emc2's website

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Thu May 06, 2010 3:28 am

Or it can mean nothing else than the govt. was desperately throwing money around to boost a crashing economy.


No, it can't. Again, the grant came only after WB-7 results were reviewed. And the contract asks for a net power reactor design. It doesn't sound like the Navy thinks this is makework.

Hearsay. Officially, they don't got squat. Please stop publicly pumping this as something it is most certainly not, or until you can show otherwise. You are treading on very dangerous grounds, legally speaking.


What the hell are you babbling about? We know there will be .8T B fields. The lead scientist's statements aren't "hearsay." And what in God's name makes you think I have legal liability for anything?

But it finally sunk in that this is "Recovery Act" money and while I prefer it going to something like this rather than some other long-shot, it is still money that basically came with a "here, spend this by tomorrow" attitude.


The line item it was politically expedient for it to go under isn't especially meaningful; it still had to go through ONR first. Fusion research funding has always risen and fallen with the political tides. When oil prices cratered in the 1980s a lot of fusion projects were abandoned. IIRC Livermore had a $300M magnetic mirror project sold for scrap before it was ever fired.

If you want to make the argument they're just throwing money around for fusion... how's ITER funding doing in the U.S. over the same period Polywell went from zero to WB-8? They were zeroed out one year, got half their budget in the next, and were cut further for 2011.

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2010/0 ... drops.html
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Thu May 06, 2010 5:04 am

TallDave said:
Very soon the important basic B scaling questions will start being answered.

We know there will be .8T B fields. The lead scientist's statements aren't "hearsay."


Would you like to provide the reference for those claims where we could review the data to back up your assertions? No, didn't think so. We don't know that there will be 0.8T fields so how do you know that? Did you measure those fields, were the probes in the right location, calibrated correctly, etc, etc?

Until then it is just hearsay from the likes of yourself and Tom Lignon, i.e. second-hand information of something that EMC2 personnel have leaked out, inadvertently or maybe intentionally.

Playing fast and loose with key technical facts around the edges of proprietary information and/or defence 'black' project operational matters, particularly one of this nature, is decidedly shaky grounds. Call me paranoid, but you do know of the story of Gerald Bull do you not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull final sentence, first paragraph. If I was you I would STHU.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Thu May 06, 2010 5:57 am

icarus wrote:Until then it is just hearsay from the likes of yourself and Tom Lignon,[...] If I was you I would STHU.
As opposed to the likes of a bitter little man with even less experience (zero) and insight and an axe to grind, like you. :lol: Tom Ligon worked with Dr Bussard for a while, at EMC2, is as well mannered and intended as anyone around.. And here you're making these statements. Maybe you'll next question the credibility or motivations of some scrap of info Dr Nebel releases like he used to here, or has done on Cosmic Log or NBF.

This is getting really ridiculous. The situation sucks for an outsider in the public. Period, that's all there is to it, no need to speculate beyond that. The jury's out for 2 years (or 1.5 years now, whatever the exact count is). Just sit back and see what happens in the mean time. Then if things do peter out you'll have some cred with your line of arguments.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Thu May 06, 2010 6:38 am

Betruger:
Well as you resort to name-calling, you show your colours. Enough said to you, that road will get us no closer to Polywell fusion.

But for the benefit of others, I have no axe to grind. I'm well aware of the history of Tom L. and TallDave's previous involvement with EMC2. In fact, I have some degree of admiration for Tom Lignon. The current situation, with regards to disclosure of project information from EMC2, has now placed Tom L., TallDave and other privileged insiders in a difficult position when it comes to making public comments about the technological development. They may not realise it yet, but the rules have changed from the time when the Navy had dropped the project into the public domain and they were enthusiastically touting for EMC2 funding, e.g. soon after Dr. Bussard's Google talk (video). I'm just pointing this out to them, being the sceptical scientists they purport to be, and I believe them to be, they'll know exactly what I'm referring to.

Hearsay is exactly what we have at this point, sorry if you do not like the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
"Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence."

Can't we just all get along back to the numbers?

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Thu May 06, 2010 8:12 am

What name calling? It's what you come off as.

Don't like the word hearsay? I accepted it maybe a couple of days after first starting to read this forum and all the resources it linked to.

