So, this thread does seem to have met with a surprising degree of success to the intent of me kicking it off.
It seems to me that, actually, despite the first round of negative responses everyone is on board [some by default, possibly less willing than others] with the view that after this summer time we, as a body of interested persons, should go ahead and press for some information.
Would anyone not agree that it is reasonable to make a FoI request after, say, 1st August?
We'll know in....
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
I respect your ambition, but I don't think I want ~400 pages worth of information. I want* the WB-7 results report executive summary with maximum performance parameters for the machine. Is asking for ~400 pages the only way to get what I describe?ladajo wrote:... but as I recall it was around 400 pages worth that I targeted.
Are you permitted to narrow the FOIA request so it is not so onerous on EMC2 to answer? Or is the request all or nothing now that the U.S.N. has it?
*Subject to our usual caveat, more would be better...
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
I probably haven't followed this well enough, but it seems like me that a FOI request for the details of an ongoing MILITARY contract seems unlikely to be fruitful. If it were, I would be disappointed.
Unfortunately for us, this is a military contract, so it seems unlikely that we will get any details any time soon. At one point, it was unfunded, which is the time when more information was coming out in an effort to keep the project moving along. That time has passed.
Unfortunately for us, this is a military contract, so it seems unlikely that we will get any details any time soon. At one point, it was unfunded, which is the time when more information was coming out in an effort to keep the project moving along. That time has passed.
Summer months are normally slow, but in general I tend to agree that if by the start of Autumn we do not have any info than we could as well proceed with a FOIA request.chrismb wrote:Would anyone not agree that it is reasonable to make a FoI request after, say, 1st August?
That is if there will be a US citizen willing to present one.
As far as I am aware, and perhaps surprisingly/annoyingly for US citizens who pay for it, the US legislation does not appear to distinguish its FoI response by citizenship nor by domicile. It appears to be the case that anyone can make a US FoI, wherever they are. The USN did not seem to reject my original FoI approach when I made it clear I was a UK national, in the UK.Giorgio wrote:That is if there will be a US citizen willing to present one.
My position is that we let WB8 play out. That was the basis of my original choice for the "2 years" if you will.
If would appear to me (as previsouly discussed) that they (for whatever reasons) are behind the paper schedule to some degree. Given that I am of the mind that letting them finish is not tied to a date at this point. We will well know when they complete the WB8 contract.
At that point, by my estimate, review panel event driven, is a good time to re-assess.
As for focusing the FOIA, that is entirely possible. You can ask specifically for an executive summary from any given report. This was done by the way. The navy offered up the whole requested pile. 200 pages were for free, the remaining were going to cost me about $20 or so. The proprietary claim came out after an extension and consideration by EMC2. One obviously would have a hard time arguing that executive summaries are proprietary. This was part of the points I was advised on.
In any event, more or less, I agree with waiting, not date based, but based on WB8 completion, and seeing what happens.
If would appear to me (as previsouly discussed) that they (for whatever reasons) are behind the paper schedule to some degree. Given that I am of the mind that letting them finish is not tied to a date at this point. We will well know when they complete the WB8 contract.
At that point, by my estimate, review panel event driven, is a good time to re-assess.
As for focusing the FOIA, that is entirely possible. You can ask specifically for an executive summary from any given report. This was done by the way. The navy offered up the whole requested pile. 200 pages were for free, the remaining were going to cost me about $20 or so. The proprietary claim came out after an extension and consideration by EMC2. One obviously would have a hard time arguing that executive summaries are proprietary. This was part of the points I was advised on.
In any event, more or less, I agree with waiting, not date based, but based on WB8 completion, and seeing what happens.
Don't judge it till it's done
Let them finish WB8.
My idea of waiting until Autumn was based on the point that according the delay they faced the WB8 and related tests should be done by autumn.ladajo wrote:In any event, more or less, I agree with waiting, not date based, but based on WB8 completion, and seeing what happens.
