WB8 final report as well as the review panel findings. A FOIA is only required to address those things that exist on the date it is submitted.
All in all, it would seem to be better to wait & see.
Are you deliberately running the foil for EMC2 or is that just how it has worked out?
More and more it is looking like EMC2 is just another govt. contractor at the public trough trying to spin out its existence. Using funds earmarked for "economic recovery" from a banking crises, what a mixed-up, messed-up situation full of skullduggery, lies, misinformation and half-truths.
No, it is not science and from the little I knew of Bussard, I wouldn't be sure that he would be comfortable with the current situation given the pretext that funding for WB7 was extended upon.
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
All the more reason to begin now to be ready to submit at the beginning of summer.ladajo wrote:In any event, if Chris or Rjay start a FOIA now, based on my experience, they will get nothing meaningful by at least the end of the year, if not longer, depending on appeals and legal avenues.
Are you saying your FOIA request does not cover the WB8.0 results? Is the appeal also constrained by the date of submission? Those would be a reasons to wait to submit a new requestladajo wrote:A FOIA is only required to address those things that exist on the date it is submitted.
Argh!ladajo wrote:All in all, it would seem to be better to wait & see.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
My word what an ego!chrismb wrote: 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.
Seems only Chrismb has the whit and wisdom to ask the questions. Obviously, the PhDs in ONR can't do it. Only Chris and thus they need to give him the data.
What makes you think that they don't know? What makes you believe that "we" includes "you"? Quite the budinski, aren't you.chrismb wrote: Two years [whenever] ago it was 'we'll know in two year'. I've now waited those two years.
Heck, what makes you think YOU will EVER know? This technology may remain secret as long as no-one else competes to get the technology. You want Polywell data, build one and get it.
Dr. B remained silent for more than 10 years under government contract. What makes you think he wouldn't remain silent now?icarus wrote: No, it is not science and from the little I knew of Bussard, I wouldn't be sure that he would be comfortable with the current situation given the pretext that funding for WB7 was extended upon.
You miss the fundamental difference: The questions I ask will be asked publically, and the answers would be made public.KitemanSA wrote:Seems only Chrismb has the whit and wisdom to ask the questions. Obviously, the PhDs in ONR can't do it. Only Chris and thus they need to give him the data.
So, in that respect, the PhDs and ONR - who also make a healthy living off of the government - have no obvious interest to point at in pressing such questions.
So it is not a question of whether they have the 'whit and wisdom', but also whether they have the motivation and purpose of character to raise issues publically. And the answer is - no, I don't think any of them do have this set of characteristics, as evidenced by the fact that there are no public records of them doing so.
And if they don't want the data public, they won't answer. Gee sounds like now! You have asked, REPEATEDLY, and they have ignored you. Too bad!chrismb wrote:You miss the fundamental difference: The questions I ask will be asked publically, and the answers would be made public.KitemanSA wrote:Seems only Chrismb has the whit and wisdom to ask the questions. Obviously, the PhDs in ONR can't do it. Only Chris and thus they need to give him the data.
So where is your data? Come-on, provide complete details now. You said they should. You thus must think that you should too. Give it up. Come-on, fork it over, fork, fork!chrismb wrote:I want the data because I am building the competition. Why would I build theirs for them?KitemanSA wrote:You want Polywell data, build one and get it.
Boy you REALLY don't understand government double-talk, do you.chrismb wrote:Because he would have the decency to recognise and respond to the FoI that has gone in that's pointed to the Navy 'bar' being lifted.KitemanSA wrote: Dr. B remained silent for more than 10 years under government contract. What makes you think he wouldn't remain silent now?
I have already posted data up on fusor.net. I am quite happy to share my data, at the rate I am prepared to share it - EVEN THOUGH no-one's contributed a penny to my work, all from my own pocket. Just like focus fusion want to share theirs. I have some more data I am in the process of collating, and can barely wait to release it.KitemanSA wrote: So where is your data? Come-on, provide complete details now. You said they should. You thus must think that you should too. Give it up. Come-on, fork it over, fork, fork!
Bear in mind, I do not have a well-paid day job doing such work, like any other effort you might find except for any other amateurs, it is just in the few hours I might find every fortnight or so.