It's possible EMC2 would start selling WB-7s to universities or whatnot, and people would try to advance the concept beyond whatever had caused WB-8 to fail to meet the Navy's expectations.It wouldnt take too long to catch up, even from a decently equiped garage lab.
Polywell: We'll know in 7 months time?!
..the 'dream ticket' - i can imagine a (virtual) distributed lab, with many different but correlated experiments all going on simultaneously, each advancing specific areas of the technology.TallDave wrote:It's possible EMC2 would start selling WB-7s to universities or whatnot, ....
There'd need to be a lot of confidence (read, hard evidence) in the Polywell approach for that to happen though. A signal at least. A massive budget/spend by the Navy/DOE in that direction ought to do it. (plus a lot of good management by EMC2).
If it works, then it will go to WB-9!
I know you guys are going to hate this but if I was the GOV and Nebel, I would have EMC do a PR release that the project was defunded because it turns out that it is a dead-end approach and I would probably use talking points from Art to clear the peers in the industry.
Then I would go top secret black ops "funding" (see Matterhorn and Manhatten et al) and Katy bar the door as I raced to exploit any advantage over my competitors or global adversaries.
Eventually it would be moved into public use after I had gain as much momemtum as could be expected, once again putting my team ahead of the game.
EMC would still emerge in the end with some type of royality because the "how to part" probably only has one path, maybe just a few and that is what is most important to be patented at the right time.
I am shocked that so much has already got out.
The potential is to great not to shut your mouth, think about.
I know you guys are going to hate this but if I was the GOV and Nebel, I would have EMC do a PR release that the project was defunded because it turns out that it is a dead-end approach and I would probably use talking points from Art to clear the peers in the industry.
Then I would go top secret black ops "funding" (see Matterhorn and Manhatten et al) and Katy bar the door as I raced to exploit any advantage over my competitors or global adversaries.
Eventually it would be moved into public use after I had gain as much momemtum as could be expected, once again putting my team ahead of the game.
EMC would still emerge in the end with some type of royality because the "how to part" probably only has one path, maybe just a few and that is what is most important to be patented at the right time.
I am shocked that so much has already got out.
The potential is to great not to shut your mouth, think about.
I think the current news blackout (all my sources have dried up) is a move in the direction you suggest.WillKell wrote:If it works, then it will go to WB-9!
I know you guys are going to hate this but if I was the GOV and Nebel, I would have EMC do a PR release that the project was defunded because it turns out that it is a dead-end approach and I would probably use talking points from Art to clear the peers in the industry.
Then I would go top secret black ops "funding" (see Matterhorn and Manhatten et al) and Katy bar the door as I raced to exploit any advantage over my competitors or global adversaries.
Eventually it would be moved into public use after I had gain as much momemtum as could be expected, once again putting my team ahead of the game.
EMC would still emerge in the end with some type of royality because the "how to part" probably only has one path, maybe just a few and that is what is most important to be patented at the right time.
I am shocked that so much has already got out.
The potential is to great not to shut your mouth, think about.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Based on what? That's wild-eyed speculation.MSimon wrote:I think the current news blackout (all my sources have dried up) is a move in the direction you suggest.
Given that actual success would be an immense credit to whomever got it going (hey, we're geniuses! Now give us more money so we can do even more super-brilliant stuff!), and the difficulty of the things being attempted, it's hard to imagine what this means other than that it may not be going quite the way Nebel & Co. had hoped.
And the military is more than capable of quietly developing the technology (aka in the "black"), assuming it works (especially if it works), for their own use as long as they can before having to share the information with anyone else, even the US public.MSimon wrote:They don't need public acknowledgment for that.(hey, we're geniuses! Now give us more money so we can do even more super-brilliant stuff!),
I think WillKell's point was that they would take it totally black for as long as they could to build up sufficient lead to be beneficial. That could be a couple or 5 years, and no ship would start being built in less than that.
A new ship design could be designed around an LM2500 generation scheme with a block replacement once the Polywell proved itself out. Sounds kind on like the DDG1000, or even a few of the latest DDG51 class ships.
A new ship design could be designed around an LM2500 generation scheme with a block replacement once the Polywell proved itself out. Sounds kind on like the DDG1000, or even a few of the latest DDG51 class ships.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Although it would have worked at many times in the past (especially World War II and early Cold War), the idea of actually lying about the technology probably wouldn't wash today. It goes too contrary to modern Freedom of Information Practices. These days a western government can generally get away with refusing to answer (ie. releasing documents under freedom of information, but completely blanking them out) - but there would be various legal concerns with the approach of outright lying that the technology didn't work while you were developing it.
MSimon is probably right - we would see a news blackout. It's possible that there could be a de-funding of the existing program without any real explanation, suggesting that it has been dropped, while the research would continue under a new program with a different name (probably a name that wouldn't sound anything like "fusion research" or "polywell"). All access to information requests regarding that program would probably return blanked documents. But if an explicit description of failure is given, it'll probably be genuine.
As for electric - my impression has always been that polywell is expected to be less dangerous to operate/to produce less dangerous waste/to be less expensive to operate than the fission nukes for aircraft carriers and submarines.
Regarding crusiers and amphibious assault ships, would a polywell reactor be cheaper to buy/operate than gas-turbine or diesel turbines + electric motors? Would it require similar or smaller crew sizes? Would the increased time it could run without resupply be operationally significant for the missions those types of ships are usually sent on? I guess you guys might have talked about this elsewhere, but if so, I never noticed that conversation.
MSimon is probably right - we would see a news blackout. It's possible that there could be a de-funding of the existing program without any real explanation, suggesting that it has been dropped, while the research would continue under a new program with a different name (probably a name that wouldn't sound anything like "fusion research" or "polywell"). All access to information requests regarding that program would probably return blanked documents. But if an explicit description of failure is given, it'll probably be genuine.
As for electric - my impression has always been that polywell is expected to be less dangerous to operate/to produce less dangerous waste/to be less expensive to operate than the fission nukes for aircraft carriers and submarines.
Regarding crusiers and amphibious assault ships, would a polywell reactor be cheaper to buy/operate than gas-turbine or diesel turbines + electric motors? Would it require similar or smaller crew sizes? Would the increased time it could run without resupply be operationally significant for the missions those types of ships are usually sent on? I guess you guys might have talked about this elsewhere, but if so, I never noticed that conversation.
-
Art Carlson
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
What makes you think I'm not already on the Navy's payroll?WillKell wrote:I know you guys are going to hate this but if I was the GOV and Nebel, I would have EMC do a PR release that the project was defunded because it turns out that it is a dead-end approach and I would probably use talking points from Art to clear the peers in the industry.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
-
Munchausen
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Nikaloukta
-
Art Carlson
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
It's not worthless. It works like a charm. It is beginning "to displace all other forms of energy". I'm just being paid to make it sound like it won't work so the Navy can get a leg up on its "competitors or global adversaries".Munchausen wrote:How much would you need to prove polywell is as worthless as you say?What makes you think I'm not already on the Navy's payroll? :wink:
:wink:
:wink-wink:
:wink-wink-wink: