Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I said:
Why is EMC2's data required to show that a net power device is possible?
To clarify:

Why is EMC2's data required to show that a net power device is not possible?

The data from the replicant reactor will tell us if the answer to net power is "possible" or "not possible".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by Betruger »

icarus wrote:Your false premise is that there is a positive result somewhere to be had from this charade.
The peer review with e.g. Hirsch on it was a charade. Gotcha.
Your question assumes that a net power device is possible, big leap of faith for someone who hasn't seen the data.
Only assumption is that it's a knowable unknown and building the machine would resolve that unknown. It's a leap of faith to either say it's got to be a sham, or that it's got to work. You're doing the former.

Art Carlson
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by Art Carlson »

TallDave wrote: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).
I have the impression that Rick has been hiding behind the "gag order", which certainly exists in his contract, leaving the impression that he wanted to be more open, but - so sorry - the DoD won't let him talk yet. Perhaps the FOIA request has forced him to admit that he would prefer to play his cards close to his chest.

Alternatively, I could imagine that the Navy comes to him and says, "Those jokers at talk-polywell have saddled us with an FOIA request. We told you hanging around there would just cause trouble. We've got lots of good reasons to deny access. Some of them you know about, some of them you don't. Some might be covered by the FOIA, some unfortunately are not. We want this off our desk now, and the easiest way for us is if you declare commercial interest for EMC2. You created this problem, you fix it."

(I'm a scientist. I love to analyze data. This FOIA business has developed into another of those frequent topics here that is pure speculation, sans all data. That goes for Rick's character, too. There is a prima facie case that he has not been leveling with us, but if we knew all the facts, he might turn out to be a saint, or an even bigger monster. I think there's nothing more to say.)

mvanwink5
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

MSimon wrote:So as I see it I can just wait for EMC2 to fire up WB-D or fold. Or I can build my own research device and get my own data. I kinda like the second option.
If you are serious, let us know. In regards to some of the posts on this topic, I am a little surprised how nutty some folks have gotten. I think some are in bad need of a wife's oversight.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

mvanwink5 wrote:
MSimon wrote:So as I see it I can just wait for EMC2 to fire up WB-D or fold. Or I can build my own research device and get my own data. I kinda like the second option.
If you are serious, let us know. In regards to some of the posts on this topic, I am a little surprised how nutty some folks have gotten. I think some are in bad need of a wife's oversight.
I am serious. I have a general plan. If there is serious money I will work on a detailed plan. I have a crew lined up to help. Depending on what is desired the plan could cost from around $3 million for a quasi pulsed (seconds) LN2 cooled Cu coil .5 m machine (about .5 to 1 T) with rotating storage for the pulses to a 3 T SC 1 m machine with continuous operation for about $12 million or so.

My preference would be to do it as part of a college endowment. With U. Wisconsin (Madison) or U. Illinois (Champaign) being my first choices.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by zbarlici »

MSimon wrote:
mvanwink5 wrote:
MSimon wrote:So as I see it I can just wait for EMC2 to fire up WB-D or fold. Or I can build my own research device and get my own data. I kinda like the second option.
If you are serious, let us know. In regards to some of the posts on this topic, I am a little surprised how nutty some folks have gotten. I think some are in bad need of a wife's oversight.
I am serious. I have a general plan. If there is serious money I will work on a detailed plan. I have a crew lined up to help. Depending on what is desired the plan could cost from around $3 million for a quasi pulsed (seconds) LN2 cooled Cu coil .5 m machine (about .5 to 1 T) with rotating storage for the pulses to a 3 T SC 1 m machine with continuous operation for about $12 million or so.

My preference would be to do it as part of a college endowment. With U. Wisconsin (Madison) or U. Illinois (Champaign) being my first choices.
I think it`d be hard to get your plan going right now, seing as how in general there`s too much (warranted?)skepticism about the polywell, and secondly because supposedly we`ll find out if the thing works at the end of phase 2, about 7 from months now... thats close enough that most would ride the time out methinks.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

icarus wrote: You may have noticed, I'm not a people person.
REALLY?? ;)
icarus wrote:I can run numbers and theories, simulations, etc. You come up with the funds and I have no problem open sourcing the results ... wasn't that the implicit suggestion underlying Bussard's "we're saving humanity" Google talk?
Actually, no. At least not the way I heard it. What I heard is that he didn't want to go the venture capital route yet because they tend to monopolize/suppress such technologies. He wanted to be sure it got out to the people.

There are two and only two ways I know to make that happen. Use government money till the risks are low or use not-for-profit money instead. Dr. B. started down the NFP route but got side-tracked by a heap o military $.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

vankirkc wrote:
icarus wrote: You may have noticed, I'm not a people person. I can run numbers and theories, simulations, etc. You come up with the funds and I have no problem open sourcing the results ... wasn't that the implicit suggestion underlying Bussard's "we're saving humanity" Google talk?
Bussard is dead.
Is this along the line of:
The doc is dead, long live the doc?

