Talk-Polywell.org

Also there is the review panel of 60 experts who have recommended continuation and expansion of the current effort. There is also the possibility that an all out black box project has been under way for years and the public effort is a smoke screen.

choff wrote:Also there is the review panel of 60 experts who have recommended continuation and expansion of the current effort.

Realy? When? Do you have a link?

There is also the possibility that an all out black box project has been under way for years and the public effort is a smoke screen.

I think that is a "James Bond"-dream

Tom, I am very curious, what are your thoughts on the Tokamak dominated scene for fusion in relation to current/recent polywell funding? Does that complicate the issue enough to warrant such small, incremental funding as of today?

I agree with everything you've said, there is one more piece to the puzzle though and that is the Tok....

You've probably commentated somewhere here in the past on it, can't be bothered to search several hundred pages or posts.

polywellfan wrote:

choff wrote:Also there is the review panel of 60 experts who have recommended continuation and expansion of the current effort.

Really? When? Do you have a link?

There is also the possibility that an all out black box project has been under way for years and the public effort is a smoke screen.

I think that is a "James Bond"-dream

I think polywellfan is a Chinese spy trying to undermind our religion, first polywell then James Bond next thing you know he will be attacking John Wayne!!!!

polywellfan wrote:

choff wrote:Also there is the review panel of 60 experts who have recommended continuation and expansion of the current effort.

Realy? When? Do you have a link?

There is also the possibility that an all out black box project has been under way for years and the public effort is a smoke screen.

I think that is a "James Bond"-dream

it's in the thread.... thought you were a fan? If so, you'd know this as its quoted off a contract.

ScottL wrote:

polywellfan wrote:

choff wrote:Also there is the review panel of 60 experts who have recommended continuation and expansion of the current effort.

Realy? When? Do you have a link?

There is also the possibility that an all out black box project has been under way for years and the public effort is a smoke screen.

I think that is a "James Bond"-dream

it's in the thread.... thought you were a fan? If so, you'd know this as its quoted off a contract.

The thread is long. And I have other hobbys too. I am a fan, but I am not a mindless fanboy.

cuddihy wrote:

Betruger wrote:Just a strange mindset is my bet.

Then call my mindset strange as well. I have been following polywell since before Joe Strout stood up this forum. Although there's no evidence of complete failure, the absence of any actual positive evidence either makes the only *success* that EMC can talk about that of winning small (not increasingly large) contract extensions. This is not 'positive news' for the success of Polywell to achieve useful power levels.

The current fiscal environment notwithstanding, remember this is the same Navy that has funded Polywell from the beginning but is also dumb enough to fund clogging aircraft-type toilets for an aircraft carrier (GW) that literally makes its own water and uses less than 1% of its energy source to do that and everything else related to life support, in the name of *saving energy*. The same Navy that this summer for a photo-op paid $27 a gallon for "green" JP-5 that was <70% biofuel, (regular JP-5 is $4 a gallon).

It's a strange state of mind that does not recognize, agreed with or not, the discrepancy as others pointed out above.

Point being, examples of positive news for Polywell, even if the contract prevents them from releasing news, would be

*standup of an additional Polywell effort at NRL, SPAWAR, or DARPA
*transfer of the program to the Department of Energy
*transfer of the program to NAVSEA08
*a $15-30 million new contract for EMC

get it? Sometimes absence of certain kinds of evidence is itself evidence.

The fact that it remains at low low levels and at the fringes of Naval research (and nowhere actually near the propulsion arms of the Navy) says that its technological maturity and confidence has not greatly advanced since the first contract, becuase if it had, one of those things would be happening, and rapidly.

Not what I'm arguing.

polywellfan wrote:

ladajo wrote: So you base your entire argument that because they are not executing 8.1 today, that the program is failing?

Are you out to lunch mentally or what?

Why so agressive?

See what I'm saying?

Betruger wrote:

cuddihy wrote:

Betruger wrote:Just a strange mindset is my bet.

Then call my mindset strange as well. I have been following polywell since before Joe Strout stood up this forum. Although there's no evidence of complete failure, the absence of any actual positive evidence either makes the only *success* that EMC can talk about that of winning small (not increasingly large) contract extensions. This is not 'positive news' for the success of Polywell to achieve useful power levels.

The current fiscal environment notwithstanding, remember this is the same Navy that has funded Polywell from the beginning but is also dumb enough to fund clogging aircraft-type toilets for an aircraft carrier (GW) that literally makes its own water and uses less than 1% of its energy source to do that and everything else related to life support, in the name of *saving energy*. The same Navy that this summer for a photo-op paid $27 a gallon for "green" JP-5 that was <70% biofuel, (regular JP-5 is $4 a gallon).