Anyhow, yes, let's give them the time to complete WB8 and see what/if any news is released.
As far as the timeline., the achievement of first plasma in Nov. 2010 may or may not have been a significant delay. I don't know what expectations were. With WB 7 they had first plasma in January and had their review in Aug. - 7 months. For WB 8 it will have been up to 6 months.
WB 8 is probably more complex, and instrumentation may be more involved, but, assuming liquid nitrogen cooling, the magnet cool-down time between tests may be minutes rather than hours as was apparently the case for WB6 and presumably WB7. So long as they are not changing the configuration much and only adjusting 'knobs', their data collection rates may have been 10 times or more rapid.
Of course the delay between WB7 review and final report was ~ 4 months.
And, of course the intermediate or final analysis of this latest incarnation may not be reveled either. Nebel did revel some hints at general impressions for WB7. That may be more than we receive about WB8.
Dan Tibbets
WB 8 is probably more complex, and instrumentation may be more involved, but, assuming liquid nitrogen cooling, the magnet cool-down time between tests may be minutes rather than hours as was apparently the case for WB6 and presumably WB7. So long as they are not changing the configuration much and only adjusting 'knobs', their data collection rates may have been 10 times or more rapid.
Of course the delay between WB7 review and final report was ~ 4 months.
And, of course the intermediate or final analysis of this latest incarnation may not be reveled either. Nebel did revel some hints at general impressions for WB7. That may be more than we receive about WB8.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Remember, with WB-7, there was a problem with arcing and a high speed camera was brought in for troubleshooting. There was an article on it as there was some sort of collaboration. The point is, there was a learning curve. Then, between WB-7 and WB-8 they had WB-7.1 where instrumentation was intensified for better characterization. In otherwords, there may be a learning curve just because any time an order of magnitude change is made things can be unearthed that weren't seen before, but then again, maybe WB-7.1 gave them the insight to know what they were facing because of better diagnostics and improved instrumentation.
I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other... surprises, or no surprises.
I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other... surprises, or no surprises.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Based on some inside information I'm not at liberty to divulge I'd say August or September MIGHT be a good time. Me? I've sort of lost burning interest and am willing to let events unfold.chrismb wrote:So, this thread does seem to have met with a surprising degree of success to the intent of me kicking it off.
It seems to me that, actually, despite the first round of negative responses everyone is on board [some by default, possibly less willing than others] with the view that after this summer time we, as a body of interested persons, should go ahead and press for some information.
Would anyone not agree that it is reasonable to make a FoI request after, say, 1st August?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Now I am wondering if you lost interest because of EMC2 attitude or due to the type of information you received......MSimon wrote:Based on some inside information I'm not at liberty to divulge I'd say August or September MIGHT be a good time. Me? I've sort of lost burning interest and am willing to let events unfold.
Re: We'll know in....
Add three or four month to write the report and I believe you would get the ceegar.ladajo wrote:Ahh, my favorite. Sarcasm.chrismb wrote:http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/dr-ric ... f-iec.html
So when are we looking at to hear decisively about Polywell?
I thought it was concluded to be April '11?...10 days to go. How exciting!! All this time I have been waiting to hear about Polywell. I'm so glad we're gonna finally get a conclusion next month.
I think a strong case has been made they will not meet the April target. However, that said, I do not think it will be much longer after that. Say June or July, that they wrap up. Of course then we will have another round of review. But, if things look solid, I would expect the 8.1 money to get sourced quickly.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Events. I'm obsessed with Fukushima. What I learned hasn't affected my long term interest. Just my wish for instant gratification.Giorgio wrote:Now I am wondering if you lost interest because of EMC2 attitude or due to the type of information you received......MSimon wrote:Based on some inside information I'm not at liberty to divulge I'd say August or September MIGHT be a good time. Me? I've sort of lost burning interest and am willing to let events unfold.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.