There are no numbers. There is no atmosphere about EMC2 or Nebel to carry any kind of "smell". There is only speculation. Speculation like TallDave's isn't grounds to suggest people to shut the hell up. There's no grounds to call Dr Nebel a liar or any such presumption "only less advanced", like pretending to know his motives.

There's a variety of possible solutions to the riddle we're facing, and it's not yet clear that any of them are certain or dismissable, except some of the most extreme ones.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Thu May 06, 2010 2:47 pm

Would you like to provide the reference for those claims where we could review the data to back up your assertions? No, didn't think so.


Of course I can. He said it right here on TP.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... =wb8#20727

rnebel wrote:It's not all set yet, but the magnetic field will be much stronger than the WB-7 and so will the dynamic range.


Later on he says more specifically somewhere they're looking at .8T. DYOR. So yes, we are shortly going to have a much better idea what scaling with B will look like, and no that isn't "hearsay," and yes if we're going to worry about something right now that's probably the most valid target for our worrying.

Did you measure those fields,


No, and that's a really good point. We can't really know anything until we measure it ourselves. Maybe Rick's lying and they're really using refrigerator magnets. In fact, how can we even know LANL itself really exists? Sure, lots of people CLAIM to have worked there, but until we check for ourselves, do we really know? I think not. Come to think of it, I'm not even convinced YOU really exist. :)

Seriously, though -- I have no previous involvement with EMC2 and I don't know where you got that idea. I never worked there, and I'm not an insider, privileged or otherwise. I'm just a guy who did some blogging and wrote some Congresspeople about an interesting tech he thought was underfunded. I've also made the point repeatedly that people should not get their hopes up -- the most likely scenario is that Polywell will not pan out into economic net power. It's just one of the better shots out there.

There really isn't much "hearsay" to speak of -- everything we know is pretty much straight from Rick. There's lots of speculation, and inference from things like the fact the WB-8 contract was granted, of course, which should always be taken with appropriate caveats, but it's not like I've ever seen a post like "my friend's cousin's bff is a janitor at China Lake and he saw a box labeled .8T MAGNETS FOR POLYWELL." At most, there's been a couple allusions to things known but subject to NDA.

Unforunately, there aren't many hard numbers to work with either, but that is what it is.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Heath_h49008
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:12 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Heath_h49008 » Thu May 06, 2010 4:10 pm

Gentlemen, I'm surprised at the level of angst, and paranoia.

Nothing said here would strike me as new information. The basic concepts were made public by Dr B., and the hard data required to justify any fear or joy would be limited to those capable of building a functional model. (Like what may be running at China Lake.)

If you are concerned about being the next Gerald Bull, try not to build an effective reactor without securing the interests of certain armed and paranoid parties.

We aren't that important.

Things you could do to become G Bull MkII...

Low cost, passively guided rockets.
Low cost guidance systems, and/or better fuel for Quassam rockets.
Low cost super-cavitating torpedoes with over 1000lb payload capacity.
Simple to replicate plans for adapting GPS guidance to common radio controlled aircraft components.

...the list is quite long, and falls under one common thread. Don't give the dumb kids the fun toys.

A number of very bright people on this board might well be capable of attracting unwanted attention, but not without effort, and probably not with a power generation system already publicly under development.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu May 06, 2010 5:33 pm

icarus wrote: TallDave said:
We know there will be .8T B fields. The lead scientist's statements aren't "hearsay."
Would you like to provide the reference for those claims where we could review the data to back up your assertions? No, didn't think so.
Perhaps you would like the statement "We know that the Statement of Work required WB8 to have a B field strength of 0.8T.

(By the by, you both may want to tone down the rhetoric a bit, please?)

Giorgio
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Thu May 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Actually a simple "things are going as predicted" will be more than enough for 99% of the folks that devoted most of their free time to promote this technology, and for the general lurkers like me.

Not even caring about letting people to know if at least things are going as predicted (or not) is pretty sad, especially if these people fought for you and shared your same dream.

I am not saying that they should be open like LLP people, after all the Navy is involved in this project, but if they are allowed to participate to fusion conferences, than I doubt that they "can't" really say anything.
Most probably they simply do not want to.

As for giving dumb kids the fun toys, if this does not happen than technological evolution does not occur.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Thu May 06, 2010 5:57 pm

Rick apparently didn't say much at the conference about his work. Most likely the situation is what Rick described -- funders don't want a circus like the cold fusion debacle or unfriendly scrutiny from DOE and are telling people to keep quiet about data until they're really sure what it all means. They're not treating it as a matter of national security, just playing it close to the vest.

