Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

classicpenny
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Port Angeles WA USA
Contact:

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby classicpenny » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:20 pm

tauntaun_rider wrote:More subtle political pressure may loosen the purse-strings at the Navy again, but already I hear rumors of key people at the Office of Naval Research that find the Polywell still too speculative - it won't be ready to power a destroyer on their watch, so they want lower-hanging fruit.

Two of my Congressman's staffers met with ONR earlier this week. The official line from ONR was, "The Navy has spent a lot of money on the Polywell, and has taken it to the point where private investors can or will pick it up. Once it becomes a viable, commercially available power source, the Navy will take another look."
I expressed skepticism at this, suggesting that private investors might be reluctant to cough up the $200 million or more needed for a full-scale proof of concept machine; but both staffers were quite adamant that they had fully represented the Navy's viewpoint. When I suggested that maybe the Energy Department should be funding the effort, the staffers said they planned to talk to Energy, and I tried to explain Energy's pervasive TOKAMAK bias to them, but I fear that it fell on deaf ears.
Any word yet on serious investors? If China steps up, does that mean all the hardware at 9155 Brown Deer Rd goes to China along with Dr. Park and the rest of the staff? I am profoundly disturbed by the prospect of my local PUD buying a Polywell from China. (Nothing against China, I just think if an American invented it, and the Navy funded its early development, the US should be able to reap the Commercial benefits.)

Bill Flint

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

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby ladajo » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:30 pm

Well, that sounds about right.

Do you know who they met with? I assume Richard Carlin. And given that the CNR is new, he has little to no background on EMC2 other than what he is told by civilian staff.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

hanelyp
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby hanelyp » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:01 am

I'm thinking private investors will want to see more than has been published to date.

As would we all here at Talk Polywell.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby Tom Ligon » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:15 pm

There was an encouraging amount of American VC interest in 2007, and they were capable of raising the whole amount, though probably not willing to do so in a lump sum with no milestones of proof. But at that time they only had Dr. Bussard's admittedly thin evidence (a few runs producing a few bursts of pitifully few neutrons. The quality of the diagnostics was not there. WB-6 was a sort of "Hail Mary pass."

Nebel and Park were brought in as independent researchers. It was not their invention and they were asked to study it with an unbiased scientific eye. Now, I can tell you (tho' if you are here you probably know) that the Polywell is a seductive idea and it might be hard to remain impartial, but all indications I have seen, including personal conversations with both men, say that's just what they did ,,, approached this as an impartial attempt to confirm (if it was indeed valid) the earlier work and attempt to do it with less haste and more rigor.

It would appear they have succeed, and the scientific footing is a lot sounder than it was in 2007. The economy has since been thru a wicked recession, but has recovered, with the stock market pushing to new highs.

So, while we may not be hearing about it (and why would we ... VCs don't like revealing their strategy) I cannot believe there are not investors sniffing around, with adequate funds behind them. The research is sounder now. WB-8 is built and has run, and Mini has shown the next step to make wiffleballs on a WB-8 scale. That puts an intermediate scale proof-of-concept in easy reach. I cannot imaging that there is not strong interest.

I keep looking for high payoff lottery tickets with which to fund this. Absent that, if I could join an investor effort, I think I could shuffle some stock around and plop down enough for a few e-guns.

hanelyp
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby hanelyp » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:08 pm

You're seriously misinformed if you think the economy has recovered or that stock market prices today reflect the economy.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby Tom Ligon » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 pm

I think the stock market reflects investor mood.

hanelyp
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby hanelyp » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 pm

The stock market for the last few years reflects "quantitative easing", aka stocks bough with federal reserve funny money.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Teemu
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:15 am

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby Teemu » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:44 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:There was an encouraging amount of American VC interest in 2007, and they were capable of raising the whole amount, though probably not willing to do so in a lump sum with no milestones of proof.

Even if the results were good, VC could be cautious because the patent situation is worse than in 2007 and worse than compared to other competitors like Tri Alpha and General Fusion. Patents are kinda good if you want to make some money.

Since the patents are for 20 years, the original 1989 one expired in 2009, and the new patent and the final complaint about the rejection of new patent was shot down a year ago.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... =10&t=4544

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

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby ladajo » Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:51 pm

I would wager that Dr. Park has submitted new patents given the release of the paper in the wild.
He is not one to leave himself and EMC2 unprotected.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

classicpenny
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Port Angeles WA USA
Contact:

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby classicpenny » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:15 pm

Today I spoke with Alex Fastle, one of Senator Patty Murray's staffers. She says the Navy let the EMC2 Polywell contract lapse because Navy was seriously short of dollars and had to cut somewhere. Period. Which suggests that ONR's previous explanation is at least partly BS. What follows is my response to my Congressman Derek Kilmer, concerning the ONR meeting report from his staffer Megan Thompson:

