Tax-payer funded basic research.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:55 pm

But that's my very point you are proving. Basic science needs to be in the public domain, and then one has a chance at a sensible approach to investing in it so as to bring it to practical fruition. If you miss out the essential step of establishing the basic physics of a new scheme, then everyone's left in the dark playing guessing games - and that includes the funders of the project, as well as anyone else looking on.

It seems to me that's how a lot of the 'operators' of these schemes like it - keep the funders in the dark so as to keep creaming off cash from them whilst you weave emperor's clothes.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:30 pm

GIThruster wrote:. . .and of course, EEStor would NEVER agree to this sort of aid if it meant they'd lose their trade secrets.

You missed an essential point. If EEStor's trade secrets needed to be sacrificed, that's a "no way forward" scenario. You need to leave the trade secrets intact or forget funding. No one works for free and no one is going to cut their own financial throat to suit someone else's misguided sense of right and wrong.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:58 pm

I've missed no point. Trade secrets are not basic science - from the point of view of external funding. If you, as a private and self-funded company, discover some new basic science that is commercially profitable, then bl**dy get on with making a profit out of it!! If not - if the basic science has not been established - then you cannot claims rights to 'basic science' that you then require funding to prove.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:29 pm

Was going to say as I read previous page, EEStor's patent stuff isn't basic science as far as I've seen.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:49 pm

Well, again, that's kinda what I mean - is it something new, or is it just a great developmen.? Who knows and, seemingly, who cares so long as the investors (inc. Gov) are still biting!

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:28 am

Looks like the tissue of lies surrounding this affair is wearing pretty thin under some serious logical scrutiny.

One more bottom wipe and someone's going to get messy hands.

Who's it gonna be ... kiteboy, git-thruster, neck'nneck, stride for stride.

That's just the way life is people, better get used to it.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:58 am

Come now, don't be abusive.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:29 pm

icarus wrote:Looks like the tissue of lies surrounding this affair is wearing pretty thin under some serious logical scrutiny.

What ARE you babbling about? Tissue? Lies? What are you babbling about?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:46 pm

The Navy considers the Polywell project a development project.

The basic research is decades (maybe many decades) behind us.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:41 am

The Navy considers the Polywell project a development project.

Wow, that sounds like a horribly misguided approach towards fusion research, but it actually explains some of inconsistent behavior also.

And weren't you "over this" or staying out of it or something or rather?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:27 am

Or rather something or other.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:08 am

MSimon wrote:The Navy considers the Polywell project a development project.

The basic research is decades (maybe many decades) behind us.

Interesting, then, that the last time it went past a patent examiner there were still species-election issues, and the patent application was dropped. Hardly 'development' activity. I have to agree with Icarus - it would appear misguided of the Navy to treat it as such, but there again we've not seen the peer review, owned by the Navy but blanket-denied for release by EMC2 for purely commercial decisions [the organisation that said how it just wanted to solve a problem for mankind's betterment, and that rejected the idea of cartels].

Fusion is too beguiling a mistress to let a few mere inconveniences like the laws of physics get in the way of 'making progress'. Polywell history is now just a small-scale reflection of tokamak history. "Ah!", they cry, " it is all proven - this is just an engineering problem now!".

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:19 pm

chrismb wrote:Interesting, then, that the last time it went past a patent examiner there were still species-election issues, and the patent application was dropped. Hardly 'development' activity.

No, that's an excellent example of development activity. Those involved in "pure" research never file for patents. Patent work is specifically to support development. Point in fact, you cannot file for patent until you have already proceeded well down the path of development because "ideas" are not patentable.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:00 pm

chrismb wrote: Polywell history is now just a small-scale reflection of tokamak history. "Ah!", they cry, " it is all proven - this is just an engineering problem now!".

Come on, they specifically haven't! It will be a repeat of tokamak if in a couple of years they keep dubiously censoring and putting out only vaguely meaningful comments themselves and their funding continues in no clear accelerating trend.

They haven't said it's all proven, in fact they specifically said the next couple of years would prove it or break it.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:04 pm

Betruger wrote:They haven't said it's all proven, in fact they specifically said the next couple of years would prove it or break it.

That's my point - so how is it 'development work' and not 'basic research' then!?!?

Talk-Polywell.org

Tax-payer funded basic research.

If the Government and/or Military have no objections to any particular outcome, how should basic research findings, gained under contracts paid for by tax payers money, be disseminated?