It's a strange state of mind that does not recognize, agreed with or not, the discrepancy as others pointed out above.

Point being, examples of positive news for Polywell, even if the contract prevents them from releasing news, would be

*standup of an additional Polywell effort at NRL, SPAWAR, or DARPA
*transfer of the program to the Department of Energy
*transfer of the program to NAVSEA08
*a $15-30 million new contract for EMC

get it? Sometimes absence of certain kinds of evidence is itself evidence.

The fact that it remains at low low levels and at the fringes of Naval research (and nowhere actually near the propulsion arms of the Navy) says that its technological maturity and confidence has not greatly advanced since the first contract, becuase if it had, one of those things would be happening, and rapidly.

Not what I'm arguing.

What is your point then?

What set of mind make you so agressive if you someone is more pessemistic based on the information you are sugarcoating?

cuddihy wrote:
get it? Sometimes absence of certain kinds of evidence is itself evidence.

The fact that it remains at low low levels and at the fringes of Naval research (and nowhere actually near the propulsion arms of the Navy) says that its technological maturity and confidence has not greatly advanced since the first contract, becuase if it had, one of those things would be happening, and rapidly.

Thanks, that's exactly my point.

I am not an english native speaker, that is true. But I can not explain the other reactions except by thinking many gyus take my comments the wrong way here.

Check out the report for the continuation and expansion comment. As for the James Bond stuff, since the US Navy is funding this, they would like to get a small lead time edge on competition,




https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file ... ted_JA.pdf

Betruger wrote:

I think it is sad to see Polywell without substantial support by the navy at this moment.

So you base your entire argument that because they are not executing 8.1 today, that the program is failing?

Are you out to lunch mentally or what?

Why so agressive?[/quote]See what I'm saying?[/quote]

I have not said it's failing. I think it is sad polywell doesn't look well at this point and seems to have a lack of support. Maybe I'm wrong but I am a pessimist in this case.

polywellfan wrote:

cuddihy wrote:
get it? Sometimes absence of certain kinds of evidence is itself evidence.

The fact that it remains at low low levels and at the fringes of Naval research (and nowhere actually near the propulsion arms of the Navy) says that its technological maturity and confidence has not greatly advanced since the first contract, becuase if it had, one of those things would be happening, and rapidly.

Thanks, that's exactly my point.

I am not an english native speaker, that is true. But I can not explain the other reactions except by thinking many gyus take my comments the wrong way here.

My first point here is for Tom; Polywell is not at the fringe.

My second point is for the "fan"; So now you attempt to adjust your meaning. A blind statement that simply states "sorry for polywell" implies a strong failure sentiment. Now you seek to mediate it to something less. I agree, it is sad that they are not full out on 8.1 at this point. But, the facts stand, they are not ready to do that. So that in itself is not sad. What would be sad was if they had promising results and the navy pulled the plug. Or, If they just gave up. As long as they are making progress, that is what matters. And in any event, they are now on the make or break contract. So whether we like it or not, they succeed or fail. And nothing publically released to date would indicate they are anticipating a fail. So that keeps things in the positive, for now. They may well yet fail. But if they do, I will not be sad, as the program has to date, given things the best shot possible within reasonable resources.
I would also add that the is no slack at all given these days on money. If this project looks uncertain, the money will go away brutally fast. You will probably hear the vacuum slap where you live if it happens.

I would also say you will be hard pressed to find anyone around here who thinks that polywell is a sure thing and progress is great. It is a hard thing that has a good team working through real issues and pressing into unknown grounds.

polywellfan wrote:

Betruger wrote:

I think it is sad to see Polywell without substantial support by the navy at this moment.

So you base your entire argument that because they are not executing 8.1 today, that the program is failing?

Are you out to lunch mentally or what?

Why so agressive?

See what I'm saying?[/quote]

I have not said it's failing. I think it is sad polywell doesn't look well at this point and seems to have a lack of support. Maybe I'm wrong but I am a pessimist in this case.[/quote]

We view this very differently I suppose. The report of excellent confinement plus the continuation contracts that have been enacted lead me to believe that the Navy is cautiously optimistic of what their investing in. Honestly, I would be too considering the potential effect it could have on our world or the effect of prematurely declaring anything definitive. The positives would be that it looks like they're heading toward 8.1 which was always the default experimentation route. I view additional funding as always a positive, whether hard evidence is given or not. Time will tell on this one.

polywellfan wrote: I am not an english native speaker

ka ching

The Navy already has working nuclear power, so there's little urgency for a replacement. A safe alternative to huge capacitor banks for pulsed high current operation is more immediately useful.