The 2015 Energy Budget needs to contain a separate $40 million line item for Polywell development.
A. I know Energy won’t like it, but as a taxpayer I’m asking them to drop their biases, and do their Congressionally designated job.
B. I know the Office of Naval Research believes that the Polywell is ready for private investment, but they are mistaken.
The p-B11 Polywell will turn out to be one of the most important developments in the twenty-first century. It will be as big as the Apollo Project or the Manhattan Project, and the sooner we can start to treat it as such, the better off we will be. Every week of delay in seriously addressing the AGW catastrophe is making its consequences more difficult to correct. Many of our planet’s great coral reefs are already doomed, and the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, with its accompanying ten foot increase in sea level is already inevitable. The only way to seriously address AGW is to cut CO2 and Methane emissions in any way we can; to do this we must replace almost all of our fossil fuel energy sources with carbon-free energy. The Polywell may be the only alternative with the potential to do that in an effective, economical and reliable manner.
1. We must begin to treat this as the top level national priority it will become.
2. We must implement Polywell development without delay, and encourage it to proceed with utmost dispatch. The longer the existing program is in limbo, the more valuable people will be lost, and the longer it will take to restart. This is NOT like building a house, where you can just bring in another crew of carpenters to finish the job – there were probably four or five physicists in the history of the entire planet who fully understood the issues: one of them is already dead and one of them is over 80.
3. A development program like the Polywell, that is breaking totally new ground, must have a minimum of strings attached so the researchers are free to make appropriate changes as new discoveries surface. If private venture capitalists are involved, they will want to control their money and there will inevitably be serious strings attached.
4. Venture Capitalists are traditionally unwilling to invest more than $100 million. While they may be drawn in by Dr. Park’s initial request for $30 to $40 million, they will inevitably balk at his request for $200 million that will certainly follow in two or three years.
5. China and Korea are interested in becoming investors. Iran has already spent $8 million on their own Polywell program. I do NOT want the U.S. to end up buying Polywell’s from China or Korea or Iran! - not when the Polywell was invented by an American and initially developed by the Navy. That would be both humiliating and infuriating; and it must not happen!
I certainly appreciate all that you have done so far; and I hope you will keep me advised of significant new developments as they occur.
With utmost respect,
William W. Flint

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby zapkitty » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:50 pm

classicpenny wrote:... The p-B11 Polywell will turn out to be one of the most important developments in the twenty-first century. It will be as big as the Apollo Project or the Manhattan Project...


Tactical error. Those both were massively expensive projects.

PW would be dirt cheap in comparison, and that should be the selling point: a project more pivotal than Manhattan and Apollo combined but at a minute fraction of the cost of either.

classicpenny
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Port Angeles WA USA
Contact:

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby classicpenny » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:57 am

I just got word from a reliable source that US Congressman Rick Larsen's Congressional Correspondent, Mike Renniger (Sp?) has said that in response to some constituent emails, he will be looking into references relating to the Polywell. Interestingly, he said the subject is one in which he has had some interest.

Bill Flint

classicpenny
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Port Angeles WA USA
Contact:

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby classicpenny » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:02 am

zapkitty wrote:Those both were massively expensive projects.

By the time we replace all the US fossil fuel sources of electricity with Polywells it WILL be massively expensive.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby zapkitty » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:48 am

classicpenny wrote:
zapkitty wrote:Those both were massively expensive projects.

By the time we replace all the US fossil fuel sources of electricity with Polywells it WILL be massively expensive.


... ?

Aneutronic pays for itself and then some. pB11 fusion would supplant and upgrade the current grid by natural selection alone... not that our self-styled owners have any more interest in that than they have in that ever-so-hypothetical "free market"

That's where the real battle will be found post-breakeven.

In terms of aneutronic projects Polywell would be more expensive than Focus Fusion on a per watt basis but, based on the EMC2 projections, it would still be far less costly than equivalent fossil fuel plants.

Less physical plant per watt. Vastly less fuel handling. No steam cycle. No turbines. No smokestacks... indeed, no waste handling to speak of.

Aneutronic will save a great deal of money that would otherwise have to be spent on obsolete concepts.

The silly financing stunt that would be a D-T Polywell might be worth it if it can get the money needed to finish the pB11 work but aneutronic is the road we must take to minimize wasted time and resources.

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

Re: Dr. Park to speak at UW-Madison

Postby D Tibbets » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:06 am

classicpenny wrote:
zapkitty wrote:Those both were massively expensive projects.

By the time we replace all the US fossil fuel sources of electricity with Polywells it WILL be massively expensive.


This is debatable. First the Manhattan project and Apollo were certainly expensive, but massive is a streth, at least for the Apollo program. They were certainly massive projects from a national will, priority perspective.

Depending on just how fanatical you are about green house global warming, replacement of fossil fuels in part or in total is a massive project. If the Polywell works (or other similarly priced alternatives) the investment will be what ever the national will dictates. Certainly a measured replacement of the incinerator component of typical coal plants with Polywells, while the remaining steam plant and turbines are conserved will mitigate the cost considerably, and allow for a reasonable migration of the power source over several decades (as pointed out by Bussard). The introduction of new Polywell steam plants and direct conversion plants (if P-B11 works) may be gradually introduced as old infrastructure ages and needs to be replaced. New plants would only be added as needed, and so long as conservation does not fall by the way side, increased electrical capacity may be minimal as US consumption is near plateau levels.

This is different in many other countries. And new industrial processes utilizing the increased power potential (if it is cheap) could also increase demand. two examples of increased demand might be massive desalination of water, and massive and cheap aluminum production.

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


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests