WB7.1 Contract Awarded March 3, 2009

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

WB7.1 Contract Awarded March 3, 2009

Post by Aero »

This is the award notice of the contract solicitation from earlier this year.

There are some differences in the text of the statement of work, and it does include the text of the "gag" order.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=1

https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... 024RFP.pdf
Aero

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

1.0 Scope

This statement Of Work defines the first stage investigation study and tests for the plasma wiffleball development project.

1.1 Background

This effort will continue the research of Advanced Gaseous Electrostatic Energy technology previously explored under Broad Agency Announcement Contracts N00014-93-C-0224 and N00014-96-C-0039 and contract N68936-03-C-0031.

2.0 Applicable Documents

None

3.0 Requirements

3.1 RESEARCH STUDY

3.1.1 Contractor shall review the results from Contracts
N00014-93-C0224, N00014-96-C-0039, contract N68936-03-C-0031, and any other publically available current documentation regarding the technical research and development in the field of energy production using a fusion reaction.

3.1.1.2. The review shall primarily investigate the effects of parallel electron heat loss to the coil joints with respect to plasma stability and electron confinement time.
Well, here's something for Art to look at.
3.2 TESTS

3.2.1 The contractor will modify/upgrade the existing wiffleball #7 (WB7) device by installing compact, high temperature coil joints to investigate the electron parallel heat loss. This modified device shall hereafter be identified as Wiffleball #7.1 (WB-7.1). 3.2.2
Looks like the tension members really are a problem.
The Contractor shall test the WB-7.1 to measure the plasma beta (ratio of plasma pressure to the applied magnetic field pressure) and to monitor the wiffleball formation process.The contractor will deploy multiple magnetic field probes inside the device to generate time varying magnetic field mapping to nvestigate the wiffleball formation.
Okay, this reads as though it really does form a "whiffle ball".
3.3. The contractor shall take the results of the review specified in 3.1 and tests specified in 3.2 and provide a report detailing workable instrumentation set-ups to resolve the plasma production and physics questions raised in the review and tests for a final report for contracts. CLAUSES INCORPORATED
I am going to call this good news.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

In the contract, NAVAIR wrote:5252.204-9504 DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACT INFORMATION (NAVAIR) (JAN 2007)
(a) The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor’s organization any unclassified information
(e.g., announcement of contract award), regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of
this contract or any program related to this contract, unless the Contracting Officer has given prior written approval.
(b) Requests for approval shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the
purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer at least ten (10) days
before the proposed date for release.
(c) The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement in each subcontract under this contract. Subcontractors
shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

KitemanSA wrote:
In the contract, NAVAIR wrote:5252.204-9504 DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACT INFORMATION (NAVAIR) (JAN 2007)
(a) The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor’s organization any unclassified information
(e.g., announcement of contract award), regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of
this contract or any program related to this contract, unless the Contracting Officer has given prior written approval.
(b) Requests for approval shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the
purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer at least ten (10) days
before the proposed date for release.
(c) The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement in each subcontract under this contract. Subcontractors
shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.
Interesting. They can't even release information available through open sources.

This seems rather fishy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Post by rj40 »

Rather fishy?
In what way?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

This seem rather like all Defense Technical Information these days. (The true fall out from 911). I suppose someone might want to challenge that statement under the terms of that Treaty that Art Carlson mentioned regarding all fusion research being unclassified.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

rj40 wrote:Rather fishy?
In what way?
Can't even give out info - like the solicitation for a contract - that is available openly?

And yes. I'm also wondering about the treaty Art Carlson mentioned.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Fishy? Well, yea.
This effort will continue the research of Advanced Gaseous Electrostatic Energy technology
Do you suppose there is a reason "Fusion Device" is no longer in the contract title? The word fusion appears exactly one time in the PDF file, in the statement of work posted above. That is, is there an effort to deny that the treaty applies, or just to keep the project below the radar of those who are interested in our fusion research?

But don't mind me, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
Aero

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

Personally, I think that the Navy is simply trying to keep DOE out of their business. I don't blame them, either.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Billy Catringer wrote:Personally, I think that the Navy is simply trying to keep DOE out of their business. I don't blame them, either.
It is way too late for that. If the DOE doesn't have some one monitoring this site - I'd be very surprised.

Instapundit has mentioned Polywell a couple of times. He has 200,000 readers. I'm betting there is at least 1 ITER guy in the bunch.

I have left comments on Polywell at the "Unofficial ITER Fan Club".

Polywell is no longer below the radar. Not even close.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Oy. If that's what Nebel has to go through every time he posts on this forum, no wonder we haven't heard much from him lately...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

One COULD look at this in a positive light. It may indicate that the Navy is beginning to think that this thing could actually amount to something REAL, and so naturally they are beginning to think in non-esoteric, security minded terms.

zbarlici
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:23 am
Location: winnipeg, canada

Post by zbarlici »

...If Msimon is correct when saying that polywell is no longer under the radar and DOE has been made aware of this, they will keep tabs whether or not Nebel is allowed to disclose. The people writing these contracts up for EMC2 should know that. it seems there is another reason for keeping this under wrap. I suggest Msimon and others that have the know-how on how to spread the word most efficiently go into 100% mode. You are doing nothing wrong by trying to spread awareness. Perhaps you can give me a few hints as well?

Is the US navy scared that someone else would pick up on the disclosed details and beat them to the punch in developing a net power device? That`s not it either because if that were the case they would find out some way to throw a shitload of money at it. Are they worried they would fall into a "cold fusion" scandal? I think not, after all they are being very careful to make sure the findings are properly scrutinised as weve all seen... So, i see absoluetly no reason why there shouldn`t be at least a little bit of publicity...

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

Billy Catringer wrote:Personally, I think that the Navy is simply trying to keep DOE out of their business. I don't blame them, either.
Excellent Point. Low budget is low level. As soon as it seems like a solution, and gets a real budget, it'll bite the dust. For evidence we only need to look at the Integral Fast reactor (IFR), which was a coal-killer, but was shot down by Hazel O'Leary, Bubba's Energy Secretary. Bubba himself and the morons in the 103rd US Congress also brought us such gems as the Brady bill, NAFTA, "Don't Ask, Don't tell", and Community Development Banking and Financial institutions act.

As much damage the Clinton Administration and the 103rd congress has done, the Worst has to be killing the IFR, and that darn Community Development act.

joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

Post by joedead »

Good to hear some more news......

Post Reply