Polywell FOIA

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:30 pm

I still don't follow. EmcE is fully entitled. When did bussard promise a tell all? He didn't. Nebel has been quite forthcoming over 2 yrs, no?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:14 pm

Roger wrote: Nebel has been quite forthcoming over 2 yrs, no?

You're kidding, right?

Roger wrote:When did bussard promise a tell all? He didn't.

I certainly interpret the following to be thus. I absolutely contest that EMC2 should declare commercial interest subsequent to such a statement, as this was said and not yet recanted:

"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion, and thus to solve the problems posed by excessive dependence on controlled fossil fuel resources - most notably oil. The achievement of full scale IEF clean fusion power systems would allow easy access to energy, both thermal and electrical, for all nations, and all peoples, everywhere - free from cartels and controlled production and pricing. This is a goal worthy of pursuit, and EMC2 will be happy to work with any organization interested in undertaking such a venture."

from "The advent of clean nuclear fusion", R Bussard, EMC2, 57th International Astronautical COngress, Valencia, Spain, Oct 2-6, 2006.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:34 pm

Bussard and now Nebel (I assume with Mrs Bussards consent) are fully entitled to do what they have. It seems to me you are making a moral argument here.
A lawyer would tell the Judge its not germane, I think a Judge would agree.

Also this is a not too uncommon issue when the requested info may be possessed by one or more entities.

IIRC, your original request was to the Navy? They passed the buck to EMc2 when EMC2 claimed proprietary ownership> now a JAG is involved?

Aren't FOIA's meant for requesting info from the Gov? But a private corporation is claiming proprietary ownership? Would the JAG then use corporate law to determine the release?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:04 pm

Roger wrote:Bussard and now Nebel (I assume with Mrs Bussards consent) are fully entitled to do what they have. It seems to me you are making a moral argument here.

OK, so it sounds like you're not disagreeing with me now, but that you've changed your point of view to one of "well, they can do what they like [even if they did make what sounded like promises that have now been broken]"?

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:02 pm

Bussard's pie in the sky Gene Rodenberry style statements, that you cite, they were made in between the WB-6 and WB-7 contracts, no? If so you might want to take them in that context and consideration of Bussards quirky behavior. I see no promise.
You have no grounds to hold Bussard to trhese statements, they would should be considered editorializing. As the owneer of a corporation he is entitled to change his mind daily.
Both Bussard and Nebel can say anying they darn please and you and your FOIA have no legal standing. As I said before its proprietary.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:18 pm

Roger wrote:You have no grounds to hold Bussard to trhese statements, they would should be considered editorializing.

OK, so, as I say, you now agree that he has said such things that you said he hasn't. I just like people to be clear when they shift position. You, EMC2, whoever. Feel free to change you statement and 'editorialize' it, but don't try to persist with a statement making out I was wrong in any point of fact I've made above if you have now conceded the point.

EMC2 HAS stated that commerciality wasn't their intent, and only by action (and not by declaration) have they negated that position. A morale position? Yeah, you are dead right. If someone says one thing then does something else, yeah, damned right it's a moral position, and damned right that someone should point it out and show up that moral degeneracy.

I no longer give two sh*ts about this. It has all the hallmarks of a complete scam. I just want people to do what they say they're gonna do. If EMC2 wants to run with this and show that they are serious, then they'd do better to be up front and stop looking like a scam.

zapkitty · Post by **zapkitty** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:01 am

And there's always the very real possibility that they aren't being given too many options besides "lock it down... now."

While oil is far from being the only resource in the oligarchic toolbox, it cannot be denied that oil has been a very convenient lever for our lords and masters... and they might well take exception to losing that bit of leverage at this time.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:16 am

chrismb wrote: EMC2 HAS stated that commerciality wasn't their intent, and only by action (and not by declaration) have they negated that position.

You have made this rather odd statement in the past, and I have asked you to provide reference to support this. So far you have not done so.

WOULD YOU PLEASE provide a link to ANY statement by Bussard or Nebel that supports your amazing contention above? PLEASE? Either that or please stop making that statement as it seems absurd to me, and contrary to the general tenor of statements they have made over the years.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:51 am

I have heard that one of the guiding principles of EMC2 was guarding the interests of its shareholders. In fact as a corporation they are REQUIRED to do that.

Maui · Post by **Maui** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:59 am

MSimon wrote:I have heard that one of the guiding principles of EMC2 was guarding the interests of its shareholders. In fact as a corporation they are REQUIRED to do that.

I don't think that's true. It is true that for the most part is illogical for the company not to, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing saying they are legally obligated.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:02 am

Maui wrote:
MSimon wrote:I have heard that one of the guiding principles of EMC2 was guarding the interests of its shareholders. In fact as a corporation they are REQUIRED to do that.
I don't think that's true. It is true that for the most part is illogical for the company not to, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing saying they are legally obligated.

Shareholder suits.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:59 am

KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote: EMC2 HAS stated that commerciality wasn't their intent, and only by action (and not by declaration) have they negated that position.
You have made this rather odd statement in the past, and I have asked you to provide reference to support this. So far you have not done so.

WOULD YOU PLEASE provide a link to ANY statement by Bussard or Nebel that supports your amazing contention above? PLEASE? Either that or please stop making that statement as it seems absurd to me, and contrary to the general tenor of statements they have made over the years.

I don't unterstand your point because I feel I have already done this many times over.

In what way do you interpret this as meaning that they coveting commercial viability for themselves? Explain to me YOUR interpretation of this statement, vis-a-vis EMC2's commercial intent:

"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion, and thus to solve the problems posed by excessive dependence on controlled fossil fuel resources....free from cartels and controlled production and pricing."

My interpretation is that this implies their ONLY intent, or at the very least their PRINCIPAL intent, is to see it reach conclusion, and if there is a bank of people all chewing over the problem on a forum, then why refuse those people any information WHATSOEVER when asked?? Surely by opening up the challenges and issues then they could reach their conclusion quicker, with more brains thinking on it?

BenTC · Post by **BenTC** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:05 am

I favour the view that if EMC2 jump-start the competition, the competition may end up patenting some critical part of the process, and then be able to form a cartel themselves. In either case that:

EMC2 are going to form a cartel, or
EMC2 don't want anyone else forming a cartel

there is nothing observable externally to distinguish between those two cases. So I'll reserve judgement until the first dozen Bussard Reactors are operational. However I am an optimist. Also, that reasoning is also still only as likely as 1. avoiding a Cold Fusion Debarcle; 2. Navy Gag Order; 3. Shareholder Gag Order.

Edit: grammar

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:31 pm

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
chrismb wrote: EMC2 HAS stated that commerciality wasn't their intent, and only by action (and not by declaration) have they negated that position.
You have made this rather odd statement in the past, and I have asked you to provide reference to support this. So far you have not done so.

WOULD YOU PLEASE provide a link to ANY statement by Bussard or Nebel that supports your amazing contention above? PLEASE? Either that or please stop making that statement as it seems absurd to me, and contrary to the general tenor of statements they have made over the years.
I don't unterstand your point because I feel I have already done this many times over.

In what way do you interpret this as meaning that they coveting commercial viability for themselves? Explain to me YOUR interpretation of this statement, vis-a-vis EMC2's commercial intent:

"EMC2's interest in this effort is simply to see it reach conclusion, and thus to solve the problems posed by excessive dependence on controlled fossil fuel resources....free from cartels and controlled production and pricing."

Shout removed. But I am puzzled how you could emphasize the final phrase and maintain your POV.

chrismb wrote:My interpretation is that this implies their ONLY intent, or at the very least their PRINCIPAL intent, is to see it reach conclusion, and if there is a bank of people all chewing over the problem on a forum, then why refuse those people any information WHATSOEVER when asked?? Surely by opening up the challenges and issues then they could reach their conclusion quicker, with more brains thinking on it?

Do you truly make that interpretation? Wow, what a contortion of the language.

Bussard was asked why he hadn't accepted VC capital to continue his work. He made the above statement. I interpret that to say that he wanted to maintain commercial control of the system so that he could assure that it actually came into being, not sell it to a cartel that would control the production and pricing for it's own purposes. When cartels control a technology, sometimes they pervert the intent of the Patent Law and withhold the technology under the guise of "additional research". None-the-less, nowhere do I see reference to "open source" or any concept like that. Only that it was his and he wanted to keep it that way because HIS intent was to take it to market.

Please re-read the statement as a responsible business owner would, a business owner who wants to assure his life's work actually makes it to the free market, and not as a spoiled researcher. If you are honest with yourself, you will change your tone.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:30 pm