Talk-Polywell.org

This is a news thread, guys. Take the war philosophy and other politics someplace else (such as the General forum, if you insist on having it here at all).

Thanks,
— Joe

Only 300 grand? Modifications to the existing wiffleball? Not good news.

Not as good as "WB-100 is funded!" but much, much better than "They are abandoning this line of research."

This definitely holds out the hope that if WB-7.1 shows promise, WB-100 could be on the horizon.

When I first heard of Polywell a couple years ago, it was an open question whether any further research would even be done.

TallDave wrote:Not as good as "WB-100 is funded!" but much, much better than "They are abandoning this line of research."

This definitely holds out the hope that if WB-7.1 shows promise, WB-100 could be on the horizon.

When I first heard of Polywell a couple years ago, it was an open question whether any further research would even be done.

Will WB-7.1 answer enough questions that funders will want to go to WB-100? What questions will WB-7.1 be able to answer? Which questions will it NOT be able to answer?

Will WB-7.1 answer enough questions that funders will want to go to WB-100? What questions will WB-7.1 be able to answer? Which questions will it NOT be able to answer?

Bump.

I'm not well-versed in the details of the mechanics, so if one of our members with deeper conceptions of what this means would care to elucidate it would be greatly appreciated.

Yeah, nobody was expecting WB-100 anyway, but I was hoping for at least a WB-8. I mean, WB-7.1 at $300,000 is what you'd expect a single university to fund after WB-7 is dropped by the Navy. Unless this is for some kind of mini, short-term contract directly leading into rushed approval of a bigger one, I suspect this is tantamount to the Navy giving up without quite being willing to let go and let someone else take it. They don't want to let go, just in case there's really something there and the Chinese will get it first, but they think it's a long shot and can't justify a large expenditure. Small bits of funding like this seems like a stalling tactic, something they can throw at it easily enough with no pain so they don't have to take a risk or make any big decisions. Only, this is a self-sustaining stall tactic, because shallow funding fuels shallow results, so they'll never get enough justification to drop the project or go full steam ahead one way or another, so next time will be chump change funding again.

MSimon wrote: Procurement for non-classified systems is supposed to be public. So I wouldn't read too much into it except that the program is not classified.

Even classified systems procurement are public, unless they are also "black". It takes DEEP classification to be black. For most procurements, classified and not, you get the business announcements from the military as required by law, but the REAL neat data is held closely by the company and the military.

MirariNefas wrote:Yeah, nobody was expecting WB-100 anyway, but I was hoping for at least a WB-8. I mean, WB-7.1 at $300,000 is what you'd expect a single university to fund after WB-7 is dropped by the Navy. Unless this is for some kind of mini, short-term contract directly leading into rushed approval of a bigger one, I suspect this is tantamount to the Navy giving up without quite being willing to let go and let someone else take it. They don't want to let go, just in case there's really something there and the Chinese will get it first, but they think it's a long shot and can't justify a large expenditure. Small bits of funding like this seems like a stalling tactic, something they can throw at it easily enough with no pain so they don't have to take a risk or make any big decisions. Only, this is a self-sustaining stall tactic, because shallow funding fuels shallow results, so they'll never get enough justification to drop the project or go full steam ahead one way or another, so next time will be chump change funding again.

The way I read it is that the review panel had a few, very pointed, questions about the way this thing works and the Navy is trying to answer them as quickly and cheaply as possible. If the results are positive, we MAY see an announcement for a multi-year program by this summer. I can dream, can't I?

By the way, the original WB7 and WB8 were part and parcel of the $200M 5 year project; not a precursor to it. The rebuild of WB6 and expert panel fulfilled that precursor role.

The fact that the Navy found any money at all to build WB-7 or to continue refining it with "keep alive" work is remarkable. At one point they had given up on this research and that is why Dr Bussard had to shut things down. Because they had given up on it, there was no money FY 08 or FY 09 at all for this research.

I'm sure there was quite an effort to convince the NRL to continue this research and find some money to build the WB-7. There were other programs that did not get funded so this could go forward. Contrary to popular belief, NRL doesn't have a barrel of money to throw around. There are way more good ideas out there than money.That being said the "keep alive" funding indicates to me that EMC has been successful.

If we are lucky, we may see a more substantial funding effort in Sep with some unspent money on the order of a couple million dollars. This might create a WB-8 (better coils/power). The one bright spot in the budget is fuel costs about 40% of what was budgeted.

An alternative would be to continue funding WB-7 refinements through Jan/Feb '10. This keeps the team together. In Jan '10 we might get a WB-8 funded because they put it in FY '10 budget. Navy's FY '10 budget request is due in a week or two.

Bottomline - any Navy money going into this research means they haven't run into a show stopper. Expect more substantial efforts in Sep '09 or Jan '10.

Of course this total speculation on my part...

Ah! They're adding a subwoofer! :lol:

Seriously - good news. Here's hoping for WB-100, which should REALLY shake the House of Saud! :mrgreen:

It seems likely that the Navy consulted with Nebel after the review and asked what modications would be necessary to bring further clarity to the experimental results (instead of just saying "Here's another 2 million...see you in another year").

From all we have heard of the experimental results, something is there. Before the Navy spends any serious money they (and EMC) need more answers about what that 'something' is.

Maybe Nebel can explain the results, but the Navy still needs qualified people outside of EMC to verify this as well. I know that they had the Review Panel, but if Talk-Polywell is any indication....it can take months, if not years to get up to speed on this stuff-- Even after a peak under the hood.

Chuck Connors wrote:I know that they had the Review Panel, but if Talk-Polywell is any indication....it can take months, if not years to get up to speed on this stuff-- Even after a peak under the hood.

Well, they didn't have to ask what a cusp was and what Maxwellian means, so they were probably a BIT ahead of most of us. Also, they had ALL the data, which as Art is fond of point out, we have not been blessed with.

It seems likely that the Navy consulted with Nebel after the review and asked what modications would be necessary to bring further clarity to the experimental results (instead of just saying "Here's another 2 million...see you in another year").

From all we have heard of the experimental results, something is there. Before the Navy spends any serious money they (and EMC) need more answers about what that 'something' is.

It certainly matches that. Un-nuance the results.

Chuck Connors wrote:From all we have heard of the experimental results, something is there. Before the Navy spends any serious money they (and EMC) need more answers about what that 'something' is.

Their agenda may not be the same as ours...

KitemanSA wrote:Well, they didn't have to ask what a cusp was and what Maxwellian means, so they were probably a BIT ahead of most of us. Also, they had ALL the data, which as Art is fond of point out, we have not been blessed with.

Very true- And yet, even if it was all laid bare- How much time would someone need to comprehend it fully. A day? Month? Year? When you still have EMC interpreting their own 'nuanced' results....I would wager that it is darn complex stuff.

alexjrgreen wrote:Their agenda may not be the same as ours...

What's the Navy's agenda...BFR powered warships & subs? Sounds good to me. Even if they are successful in this, the research is much too important to keep the lid on for very long.