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

Post by Art Carlson »

kraisee, since Rick always made the impression that he wanted to tell more but the Navy wouldn't let him, I sort of thought the FOIA might do him a favor by forcing the Navy to let him talk. I also figured the law wouldn't cover every scrap of paper in his lab with notes on it but only documents he submitted to the Navy or documents from third parties like a review panel. It might mean a half a day for some Navy bureaucrat, but no time at all for Rick and his team. The situation is a bit more complicated if some but not all of the info is commercially relevant, because to answer the request cleanly somebody from his team would have to go through the reports blacking out what the competition shouldn't see. For whatever reason, EMC2 replied with a blanket refusal, which set them back about 10 minutes. If it had been clear from the beginning that it is EMC2 and not the Navy that doesn't want any information to be released, I doubt the FOIA request would ever have been filed.

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

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:I did not mean to prompt a debate on taxes, merely that if any perosn or company gets any amount of small change in their cap on the promise of future research then it becomes onerous on them to share information.

There is no issue on how trivial, or good a cause, a thing is. This is merely that if you take from the politi then you must expect to give to the politi. If the Navy find it, it is with the future visionary management to put defence in place for our future - that is their return to "us". But after that acceptable reason, if a company working for them, and thus for that purpose, has no real claim as to commerciability if otherwise the Navy are happy to explain what they are up to.

This is defence money. That bit is OK (in my book - at least in a margin somewhere). So why is it going to help someone do some work with which they will then claim commerciality? This situation might be slightly different if it is a DoD outright-purcase of a proprietary thing for which the vendors are keeping details secret, but it isn't that scenario either.
Yeah. I don't understand why Boeing won't give out all its data on high powered laser research. Taxpayer funded after all.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Folks,
There is a difference between wanting to share SOME information and giving away the store.
It is entirely possible that Dr. N. would have no problem providing tables of test results and the like while being totally opposed to releasing the summary reports. Said reports may contain thoughts and considerations that start the clock ticking on patantability issues.
In a seperate topic I asked Ladajo if (s)he were willing to drop this FoI in favor of another that asks for specific data rather than general reports.
Dr. N. should be afforded that chance to clear his rep.

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

Post by mvanwink5 »

KitemanSA wrote: Dr. N. should be afforded that chance to clear his rep.
I'm sorry, were you implying something in this statement? This topic has long ago lost its basis in common sense and I have lost my patience with it. I for one will no longer read posts in it.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

For the record, I do not think Rick was "lying". I do think there are inconsistancies that came to light via the filing of the FOIA.
I(he) am willing to explore other avenues and move away from the FOIA. The intent of the FOIA was to give EMC2 an out based on the understanding that the navy was preventing release of info.

All that said, there has been no move by EMC2 in a long time to provide any real meaningful information.

The FOIA appeal is due on a deadline, and I think it has a good shot at some sort of positive outcome based on my consultations and understanding of the process. It is no longer in China Lakes hands, the appeal goes to DC, at a higher level. If there is an "internal" not made public position between NAVAIR, ONR and EMC2 it will have to come to light at that level.

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

Post by icarus »

Ladajo, you should go ahead with the appeal.

If it is all above board and on the record it will be data we can have some confidence in, however little actually makes it out. The current third-hand hearsay 'process' from insiders is disappointingly secretive, vague and prone to mis-interpretation and errors. Any data not through an official channel will be rightly challenged from now on I'd say.

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

Post by MSimon »

The current third-hand hearsay 'process' from insiders is disappointingly secretive, vague and prone to mis-interpretation and errors.
And worse it is not appreciated by EMC2.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

icarus wrote:Ladajo, you should go ahead with the appeal....
i agree (and well done for taking he initiative and seeing it though Ladajo). an apeal will keep the pressure on them and keep them (somewhat) in the spotlight. it will also make it easier to escalate the process later on, if they persist with 'no-ball', tool long.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

mvanwink5 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Dr. N. should be afforded that chance to clear his rep.
I'm sorry, were you implying something in this statement? This topic has long ago lost its basis in common sense and I have lost my patience with it. I for one will no longer read posts in it.
Yes. I was implying that a lot of folks on this forum seem to think Dr. N. has been dishonest. I think he has just been wisely holding some information close to the vest.