A case could be made silence means they're worried the data is promising enough it would get people like us prematurely excited. Of course, it could just as easily also mean the opposite as well. I'm just saying any inferences on that basis alone are very speculative.

I don't think Rick owes us anything. I definitely don't think they should release information if that in any way reduces the likelihood they can get this tech to economic net power.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

vernes
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby vernes » Thu May 06, 2010 6:09 pm

Giorgio wrote:Actually a simple "things are going as predicted" will be more than enough for 99% of the folks that devoted most of their free time to promote this technology, and for the general lurkers like me.
Hear, hear!

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Thu May 06, 2010 7:15 pm

Giorgio wrote:...
I am not saying that they should be open like LLP people, after all the Navy is involved in this project, but if they are allowed to participate to fusion conferences, than I doubt that they "can't" really say anything.
Most probably they simply do not want to.
...


Actually, using what R. Bussard said as an example, the Navy embargo at that time allowed them to attend conferences and talk about space flight or other applications of a speculative power source, but not to talk directly about their research or publish their methods and results.
I guess it depends on the whims of the project monitors (if any)'

The window between the Navy contracts permitted EMC2 to release and talk about at least some of the details and results. This may have been motivated at least in part by Bussard's frustrations and feelings of mortality.

I see some of the motives about the restrictions on communication as being:

1) Promising results, that are being held close for company proprietary reasons.

2) Promising or interesting results being held close for Naval embargo reasons.

3) Disappointing or questionable results being held to avoid undo speculation or embarrassment.

4) They don't feel like it.

5)etc...

After all, one of the attractive aspects of this forum (at least at certain times) was the willingness of a few individuals willingness to share their intimate knowledge with an interested public. It is disappointing that this has apparently dried up. It now appears that the Focus Fusion group is carrying this mantle.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

deane
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:27 am

Postby deane » Fri May 07, 2010 10:55 am

D Tibbets wrote:I see some of the motives about the restrictions on communication as being:

1) Promising results, that are being held close for company proprietary reasons.

2) Promising or interesting results being held close for Naval embargo reasons.

3) Disappointing or questionable results being held to avoid undo speculation or embarrassment.

4) They don't feel like it.

5)etc...

5) The results are sufficiently encouraging that they fear a storm of media attention which might distract them from their research.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Postby BenTC » Fri May 07, 2010 12:53 pm

TallDave wrote:A case could be made silence means they're worried the data is promising enough it would get people like us prematurely excited.
...and it wouldn't take much to get a lot of us prematurely excited.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Sat May 08, 2010 8:32 am

D Tibbets wrote:
Giorgio wrote:...
I am not saying that they should be open like LLP people, after all the Navy is involved in this project, but if they are allowed to participate to fusion conferences, than I doubt that they "can't" really say anything.
Most probably they simply do not want to.
...


Actually, using what R. Bussard said as an example, the Navy embargo at that time allowed them to attend conferences and talk about space flight or other applications of a speculative power source, but not to talk directly about their research or publish their methods and results.
I guess it depends on the whims of the project monitors (if any)'

The window between the Navy contracts permitted EMC2 to release and talk about at least some of the details and results. This may have been motivated at least in part by Bussard's frustrations and feelings of mortality.

I see some of the motives about the restrictions on communication as being:

1) Promising results, that are being held close for company proprietary reasons.

2) Promising or interesting results being held close for Naval embargo reasons.

3) Disappointing or questionable results being held to avoid undo speculation or embarrassment.

4) They don't feel like it.

5)etc...

After all, one of the attractive aspects of this forum (at least at certain times) was the willingness of a few individuals willingness to share their intimate knowledge with an interested public. It is disappointing that this has apparently dried up. It now appears that the Focus Fusion group is carrying this mantle.

Dan Tibbets


The FF people have a very different funding model which relies on relative openness - and have from day one had an excellent PR campaign with good web pages etc. It is why they now have some funding.

Polywell has not - in spite of Simon's efforts - got this. And it does not seem much to want it in spite of a new web site.

As for whether it is likely to succeed. I see experiments as no less worthy and interesting than those done by the FF people, and likelihood of success as small, but perhaps better than with FF.

So perhaps Rick feels that more Navy money is likely forthcoming?


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests