Talk-Polywell.org

Not like I believe it myself, but wouldn't this be a good choice of cover for successful WB8 and the Navy trying to eek out that head start on the rest of the world?

<I>I guess maybe if the navy closes it up, and EMC2 is not allowed to talk afterward that would be pretty darn weird.</I>

If this happens, it means they have been successful and the Navy wants first mover advantage with regards to the Chinese, Russians, etc. Wait a few years and it will be in the private sector.

Hopefully something gives soon. It would seem so, as we see the contracting actions.

mvanwink5 wrote:FPDF.gov
last modified date: 01/14/2014 18:58:27, and now the completion date 4-30-14
so an update after all, but no extra money unless the option is exercised. Maybe their final report is yet to have been delivered to the Navy? Chuckie II?
The problem with this "hand to mouth" funding is people can't live that way, and neither can projects. This is bureaucratic crap.

ladajo wrote:Curious, but in line with my logic still.
So now we have no news or annoucement, but a revamped completion date (again) to near future.
Is this teeing up a follow-on contract? Or is it a contract closeout adjustment?
We will need to see money allocations to have any real sense of what is going on.
But no status report is telling. It would seem to indicate someone still has 'something to hide'. It would make no sense to hide 'nothing'.
Meh.

As closely as I parse these reports, I don't know how I missed these words, "SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WORK WITHIN SCOPE," which would imply additional work was to be done after the amended 9/30/13 completion date. Of course, that would justify pushing the completion date out 7 months, but without extra money for extra work (but within scope), I am not sure why an agreement would be worthwhile... There must be some budget addendum somewhere to shoehorn some extra cash for this extra (in scope) work? But where is the cash reported? Why the late, 1-14-14 amendment? That is odd, it seems. Something going on here, more than these microscopic post FPDS report changes...

In my opinion (and we all know what opinions are worth)
They have proven a concept but have a problem/showstopper to overcome. They have an Idea what is wrong and what needs to be done to repair or overcome this problem. they have contracted out to receive specialized one of a kind gear and are marking time until it can be installed and tested. In the end proving the concept as valid and usable or just another dead end. I am thinking they have something and right now it the last lap and everyone is jockeying for position and the run for big bucks checkered flag. By OCTof 2014 when funding is known is when we will know.
So what do we know (not just polywell )
1. The devices are scaling as expected so far.
2 Cusps are closing tighter than expected
3 We have at least two and maybe more methods that will produce 100/1000s of passes though the virtual anode
4 Some really great simulations that are being confirmed as we wait right now.
5 There seems to be some resonance effect that may be exploitable
6 The Big box player are jumping on the band wagon (LM)
Even though we have not heard anything I believe its going well.
Bad news travels very fast and very loud and all we are hearing is whispers
As for embrittlement , activation, erosion. I think the fission guys can help us solve those problem if they haven't already.

happyjack27 wrote:Hold on a second.. Am I to understand they recently _shortened_ the contract completion time, _while keeping the funding the same_? If you keep the funding the same for something, it by definition means that it does not cost you anything, regardless of whether you made it shorter or longer. Making it shorter does not give it more opportunity for success. And not making it shorter is free. So the only rational reason you have for shortening the deadline, and keeping funding the same, is if it was already a success; is to avoid the opportunity lost by needlessly delaying contract renewal.

Actually it looks like they have extended the time from the original project. I think what we are seeing with the updated completion date is a "no cost extension". As someone who applies for and receives federal grant funding, this is a pretty common scenario. You submit your proposal, budget and timeline, and if/when approved, it (almost) always takes longer to get started (hiring, materials, etc.) than you forecast. You end up having unspent money at the end date because of the delays in ramping up the project. Getting a no cost extension of up to a year is usually not very difficult for research projects. (Getting an extension with additional cost is virtually impossible in the field I work - rather than try this, we have to submit a new proposal for funding).

If that is what is going on with EMC2, I read it as a neutral-to-negative sign. Neutral because no cost extensions are commonly received and it doesn't necessarily imply either success or failure. Perhaps negative because it indicates that they have not demonstrated enough success that they are receiving additional funding at this late date (at least, that we know of).

sdg wrote:

happyjack27 wrote:Hold on a second.. Am I to understand they recently _shortened_ the contract completion time, _while keeping the funding the same_? If you keep the funding the same for something, it by definition means that it does not cost you anything, regardless of whether you made it shorter or longer. Making it shorter does not give it more opportunity for success. And not making it shorter is free. So the only rational reason you have for shortening the deadline, and keeping funding the same, is if it was already a success; is to avoid the opportunity lost by needlessly delaying contract renewal.