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Heath_h49008 wrote:MSimon, if you start to feel a bit itchy and want to actually start bending wire, I'm not that far away for a few trips to assist.

I don't think I'm alone here with some free, moderately skilled labor to offer. But, where would you get the power supplies and vacuum hardware?

(Yes, for the gearheads who understand, this is "bench-racing")
I'd have to look back in my archives - but there is a power supply company that will build 100 KV power supplies in the MW range (to 50 MW) for $1 a watt. They have off the shelf modules. I have had very preliminary talks with them.

For turbopumps - lots of companies. I might do something klunky like use 10 or 20 3,000 l/s turbopumps. It is one of the reasons I'm doing background work in designing a "universal" Forth compiler - I want to use CAN bus for the safety systems. I have a chip in mind for the point controllers but I would need a multi-CAN bus controller for the Master Control and I haven't picked a chip for that yet.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

zbarlici,

The actual frame (assuming18 to 24 months from May 2009) is 8 to 14 months. A minor quibble. I think you are right given a construction time of about 1 year for experiments. At least for commercial work.

For university work an overlap might not be a show stopper - given all the IEC work going on.

You would need a radiation safety officer as a permanent fixture if significant power (>1W fusion) is expected. But I know a guy who would be ideal for the job.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by TallDave »

You would need a radiation safety officer as a permanent fixture if significant power (>1W fusion) is expected. But I know a guy who would be ideal for the job.
That's interesting. Did you do a rem calc? I'm assuming this doesn't apply to machines that only achieve beta = 1 for milliseconds.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I'm assuming D-D for at least some of the operational time. I'm also assuming that a safety officer would be a good idea for radiation levels >1/100th of those where safety actually becomes an issue.

But to answer your question - no I did not do a calculation. But I did consider that the structure might become activated and thus need monitoring esp right after shut-down when changes may be contemplated.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by BenTC »

MSimon wrote:It is one of the reasons I'm doing background work in designing a "universal" Forth compiler - I want to use CAN bus for the safety systems. I have a chip in mind for the point controllers but I would need a multi-CAN bus controller for the Master Control and I haven't picked a chip for that yet.
How do you rate the Philips SJA1000 on this board attached to this baseboard? Or this single board ? Here is their getting started guide.
Would the included 5K (or 12K) LUT FPGA be big enough for your Forth implementation ?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

BenTC wrote:
MSimon wrote:It is one of the reasons I'm doing background work in designing a "universal" Forth compiler - I want to use CAN bus for the safety systems. I have a chip in mind for the point controllers but I would need a multi-CAN bus controller for the Master Control and I haven't picked a chip for that yet.
How do you rate the Philips SJA1000 on this board attached to this baseboard? Or this single board ? Here is their getting started guide.
Would the included 5K (or 12K) LUT FPGA be big enough for your Forth implementation ?
I have used the SJA 1000. Compared to what is integrated with a lot of SoCs with CAN it is kind of primitive. The automotive market is driving a lot of this. The rest of the technical world is just along for the ride.

I kind of favor this chip for now:

http://www.st.com/stonline/books/pdf/docs/13495.pdf

It is part of the ST912 Series.

BTW I used the SJA 1000 in probably the first aerospace qualified CAN Bus tester.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

kraisee
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:44 am

Post by kraisee »

Forgive me for saying so, but I've always had a problem with this FOIA.

Ultimately Rick Nebel and his team are the only ones who can provide the information you guys want -- but if they're having to spend time doing this, then they aren't spending time getting the durned thing working.

This is just a distraction for them and I wish they could remain focused on getting this technology up and running as soon as possible.

Why can't we all just wait a little longer? What ultimate BENEFIT does it make if the team spends a few weeks answering this FOIA properly? Sure, it'll be fuel for the fire of discussion -- but how exactly does that actually help anyone?

IMHO, we should let Rick get on with building and testing so that he can get a fully operating version built ASAP. Once that happens, real commercial operations can make the much more appropriate inquiries about licensing the technology properly.


Worse still, I don't think I am the only one here who would be seriously p'd off if this FOIA causes a delay in their work which ultimately results in Rick's team missing some critical milestone.

If the project got canned because it missed such an important target thanks to having to spend weeks writing a reply to an FOIA from an internet discussion forum (who aren't really going to get much practical use out of it, except as more fat to chew) that would be an awful travesty.

They've made it pretty clear they don't want to do this. So please: Stop bugging them about it. Let them stay focused on what they need to be focused on. All will be revealed, sooner or later.

Just MHO.

Ross.

Post Reply