Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

[chrismb]

... and I had always put you down as a great british cynic Chrismb, yet you are sounding like a righteously indignant idealist. do you even pay US taxes?

...and there I was trying to be an idealistically and indignantly righteous great british cynic!

I rather expect I do pay US taxes in some way or other. Y'know, we only just payed of the post war (WW2) loan off to you guys last year.

Did you know there's still an unpaid loan (of ours to you, and of others to us) from WW1 that kinda got fogotten about in the 1930's depression?

Apparently there are still some UK governement 'bonds' about that now form part of larger financial instruments that date back to Napoleonic times.

As for direct taxes, well, depends what you mean by taxes but some money of mine drops straight into the US coffers every now and again. I also work for a US multi-national, so I am quite sure my hours of sweat and toil are taxed in the US...yeah, sure, I contribute to the US economy in a sufficient, albeit peripheral way, to hold an opinion!

But I'm sure you know this wasn't my point. I aim to be a noisy indignant world-citizen of the liberal West, on behalf of all those little people who are quietly indignant.

[rcain]

.. i think you should direct that to those roudy Americans - i am a brit too (haha).

[MSimon]

New Boyle Article Up. See my blogs or the "Boyle" thread in News.

[Alchemist]

I think we got or answer to why the FOIA was denied under the "Proprietary information" clause in Rick's follow up comment to Alan Boyle's article:

Secondly, in our contract with the DOD, EMC2 owns the commercialization rights for the Polywell. However, commercialization is not something that we can do with our DOD funding. That is what we would like to look at with any contributions from the website. This will enable us to:
1. Design an attractive commercial reactor package.
2. Identify the high leverage physics items that most impact the design (i.e. how good is good enough).
3. Give us a base design when we are ready to proceed to the next step.

EMC2 IS definitely protecting their potential future commercial interests.

[ladajo]

Nope, you miss the whole point.

What you do with private funds is private business.
What you do with public funds is public business.
To simplify: Public Funds = Public Scrutiny.

Even Black Programs become public, it is only a matter of time. Nothing EMC2 is doing is Black, thus THAT is not an issue either.

[Art Carlson]

EMC2 IS definitely protecting their potential future commercial interests.

That is perfectly legitimate, and I think few of us if any would not hope that he succeeds in commercializing polywell. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is his previous strong suggestions that he wished he could tell us more, but the Navy wouldn't let him. The official answer now is that he (or somebody at EMC2) is the one holding back the info.

[mad_derek]

EMC2 IS definitely protecting their potential future commercial interests.

That is perfectly legitimate, and I think few of us if any would not hope that he succeeds in commercializing polywell. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is his previous strong suggestions that he wished he could tell us more, but the Navy wouldn't let him. The official answer now is that he (or somebody at EMC2) is the one holding back the info.

Yes, Art's quite right here. That's the bit that sticks in the craw. Disingenuous to say the least.

[TallDave]

EMC2 IS definitely protecting their potential future commercial interests.

That is perfectly legitimate, and I think few of us if any would not hope that he succeeds in commercializing polywell. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is his previous strong suggestions that he wished he could tell us more, but the Navy wouldn't let him. The official answer now is that he (or somebody at EMC2) is the one holding back the info.

Eh, Bussard was gagged for 10 years. I haven't heard any reason why that would be different for Nebel. The fact the FOIA was rejected on certain grounds doesn't mean there aren't others-- in addition to competitive considerations, the sponsors may also want to keep a lid on things. "Harm the contractor's position" may just be the first box checked on the list (or the one that requires the least effort to prove).

Anyways, even assuming EMC2 has denied the info, a FOIA is a somewhat adversarial request. EMC2 might be willing to release some data, on their own terms, at a time they choose, if the sponsors allow this, but not want to give in to a FOIA request when they are under no obligation to do so.

Overall, I see no reason not to take Rick at his word. Seems a bit paranoid to assume Rick was lying to us when Bussard was gagged all those years.

[TallDave]

BTW, Rick didn't just imply he couldn't share data. He outright stated it.

FWIW, here are his statements:

We anticipate that we will be getting a lot of data over the next few months. Consequently, it would good to let you know what to expect from us in terms of information:

1. We can’t release data. The DOD has to determine what it wants to release. Eventually this will all come out, but they are our customer and this is their call. We are free to discuss anything which has been released (such as the WB-6) but they will control the new data. I’m willing to discuss where we are and what we are learning, but I can’t give you a lot of numbers.

2. Don’t expect us to be making a lot of pronouncements to the press like the cold fusion people did. We will have a very high level review panel that will be looking at our results, and we don’t want to prejudge their conclusions.
...
To all:

I understand that people are interested in our results, particularly on this website. I‘ll keep you informed. This is typical of DOD contracts, and the rationale behind it is pretty simple. They don’t want contractors making public statements that aren’t correct, or haven’t been looked at. That sort of thing can turn into a huge embarrassment.

The perfect example of that was the cold fusion mess. That was funded out of Advanced Energy Projects at the DOE. The Utah people got paranoid and went public before their work was adequately reviewed. Advanced Energy Projects no longer exists at the DOE. We’re not going to let that happen. We’re going to have a credible, independent review, and we won’t prejudge what they have to say.

He was also upfront about commercialization of the IP being an issue:

Finally, I appreciate your concern about research being slowed down by the lack of dialogue. My previous research at LANL (POPS for instance) was always public domain. The reason we did it that way is because we figured that the patents would run out before we could commercialize it and the benefits of having it critiqued outweighed the drawbacks of getting "scooped". I still feel that way, but I have a little different responsibilities at EMC2. We have a responsibility to get this technology developed in a timely manner and I also have a responsibility to look after the interests of our employees and the corporation.

viewtopic.php?p=5071&highlight=#5071

So for whichever reason we're not getting data, it's hard to claim Rick misled us.

[chrismb]

Eh, Bussard was gagged for 10 years.

Says who? That whole issue over whether that was the whole truth is now blown wi____ide open.

This from the guy who spouted on about how tokamaks had failed so badly, yet has several toroidal plasma patents before, and post, his Polywell patent.

[Gallium]

Hello, first time poster, long time lurker.

I have never felt the need to post before, partly because much of the physics involved is far beyond my chosen profession, but I feel that I can contribute something to this particular discussion.

From what I have read of this discussion of the freedom of information request we have had the following:

A long build up period where a lot of people became far too enthusiastic.
A large number of people who, upon it's failure, are now proclaiming the whole project is bunk.

I can not help think that everybody is overanalysing this.

Freedom of information request on military project turned down. Is that really a surprise? Would you really expect anything if you were to request information on the designs or performance of military equipment commissioned by a private contractor? I can see it now..."I'd like those F22 plans please and the performance statistics to boot! They were made with my money. Hop to it!". My example is extreme but surely you can see where I am coming from?

No. From my experience of business, academia and my knowledge of politics in my own country, this is a simple case of naivety on the part of the members of this forum.

I have worked under academics and private businesses accepting public money/contracts in the millions of pounds. If you were to raise of freedom of information requests for the results obtained with said money you would have been told in no uncertain terms where to put said request. More to the point the reviewer of said request would have agreed with our suggestion of rectal insertion.

Why?

Freedom of information requests are not designed for you to get to know everything. At least in Scotland, and our system is modeled on the US system to my knowledge. It is meant to show which MSP has spent 500 quid on taxis or how much money was spent on X public (and I stress public) institution. This does not mean, "You received 3 pound 50, show us everything!". The FOI would cover something more like "Oh, you received 3 pounds and 50 pence under x government business stimulus program.".

To cut a long story short. Let them do their job. They will publish results when the project funder wants them to, not when some guy on the internet wants it.

[ladajo]

Talldave,
And where has he met his own standards from the quote you provided for WB7 and WB7.1? Or even WB6? The WB6 summary report was "released" and then subsequently removed from distro at as it is understood his request. There are many of us who have a copy, but we are not distro'ing it around based on that.

It is clear that the gag was self imposed in this case. NAVAIR told me that the final wicket for release was EMC2's cut on proprietary. Nothing else. EMC2 claimed, NAVAIR said OK. The appeal will go after "Sole Source"(ie no competitor), Public Funded, No Patents filed(in fact dropped), and Peer Review(Not EMC produced) points, as well as the data sought is not design secrets based, but performance based. (ie. Ford can say they have a 10KG motor than can produce 1000HP and run on cabbage, but they aren't saying how...very common practice.) If EMC2 has good numbers, it may or may not encourage others to try and build their own. That matters not. Who cares. If EMC2 has figured out some little trick or nuance that they can claim patent rights, good for them, and they deserve it. We are not looking for that. But there is CERTAINLY enough info in the public domain RIGHT NOW that someone with a big check book and intent could jump right in and build their own. And there is nothing to legally stop them. Period. All it would do is accellerate the process by means of real competition and free market. You can't hold legal rights on something you might figure out later. If that were so, Hmmmm, I claim rights to Warp Drive here and now! Anyone that invents it later, has to pay me a royalty, cause I just thought it might be commercially viable. YIIPPPEEE! I am RICH!!! WOOO HOOOO!!!!! I am having a party as soon as I get my first royalty check, you are all invited!

[chrismb]

Hello, first time poster, long time lurker.

Nice of you to join and comment. But I think you've got a few wrong ends of the stick here

A long build up period where a lot of people became far too enthusiastic.
A large number of people who, upon it's failure, are now proclaiming the whole project is bunk.

I can not help think that everybody is overanalysing this.

Not really. It looks to me that those that were obsessive followers remain so and actually think the restriction is a positive sign (!!). Those that felt it was bunk don't feel any reason to think otherwise. But most importantly; those that were enthusiasts but remained fully objective are now disabused of the notion that this is a solid runner. Fair enough, it might still have some running left in it, but it is hobbling now, out of breath and miles from the end of the marathon, not a strong candidate for finishing the race.

Freedom of information request on military project turned down. Is that really a surprise?

Whether it is or is not, it is not permitted in law. This isn't a request asking for the intricacies of every nut and screw. The comparison is that we're asking "so this new plane - how efficient are the engines, in kg/hr/kN?" We only want absolutely denuded information of such specific outcome that it says nothing at all about the application. But, no. Everything [bar nothing at all] has been claimed to be 'commercial' by EMC2 when they have been claiming for years they didn't want to commercialise it and it was the Navy holding back the info. Now we find out the Navy is happy to release it, but EMC2 doesn't want to.

This isn't just "double standards", this is "standards-[un]squared"!!

[TallDave]

chrismb,

That's some fine trolling, but I'm a busy man.

ladajo,

What standards? He made it clear the DOD controls the information, and beyond that he has EMC2's stakeholders to consider. This isn't just an Internet hobby for them like it is for us. I'd like more, but periodically talking to Alan Boyle covers his "keep you informed" pretty well.

I don't know what NAVAIR told you or how reliable it is. Sorry your FOIA didn't work out, but let's not smear Rick because our feelings are hurt. He doesn't owe us anything.

[chrismb]

The appeal will go after "Sole Source"(ie no competitor), Public Funded, No Patents filed(in fact dropped), and Peer Review(Not EMC produced) points, as well as the data sought is not design secrets based, but performance based.

Are you going to include that quote about EMC2 not wanting to possess commercialisation? This must be pertinent to their funding and viability, if they have attracted public donations.