We'll know in....

[choff]

I'm betting we hear something around 30 April, since that's the actual report date for the USN. If Nebel is really running a black box program then it was probably started about the time they began WB7.1. If you add the time together for WB7.1, WB8, WB8.1 and WB9? you get about the 4 years required for a net gain black box effort.

If this is the case, what we'll see is something like a web site update that says 'Scaling and Confinement Time confirmed' and hear news that WB8.1 has had funding approved, but no actual hard data. Just the comment, "We are satisfied with the results to date." After WB8.1, WB9 would be announced as the intermediate step to test engineering solutions like energy collection and vacuum systems for a full scale deployment.

About the time WB9 is completed we would see the deployment of an advanced navy ship with a classified power source.

[ladajo]

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.

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.

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.

Maybe I am a secret government agent here to spread disinformation.

Honestly, I got to the point where it looked like I really was going to hold feet to the fire and get something out of it. I then thought it over, and decided that it would not help them, but cause extra work and distraction. Letting WB8 run its course seems to be the fair thing to do. What would we really gain? We know that WB7 was good enough to justify WB8 & the option for 8.1 We know that WB7 was a re-run of WB6. We know that the review determined that a scaling check was in order (fair enough), and that is the main purpose of WB8. We also know frmo teh contracts that if WB8 performs well, it will justify giving 8.1 a go to test B11 feasibility. We may not have details on test runs yet, but we are informed on the overall plan. If not messing with them to release more info means that they have less distraction and funding worries, so be it. I can wait.
I, like anyone feel that taxpayer dollars deserve the light of day. And, I do believe that it will see the light of day at some point, just not today.
If I felt that they were taking holidays in the islands, and pissing the funds away with no purpose, I would lead the charge for disclosure/exposure. I firmly believe this is not the case.
I was frustrated when the process go to the final wicket of EMC2 claiming proprietary, and the release getting blocked in total. But, in getting my ducks in a row to run the appeal and possible law suit, I came to think it was not worth the potential distraction for the key players. I would rather have them do the project, which I believe that they are giving a fair shot.
It really is not that much longer to wait and see.

Rjay: Yes, once you file the FOIA, data produced after the filng date is not relevant. You can not file a FOIA for information to be made later. My filing went after the WB7, 7.1 and Peer Review reporting. I have the document numbers and page counts for these. If you filed now, this is all you could go after, other than asking for any intermediate internal reporting such as weekly/monthly status updates, and emails. You can not file for the WB8 report until it is created. Same for 8.1 or the 8.0 Peer Review. You would have to file again later if you wanted the WB8 test report.

[CaptainBeowulf]

I continue to agree with Ladajo's rationale. If nothing comes out this spring or summer perhaps he can resume his inquiries later this year.

[rjaypeters]

We may not have details on test runs yet, but we are informed on the overall plan. If not messing with them to release more info means that they have less distraction and funding worries, so be it.

I have been on the other side of the FOIA telescope* and for the limited amount of information you have requested, and for its age relative to the current work, the effort to review and to determine what to withhold is nearly trivial, despite what they claim.

Distraction? Not really, the program has moved far beyond it, we hope. Looking at a few documents, wiping a black marker, even carefully over lines of text per page and then making a clear copy of the redacted pages doesn't take much time.

Funding worries? Well, the U.S. government is about to shut down and that's a legitimate worry.

This situation reminds me of Christofo Colombo at the court of Isabella and Ferdinand. After Ferdinand and Isabella had agreed to fund his expedition, Colombo demanded he be made Admiral of the Seas and a slice of all the profits from whatever he discovered. Irksome behavior from someone who had been a humble petitioner at the court for a few years! How could Colombo hope to succeed in his demands for rank and profit?

The monarchs did not think he would succeed (survive) the expedition, but most important, they didn't want Colombo to mount an expedition under anyone else's banner. With Isabella and Ferdinand's approval for an expedition, Colombo could go to any other court in Europe and say "but their majesties of Spain had already approved the expedition."

EMC2, I submit, is in the same postion as Colombo after their majesties approved his expedition. The U.S.N. has successively approved EMC2's experiments, the data are apparently there and not the property of the U.S. government. Suppose we enthusiasts upset the apple cart and piss off the U.S.N. Big deal, either the prospect of fusion power is worth it to the U.S.N. or it isn't. If worthwhile, our actions will not reflect badly on EMC2. If the prospect of fusion power, based on the data gathered to date, is not worthwhile, we'd be doing the taxpayer a favor by irritating the U.S.N. into dropping the program.

If the U.S.N. declines further funding, I expect EMC2 will be able to whistle up potential investors, on the strength of the U.S.N.'s prestige alone, to look at their presentations. If the data look good, investors provide money.

On the other hand, if the data are so poor that none of the potential investors continue, we ought to see that too.

Would a potential competitor invest in EMC2 to kill the program? Possibly, but I don't see how that would work. There is enough polywell information floating around, e.g. the people currently involved, that if the EMC2 program is poisoned by the investors, the good Doctors can walk away with the knowledge in their heads and begin again elsewhere.

I find the arguments to wait unconvincing.

*Because we are so far from getting an data.

[chrismb]

The other side of the coin is, of course, whether multiple people asking for info on polywell actually causes the USN to be MORE interested, rather than less.

Maybe several FoI's dropping on the Chop's table will make him think "Why so much interest? Right, OK then, we'd better see if this thing can really fly, and make no mistakes missing out on getting it working!"

Why is this scenario any less believable than the ones peddled so far to the contrary? Actually, I think my scenario is, quite probably, the more likely one.

[ladajo]

Distraction? Not really, the program has moved far beyond it, we hope. Looking at a few documents, wiping a black marker, even carefully over lines of text per page and then making a clear copy of the redacted pages doesn't take much time.

My understanding from the apeals folks, is that they would have to justify each and every line out. In this case they case to deny the reports in total, and thus would have to justify line by line what is not releasable. That would take some work from a 10 person team where really there is only one/two in charge with the overall technical/company knowledge to do so. It was a claimed proprietary data issue which puts to onus fully on EMC2 to prove it.

EMC2, I submit, is in the same postion as Colombo after their majesties approved his expedition. The U.S.N. has successively approved EMC2's experiments, the data are apparently there and not the property of the U.S. government. Suppose we enthusiasts upset the apple cart and piss off the U.S.N. Big deal, either the prospect of fusion power is worth it to the U.S.N. or it isn't. If worthwhile, our actions will not reflect badly on EMC2. If the prospect of fusion power, based on the data gathered to date, is not worthwhile, we'd be doing the taxpayer a favor by irritating the U.S.N. into dropping the program.

If the U.S.N. declines further funding, I expect EMC2 will be able to whistle up potential investors, on the strength of the U.S.N.'s prestige alone, to look at their presentations. If the data look good, investors provide money.

The par tyou are missing is about Control. Right now , EMC2 and Polywell has a small dedicated group in ONR that is quietly securing funding and continuation. The argument posited is that other interests within potentially ONR but probably more so the Navy at Large (Like Naval Reactors) would/may try to seize control of the project. Trust me, you do not want Naval Reactors to have control of this project. For example, they have insisted on trying to maintain a Classified and Restricted Data status on what amounts to High School Physics for decades in order to maintain Control of Navy Nuclear Power. The NR Bureacracy is massive and disfunctional, at its top lays guess who(?)...The Department of Energy, who remain completely enamoured with high value low product projects such as ITER and NIF. Why you ask? Because it is a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CASH COW. Polywell at this point it merely a bug on the windshield if they so choose IMHO.

[rjaypeters]

My understanding from the apeals folks, is that they would have to justify each and every line out. In this case they case to deny the reports in total, and thus would have to justify line by line what is not releasable.

I think you mean EMC2 personnel. I'm not clear here. Just how much did you request?

That would take some work from a 10 person team where really there is only one/two in charge with the overall technical/company knowledge to do so. It was a claimed proprietary data issue which puts to onus fully on EMC2 to prove it.

A danger of working for the government is one become accountable to a much larger group. The example I gave for my experience with answering a FOIA request came about because the Major was so pissed at the effrontery of the requester for asking for the documents. I was called in to opinionate. Still, the Major was done pretty quickly.

I'm willing to bet the officers overseeing the polywell contracts will be lenient with the EMC2 redactions. If it's anything like I've seen, there will be a lot of "ibid" once the main reasons have been established early in the justification document (if there is such a thing).

The part you are missing is about Control...Polywell at this point it merely a bug on the windshield if they so choose IMHO.

And then the good Doctors throw up their hands and walk away from DoE. Then potential investors start calling. I'd be happier with businesses rather than government developing polywell fusion. I'm happy for EMC2 to develop the polywell and keep the trade secrets. I think we just want to know what results developed from WB-7, etc. Gory details how would be great, but reasonable people understand we can't have everything even from FOIA requests.

Still, I understand your reasons for delaying an appeal. I just don't agree.

[Betruger]

Lots of maybes and "I bet"s. You want to risk attracting the sharks to this small fish just so you can "know what results developed from WB7"... And then what?

[KitemanSA]

What if it is not the public view the navy wants to avoid, but can't avoid the enemy's view if it is in the public's view?

[rjaypeters]

Maybes? Yes, it's all about the future. Nothing harder to predict.

Enemies? To which do you refer? Is there anything more public than this forum? Wait, handing ladajo, or any one of us, redacted documents is not the same as a full-page add in the New York Times. Heck, ladajo could get the requested documents and refuse to publish.

Then what? I am a tax-paying citizen of the United States of America. The United States Congress in its wisdom, decades ago, create the Freedom of Information Act. I do NOT need to justify my desire to know how MY money is being spent. The task of justification falls to those who wish to keep secret how MY money is being spent.

[ladajo]

My understanding from the apeals folks, is that they would have to justify each and every line out. In this case they case to deny the reports in total, and thus would have to justify line by line what is not releasable.

I think you mean EMC2 personnel. I'm not clear here. Just how much did you request?

Yes it would be on EMC2 personnel to justify for proprietary. Contract management at China Lake, and ONR would not. I'll have to look, but as I recall it was around 400 pages worth that I targeted. The issue would be the back and forth with Big Navy legal. Once you go to appeal, it is nolonger dealt with by the China Lake FOIA folks associated with the Contract Managers, it gets kicked to DC to JAG HQ.

That would take some work from a 10 person team where really there is only one/two in charge with the overall technical/company knowledge to do so. It was a claimed proprietary data issue which puts to onus fully on EMC2 to prove it.

A danger of working for the government is one become accountable to a much larger group. The example I gave for my experience with answering a FOIA request came about because the Major was so pissed at the effrontery of the requester for asking for the documents. I was called in to opinionate. Still, the Major was done pretty quickly.

I'm willing to bet the officers overseeing the polywell contracts will be lenient with the EMC2 redactions. If it's anything like I've seen, there will be a lot of "ibid" once the main reasons have been established early in the justification document (if there is such a thing).

See my above comment. On appeal it is out of the hands of China Lake. ONR becomes a bystander as well. They can comment, but the argument generated is between EMC2 justifying proprietary for each and every word in the reports, and JAG HQ aggreing with each and every word redacted after invoking an independant review.

The part you are missing is about Control...Polywell at this point it merely a bug on the windshield if they so choose IMHO.

And then the good Doctors throw up their hands and walk away from DoE. Then potential investors start calling. I'd be happier with businesses rather than government developing polywell fusion. I'm happy for EMC2 to develop the polywell and keep the trade secrets. I think we just want to know what results developed from WB-7, etc. Gory details how would be great, but reasonable people understand we can't have everything even from FOIA requests.

Still, I understand your reasons for delaying an appeal. I just don't agree.