Actually it looks like they have extended the time from the original project. I think what we are seeing with the updated completion date is a "no cost extension". As someone who applies for and receives federal grant funding, this is a pretty common scenario. You submit your proposal, budget and timeline, and if/when approved, it (almost) always takes longer to get started (hiring, materials, etc.) than you forecast. You end up having unspent money at the end date because of the delays in ramping up the project. Getting a no cost extension of up to a year is usually not very difficult for research projects. (Getting an extension with additional cost is virtually impossible in the field I work - rather than try this, we have to submit a new proposal for funding).

If that is what is going on with EMC2, I read it as a neutral-to-negative sign. Neutral because no cost extensions are commonly received and it doesn't necessarily imply either success or failure. Perhaps negative because it indicates that they have not demonstrated enough success that they are receiving additional funding at this late date (at least, that we know of).

well i see that as just plain neutral. the next phase is a huge increase in cost ( > 20x ), so it would be irresponsible of them to not milk this phase for all its worth. it's a no-brainer - if you haven't used up all your funds yet, you ask for an extension, period. even if its wildly successful. you still test on the phase 2 device as much as you can, because testing on the phase 3 device is going to be wildly more expensive.

It would seem that under any interpretation that the next movement on FPDS is going to be very telling.
At a minimum I suspect it will generate wild speculation in all directions
At a maximum it will be a clear indicator for program status.

So what I am really saying is we just don't really know and are guessing.

An extension implies results to date at least allow for plausibly developing a functional complete device. If results to date support the next step bigger device, the extension still makes sense to get the highest quality data possible before asking for the money. The extension also makes sense from the contractor fiscal perspective, high chance for a bit of cash before the longer shot for the big next step.

It would seem that under any interpretation that the next movement on FPDS is going to be very telling.

Seems we have been down this road 5 months at a time before... What was it last year, expecting something by September 2013? But the guys over at General Fusion acquiesce that fusion is just plain hard. Where is CharlesKramer to properly goad us?

For anyone desperately scouring the tea leaves for more info, there is one avenue left unapproached. It has been speculated upon that the info released by Skunkworks and possibly other research web pages is over 4 years old.

Compare any researcher photos from recent conferences with those from say Solve for X photo releases. If the people appear to have appreciable age differences in between that could be a giveaway of significant time delays to information release compared to actual progress.

choff wrote:Compare any researcher photos from recent conferences with those from say Solve for X photo releases. If the people appear to have appreciable age differences in between that could be a giveaway of significant time delays to information release compared to actual progress.

Too late. Those photos were modified 5 minutes after you posted. I say we do a trash analysis of EMC2. Somebody tweet a local before They lock-up the bin.

happyjack27 wrote:well i see that as just plain neutral. the next phase is a huge increase in cost ( > 20x ), so it would be irresponsible of them to not milk this phase for all its worth. it's a no-brainer - if you haven't used up all your funds yet, you ask for an extension, period. even if its wildly successful. you still test on the phase 2 device as much as you can, because testing on the phase 3 device is going to be wildly more expensive.

IMHO, it sound like the project was successful, and everything is winding down. The next project would be a program continuation leading to a more costly phase, and would require a lot more money. So it may take time to get it funded. For the size of funding required, there will be some issues to resolve, political and other. So, they are storing the thing away.

So, may question would be, when would the Navy project secrecy on this project can be expected to be lifted? Dr. Bussard was able to talk about the results just 1 year after the project ended is I recall.

If the physics have been proven to an acceptable level, the next step could be a large WB100 type machine. It would be na eye opener. It could also be a mixed result allowing for persistent criticism. Demonstrating breakeven is not as sexy a prospect as it used to be. There are now multiple efforts that claim at least near approaches to this goal

Building a 3 meter machine is time and money consuming. Any modifications are correspondingly expensive.
The engineering challenges and tuning needs are considerable. More faces, separation, electron injection, gas puffing, ion guns, magnet performance issues, many knobs, etc. makes for a complex program, even if the machine in principle is simple. I suspect that for development, a smaller machine is much more convenient. Ideally, several machines in parallel would be the best time/ cost approach.. WB 8 at ~ 0.5 to 0.6 meters and truncated cube shape may be a reasonable tool, but I suspect things are still cramped. A one meter machine might be ideal for working out the many variables that pertain. It would also expand the scaling predictions profoundly. Actual breakeven demonstration becomes mostly a publicity stunt if the physics (and reasonable engineering) are pinned down confidently. This does assume that the claimed stability advantages of the Polywell avoids the Tokamak quagmire.

Dan Tibbets

Well, the Navy has updated the FPDS by adding P00017 to the list on 12/23/13. The reason? "Other Administrative Action." Tell anybody anything? LOL