Talk-Polywell.org

Recovery Act reporting has nothing to do with the Federal Procument Data System (FPDS) Website.

I think you are mixing www.recovery.gov with www.fpds.gov

Its all good.

In any event, I am curious to see what transpires this fall and winter for EMC2 funding. Hopefully good things.

ladajo wrote:Recovery Act reporting has nothing to do with the Federal Procument Data System (FPDS) Website.
I think you are mixing http://www.recovery.gov with http://www.fpds.gov
Its all good.
In any event, I am curious to see what transpires this fall and winter for EMC2 funding. Hopefully good things.

True, but with a change in funding source can come a change in schedule. Re funding this fall, since J&As will not be required, are we sure the site will necessarily carry it?

Any change or action on an existing contract will be posted to FPDS. Any new contract will be posted to FPDS.

The latter is the issue. If they choose to obfuscate by changing company names, etc. We may never find it.
We, IMO, have already seen that to some degree in the paper trial with the creative project titles that have avoided the word "fusion".

"Advanced Gaseous Electrostatic Energy Concept" anyone?

There's mention on the Wikipedia polywell fusion entry about a company called Convergent Scientific Inc.

Joel Rogers.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4007&sid=aea6e9305a ... 551d119680

https://gust.com/c/convsci

Does anyone else find themselves becoming disillusioned over the whole alternative energy field?

Polywell, General Fusion, Tri Alpha, LPP, LENR, solar, hydrogen, NIF, thorium... blah blah blah. We just keep hearing about them and then they seem fade away again. Never anything concrete demonstrated. Never that definitive proof of more energy out than in. Just year after year of a trickle of hope. After a while, the hope turns to ashes. Why bother to hope when nothing ever comes.

Sometimes, I will say that one field has been making steady advances and is working well is solar energy. I can hear the nay Sayers now but I walk the walk not just talk about it. There are several methods out there that greatly reduce your energy dependence and solar heat/PV is one of them. (starting rant)
We do not have an energy shortage problem in the USA or the world for that matter. We have and energy STORAGE problem. Right now there is nothing out there more easy to use and store energy than a gallon of petrol product. Portable , extremely energy dense,easy to store, Relatively safe its hard to beat. The problem with other alternate energy solutions is they are not portable and not energy dense and usually not available on demand. If those issue was solved we could easily go green.(ending Rant)
I was told by a Friends friend that runs the Wilmington power plant the main reason we are not putting more effort into the alt Fission /fusion plant is the profit/ROI is not high enough. He also stated that there are far safer power plant design out there but they are not in use because of the same reason. I would tend to believe him. He has also said that after Futiama(SP) japan that you can expect a lot more interest in fusion development in Japan. The only other source of energy besides oil that will fit into or current energy usage model is Fission/fusion. so I think before the end of my life time we will see a greater usage as the cost of power goes up to in cress the ROI for a plant. once again its all about the dollar. On a side not for those interested in practical solar design there is a web side out there called builitsolar .com. Run by a retired Boeing engineer that test designs and ideas to show you what works and what does not with charts and graphs and spreadsheets of real world testing to back up his assertions and return on investments so you can decide what will work for you.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1601 ... ree-energy
Thorium no just for the textbooks anymore

paperburn1 wrote: He has also said that after Futiama(SP) japan…

Fukushima?

KitemanSA wrote:

paperburn1 wrote: He has also said that after Futiama(SP) japan…

Fukushima?

BINGO

Carl White wrote:Does anyone else find themselves becoming disillusioned over the whole alternative energy field?

Polywell, General Fusion, Tri Alpha, LPP, LENR, solar, hydrogen, NIF, thorium... blah blah blah. We just keep hearing about them and then they seem fade away again. Never anything concrete demonstrated. Never that definitive proof of more energy out than in. Just year after year of a trickle of hope. After a while, the hope turns to ashes. Why bother to hope when nothing ever comes.

Of the fusion examples mentioned, only NIF has gotten enough time and money dedicated to it. I'm pretty sure that also for conventional controlled fission reactor (not radioactive decay "battery"), the costs of getting from the drawing board to energy producing reactor were hundreds of millions.

Unfortunately Polywell seems to be kinda stuck in the financial catch 22:

Most of the basic science is already done, now they need more money for the raw engineering crunch and larger prototype. But DoD can't give them $100 million or more cash as required for that, because that DoE would get involved, and DoE would say that Polywell can't work, and DoE would block larger funding. So basically they have to figure out how to make impressive enough demonstration with lackluster funding, so that DoE can't say that Polywell wont work, so that proper funding can't be blocked.

Then again, since the patent has run out, perhaps the Navy is shifting any REAL funding to a politically connected company like Lockheed Martin. The timing of their great new reactor seems a bit fortuitous.

Teemu wrote: Unfortunately Polywell seems to be kinda stuck in the financial catch 22:

Most of the basic science is already done....

Have the experimental results testing Bussard's model been published in peer-reviewed journals that appear in science citation index? If so, did those experimental results match the predictions of Bussard's model within error tolerances that aren't so wide as to render the results virtually worthless?

If both of those conditions have not been met, then you can't say that "the basic science is already done". Science doesn't operate as a classified project. It is open, by definition, because independent replication demands disclosure to independent parties.

jabowery wrote:Have the experimental results testing Bussard's model been published in peer-reviewed journals that appear in science citation index? If so, did those experimental results match the predictions of Bussard's model within error tolerances that aren't so wide as to render the results virtually worthless?

If both of those conditions have not been met, then you can't say that "the basic science is already done". Science doesn't operate as a classified project. It is open, by definition, because independent replication demands disclosure to independent parties.

Science is not defined by independent replication or peer review. It's a mode of inquiry into a certain class of philosophical questions, not a bookkeeping and error-checking system.

If it's peer-reviewed and independently replicated, it's probably science. But just because it's not peer-reviewed or independently replicated doesn't mean it's not science. It's just a lot harder for outsiders to tell, which is of course the point of the system...

Who says EMC2 is not getting peer review.
I would argue they are via the mechanism of the review board.

The board results are just not made public, other than funding decisions which we get to see on FPDS.