I agree that the requested data was innocuous from a proprietary standpoint. However, the mere fact publically tabled that they are succesfull would IMO generate outside observers to run with their own projects (i fthey are already not doing it). This could harm the EMC2 team down the road in some aspect for return on their intellectual and physical efforts to date. But obviously that is a tenous ambigious point that remains to be seen.
I am more concerned about project control. If ONR lost control to Naval Reactors or DOE, I think that at a minimum it would delay, if not kill the project. I think that they are not yet at a point where the data is firm enough to guarantee future survival. WB8 scaling data would be the brick that ensures future work. They have not yet provided irrefutable evidence that this apporach is viable. As long as they remain in that state, Polywell's future is frangible. And again, in the reality of today's high pressure and volatile government contracting environment only the strong survive, not the weak. If the ONR sponsership gets killed, then EMC2 would be put at much greater risk dealing with Venture Capitol types and/or Big Corporate interests. I highly doubt that Dolly and Co. retain significant depth in legal resourcing to hold ground against the legal departments and resources these outside folks can bring to bear once the door is opened. Look how closely Rossi is holding his cards/interests. His own money, no external players, etc...
ONR has no secret agenda nor "personal" interest, they will not profit nor control the world in the event Polywell plays. They are in it only to see it thorugh in a fair manner. I think the EMC2/ONR partnership is proabbly one of the best possible regarding this type and level of potentially game changing research. My own larger worry is more on the lines that if Polywell plays, how to you take implementation to the world at large with the least amount of damage to peoples and economies. If you do not think that introduction of this technology would not be traumatically destabalizing to some areas of the world, that would be niave (not that I think you are, as my statement is in the third person, not second.).

[KitemanSA]

Maybes? Yes, it's all about the future. Nothing harder to predict.

Enemies? To which do you refer?

How bout the Department of Energy?

Is there anything more public than this forum? Wait, handing ladajo, or any one of us, redacted documents is not the same as a full-page add in the New York Times. Heck, ladajo could get the requested documents and refuse to publish.

How do you know he hasn't? Wow, conspiracies left and right!

[ladajo]

Or, even better. I am only sharing what I know with a select couple of insider folks...

I firmly believe in the accountability aspect of taxpayer dollars. And with EMC2 and ONR, I am currently satisfied with what and how they are doing things. I gained this position after some effort and reflection. I, just as much as anyone would love to know the juicy details of success and failure in the project, but, I am also willing to wait, as it is not so long, and, I would rather argue over whether taxpayers should be footing $300million to "Planned Parenthood" or not. (I think not).

Really, if EMC2 puts it on the table before they are ready to back up the claims, they will become but a footnote and abandoned wiki page to history. The circumstance they are in is unique given EMC2's long history with ONR and navy funding, as well as the potential ramifications of what they are doing.
Focus Fusion is more public, and IMO at much greater risk because they have invited funding and resultant degrees of control (current and future) from private interests. It is nice to see how Focus Fusion progresses every month, but we tend to ignore what will happen to them if they pull it off down the road.
This is a tough topic, and really none of us will know what was the better approach until it is said and done. I really do hope that Focus Fusion does not PR preempt Polywell, and I hope both come to fruition without a larger interest intervention. I firmly believe that there are large interest players just sitting on the sidelines right now waiting to pounce if the opportunity presents or becomes tempting. It has certainly happened historically many times.

[Maui]

I continue to agree with Ladajo's rationale. If nothing comes out this spring or summer perhaps he can resume his inquiries later this year.

IIRC, Ladajo said he decided to drop it until the "2 years" was up, and then press. Now we're waiting till summer... this is staring to sound a lot like the EESTOR schedule.

[chrismb]

ladajo could get the requested documents and refuse to publish.

How do you know he hasn't?

The material out of FoI requests, once made, becomes public and may be further disseminated thereafter as 'public'. Sometimes you may be actually warned that once the information is released as FoI then it would become public, which may be significant in a person's desire to press on with the request. For example, if the details of the request cover something that is largely specific to something, e.g. some incident or to someone, then you may find that by requesting an FoI that information becomes public that no-one else would have ever known was something to ask about, had the request not been made. This is somewhat along the lines of ladajo'c concerns, but my opinion is that those concerns are not well founded.