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

Post by BenTC »

an appeal will keep the pressure on them
Really now! (and mostly not you rcain, but similar posts above) you're acting like your "entitled" to other people's hard work. I also was disappointed with the failed FOIA, but to force the issue is rude. Look beyond what you're "entitled" to, at the bigger picture, with the primary question being: What is the fastest path to success?

I'll lay out my thinking with some retorical questions, to see how far you might agree...
  • Q1. Do you want the Polywell to be successful ?
  • Q2. In light of (Q1) Do you think success will be quicker with or without the Navy "public money" ?
  • Q3. In light of (Q1,2) Do you think EMC2 should have refused "public money" ?
  • Q4a. In light of (Q1,2,3) Do you think EMC2 should be penalized for accepting public money ?
  • Q4b. Do you think penalizing EMC2 helps the cause ?
  • (and while the previous questions were somewhat retorical, this one is perhaps an open question)
    Q5. Do you think the Polywell will succeed faster by seriously-big-corporations getting onboard, with EMC2 maintaining control, or by each of those big-corporations going off on their own and segregating advances to themselves?
And finally, Regardless of anything previously said by EMC2 representatives, circumstances change!
I was disappointed with the failed FOIA, but the more I've thought about it following these discussions, the more I'm agreeable with their response.

Lets just leave them in peace to get on with it.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

BenTC wrote:...you're acting like your "entitled" to other people's hard work...
nope. but we (or US citizens at least) are entitled to submit an FOI request.

EMC and the US Navy are entitled to decline it.
BenTC wrote:...What is the fastest path to success?..
to keep the pressure on.
BenTC wrote:...but to force the issue is rude..
yep. probably. but sometimes effective.
BenTC wrote:Lets just leave them in peace to get on with it.
do we have a choice? (rhetorical).

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

Post by KitemanSA »

BenTC wrote:
an appeal will keep the pressure on them
Really now! (and mostly not you rcain, but similar posts above) you're acting like your "entitled" to other people's hard work.
That is their point. They believe they ARE entitled to the info.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:I did not mean to prompt a debate on taxes, merely that if any perosn or company gets any amount of small change in their cap on the promise of future research then it becomes onerous on them to share information.

There is no issue on how trivial, or good a cause, a thing is. This is merely that if you take from the politi then you must expect to give to the politi. If the Navy find it, it is with the future visionary management to put defence in place for our future - that is their return to "us". But after that acceptable reason, if a company working for them, and thus for that purpose, has no real claim as to commerciability if otherwise the Navy are happy to explain what they are up to.

This is defence money. That bit is OK (in my book - at least in a margin somewhere). So why is it going to help someone do some work with which they will then claim commerciality? This situation might be slightly different if it is a DoD outright-purcase of a proprietary thing for which the vendors are keeping details secret, but it isn't that scenario either.
Yeah. I don't understand why Boeing won't give out all its data on high powered laser research. Taxpayer funded after all.
Partly because the laser belongs to Lockheed... you want laser info you need to know who to ask...

vankirkc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:08 pm

Post by vankirkc »

KitemanSA wrote:
BenTC wrote:
an appeal will keep the pressure on them
Really now! (and mostly not you rcain, but similar posts above) you're acting like your "entitled" to other people's hard work.
That is their point. They believe that ARE entitled to the info.
It's more than a belief. It's a fact.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

vankirkc wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
BenTC wrote: Really now! (and mostly not you rcain, but similar posts above) you're acting like your "entitled" to other people's hard work.
That is their point. They believe that ARE entitled to the info.
It's more than a belief. It's a fact.
You are incorrect. You may be entitled to SOME data generated at a government lab, and you may be entitled to SOME data that is purchaced via a government contract but you are NOT entitled to proprietary company information, period, end of story.
If you don't believe me, take it to court. Good luck! :roll:

Post Reply