Polywell FOIA

[chrismb]

My interpretation is that this implies their ONLY intent, or at the very least their PRINCIPAL intent, is to see it reach conclusion, and if there is a bank of people all chewing over the problem on a forum, then why refuse those people any information WHATSOEVER when asked?? Surely by opening up the challenges and issues then they could reach their conclusion quicker, with more brains thinking on it?

Do you truly make that interpretation?

Absolutely.

Wow, what a contortion of the language.

!

Well, I suppose this is the kind of response I might expect if debating with a cult follower. Are you a cult follower? Do you consider that you are following obeyance of THE BIG P, 'cos I just don't get all of this anymore. It is well beyond defeating any normal interpretation of that quotation. If a politician had made such a comment, but then you found out they were keeping it all secret for their own benefit, you'd have something to say then, I am sure!

The tone of Bussard's quote I have put forward is clearly one of co-operation for the benefit of mankind, yet you seem to be trying to deny this and [rather unsuccessfully] are trying to square these comments with EMC2's intentional dis-benefit to interested parties, and their statement of desire for unchallenged commercial rights.

[D Tibbets]

My two cents worth...
Bussard made statements that he desired the Polywell technology be used to serve mankind. He hinted that it should be open to all. But reading between the lines, as with everything , there are conflicts. Certainly, while under the Navy embargo, he behaved himself and kept quiet. Possibly because he had the opportunity to pursue his dream, though in a crippled and slow manner. Once the funding and legal restraints were removed, and the results indicated a resolution of all the physics issues (no show stoppers - if you accept his results and conclusions) then he would naturally wish the work to continue. As with many others he sought several ways to do this. As with many others, when he* could not do this, he offered/ threatened to release it to the public at large. The same happens all the time with software, ideas, etc. It does not mean he or the company does not have a profit motive (either monetary or intellectual acclaim), just that he does not wish the efforts to fall to the wayside.
I think Bussard knew he was dying and did not want his legacy to be lost.
Hearsay implies that he had at least one funding offer which he refused, possibly because he feared it would smother the technology, despite the financial rewards he / family / company might have gained. This speculation would be commendable on his part, as it might have saved the program.

Again, none of this implies an absence of a profit motive. It just means that profit is not the only motive that drove him, unlike many in society.

* I use 'he' as an inclusive term for Bussard and all the others that had/ have input to EMC2's decision making process.

Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

The tone of Bussard's quote I have put forward is clearly one of co-operation for the benefit of mankind, yet you seem to be trying to deny this and [rather unsuccessfully] are trying to square these comments with EMC2's intentional dis-benefit to interested parties, and their statement of desire for unchallenged commercial rights.

Perhaps it is just that you are tone deaf.

His statement, and YOU emphasized the point, was that he wanted to assure it got done and out to the public by protecting it from control by cartels. That in no way equates with giving it away to any and all comers. Please get real.

[bennmann]

How goes the appeal?

[ladajo]

At this point, due to multiple paths (and denials) from the original FOIA, and also with my move from VA to RI, I think I am going to restart the process and in a consolidated manner. This will enable me to focus the request, and make clear up front what info is sought from what specific reports, and attempt to clarify that no proprietary info is sought at the same time.

The fundamental issue that has surfaced in the FOIA denials is the fact that they were done as a blanket proprietary denial. This is where Big Navy JAG will step in and say, "Well EMC2, we fully appreciate that you want to protect trade secrets, however, you must justify that EVERYTHING contained in the requested reports are trade secrets. If you cannot justify all of it, then we will release what you can not."

The end result of all this is that the ball gets put back on EMC2 to line by line justify proprietary claims in the reports. It will be a huge pain for them to do this.

edit: spelling

[vahid]

[Hi Dear Tom Ligon,,,
In this site, I heard " persians want to work on polywell project ".
in my mind, it's very good for all countries. isn't it ?
Really, Iranian will pay money for human fusion science.

I'd like to know ur idea.
Is Polywell Project suitable for Iranian???? Will thay do it ???

Sincerely Yours.
quote="Tom Ligon"]I have seen things regarding WB7 on which I can't comment, but which offered certain opportunities for improvement. My comments are on the earlier machines.

By cooked, I mean surfaces that show discoloration, etching pitting, or outright melting due to impact by high energy particles, either electrons or ions.

WB6 looked reasonably clean except for the damage from the short at one insulator. However, the chamber in which it was operated is purple-brown in the photos. When we took shipment of it, the interior was a gorgeous electropolished mirror appearance. I expect the change is due to deposits of sputtered-off material. This could be from either WB-6 or WB-4, or from their emitters, cages, or anything else in the way. Whatever was taking the hit, the resulting hydrogen would have diluted fusion fuel, and the metal in the plasma would have been counterproductive.

So if the LANL expert helped them spot a loss of high-energy particles to metal, it could only help. If he helped kill the last significant loss to the confinement, I would expect that spelled the difference between success and failure, or maybe between success and "nuanced" results. The improvement would have been threefold:

1) Eliminate the dilutent gas (fusion decreases as the square of the dilution ratio, i.e. a 10 hydrogens to 1 deuterium gives 1/100th the reaction rate). Huge problem.

2) The energy balance even with undiluted fuel will have everything to do with confinement time. Eliminate the loss of confined particles and this should improve.

3) Excess useless gas will, at some level, thermalize the plasma. Keeping the pressure from running away, or at least reducing the rate of the rise, will improve the window for fusion (ideally allowing continuous operation). The bright glow pictures you have seen may actually occur after the fusion is over, during a Paschen discharge or outright Paschen arc that discharges the power supply.[/quote]

[vahid]

Hi Dear Tom Ligon,,,
In this site, I heard " persians want to work on polywell project ".
in my mind, it's very good for all countries. isn't it ?
Really, Iranian will pay money for human fusion science.

I'd like to know ur idea.
Is Polywell Project suitable for Iranian???? Will thay do it ???

Sincerely Yours.

[paulmarch]

At this point, due to multiple paths (and denials) from the original FOIA, and also with my move from VA to RI, I think I am going to restart the process and in a consolidated manner. This will enable me to focus the request, and make clear up front what info is sought from what specific reports, and attempt to clarify that no proprietary info is sought at the same time.

The fundamental issue that has surfaced in the FOIA denials is the fact that they were done as a blanket proprietary denial. This is where Big Navy JAG will step in and say, "Well EMC2, we fully appreciate that you want to protect trade secrets, however, you must justify that EVERYTHING contained in the requested reports are trade secrets. If you cannot justify all of it, then we will release what you can not."

The end result of all this is that the ball gets put back on EMC2 to line by line justify proprietary claims in the reports. It will be a huge pain for them to do this.

edit: spelling

Iadajo:

"The end result of all this is that the ball gets put back on EMC2 to line by line justify proprietary claims in the reports. It will be a huge pain for them to do this."

And your end goals in these actions are? It appears that you just want to scuttle EMC2's fusion research by any means possible...

[TallDave]

The end result of all this is that the ball gets put back on EMC2 to line by line justify proprietary claims in the reports. It will be a huge pain for them to do this.

Brings to mind the old line about lawyers from Other People's Money:

"They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they frick up everything. "

[ladajo]

Paul,
Quite the opposite. That is one of the reasons I have been dragging my feet with the FOIA thing as I have worked through the process.
I am conflicted with the idea that public money deserves public scrutiny, vs EMC2's ability to progress the project without outside interference. Tie both these to the fervent idea that open science is productive science and now you have a sense of where I stand.
To be completely honest, I have not be nearly as agressive as I could have been so far in the FOIA process. I have even <ignored/declined> offers of free lawsuit support in suing for FOIA compliance.

I believe in EMC and the honest attempt they are giving it, and I want to see them succeed. I even have stated publicly that I would drop the FOIA process if Rick asked or indicated it.
I am now at the proverbial shyte or get off the pot in regards to appeals. I either press ahead (and cause pain), or I refile a consolidated request and in effect start again, or I just leave it be, and see what happens.

[Aero]

@ladajo -
Take a poll - State your reservations, pros and cons, ground rules for the poll (want data, want fairness, want revenge, want a love-in), then carefully compose the question and take a poll.

[choff]

The thing is, if polywell works, I mean really actually truely works, it's the most important step our species has taken since we climbed down from a tree and banged two rocks together. Now, if EMC2 have come to the conclusion that it works, first thing they want to do is absolutely nail down the data, make darn sure there's absolutely no possibility of a false reading, because if there is they become laughing stocks.

So, if the FOIA drags them in front of a JAG at this point and he asks them point blank if it works, that's really putting them in an awkward spot. Imagine for a moment the psychological pressure they're under just from having to sit on it all this time. They say yes and it's a media circus, right when they need to concentrate on work.

It might be just at well if it does go black, but if not, maybe know when to back off with the FOIA, don't screw things up, the world needs fusion power badly.

[bennmann]

Please refile a consolidated request and start again? That looks best to me for all parties involved.

It may increase EMC2s workload. Hopefully though, it'll be similar to the paperwork they have to do now already.

[Betruger]

I would drop the FOIA process if Rick asked or indicated it.
I am now at the proverbial shyte or get off the pot in regards to appeals.

Have you asked him directly?

[TallDave]

Besides distracting EMC2 with nonscience, my problem with pushing the FOIA is that if we take Rick at his word, the funders are worried about presenting too wide a target for political reasons. The smaller a target they present, the less there is to shoot at, and the less time they have to devote to defending the concept as opposed to developing it. They appear to believe a lot of flak will be thrown at them if they stick their heads up, for political reasons.

Now, it's true the best science is the most open science, but it's also true that the perfect is often the enemy of the good, that new ideas are generally treated with hostility (see Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions), that the mainstream fusion community has their careers tied up in toks, and (to paraphrase a great man) that we must do science with the scientific community we have, not the scientific community we might like to have or might have at a later date.

I would love to have a webcam broadcasting every detail of WB-8 from start to finish, with a datastream for every instrument right next to it and live commentary from Rick, but if the guys in charge over there think there's a better chance of success operating under the radar I don't want to second-guess them for my own selfish curiosity.