Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

[polywellfan]

My second point is for the "fan";

"fan" in quotation marks. Because every "fan" must agree with you? Becaus every information has to be interpreted in an optimistic way?
If I had known you are so blind believers, I didn't trust your positive interpretations in the first way. By mobbing everyone away who doesn't see everthing on the way to salvation you are placing yourself in a reality bubble.

[polywellfan]

I am not an english native speaker

ka ching

And that is prove for what? That I am wrong?

[polywellfan]

But, the facts stand, they are not ready to do that. So that in itself is not sad. What would be sad was if they had promising results and the navy pulled the plug. Or, If they just gave up. As long as they are making progress, that is what matters. And in any event, they are now on the make or break contract. So whether we like it or not, they succeed or fail. And nothing publically released to date would indicate they are anticipating a fail.

Of course they don't say "we haven't much progress" to loud.

"Making progress" doesn't mean real or relevant progress.

But any discussion is worthless now, because you need to justify your strong emotional reaction to my comment. So an open discussion is impossible now.

Bye.

[polywellfan]

Check out the report for the continuation and expansion comment. As for the James Bond stuff, since the US Navy is funding this, they would like to get a small lead time edge on competition,




https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file ... ted_JA.pdf

Thanks. That is an productive answer.

[303]

isn't the next quarterly report due any day now?

[ladajo]

But, the facts stand, they are not ready to do that. So that in itself is not sad. What would be sad was if they had promising results and the navy pulled the plug. Or, If they just gave up. As long as they are making progress, that is what matters. And in any event, they are now on the make or break contract. So whether we like it or not, they succeed or fail. And nothing publically released to date would indicate they are anticipating a fail.

Of course they don't say "we haven't much progress" to loud.

"Making progress" doesn't mean real or relevant progress.

But any discussion is worthless now, because you need to justify your strong emotional reaction to my comment. So an open discussion is impossible now.

Bye.

The released reports and information would say other wise.
I am not reacting strongly to your position. In fact, you seem to be ignoring mine. You will never find anywhere that I have said Polywell is a done deal. But your approach is curious, and may be based in language and cultural challenges. Your turns of phrase imply negative outcome for the project. That is fine if you think it is so. But I would ask you to understand that while most here remain hopeful for success, they are not convinced of it. My opinion of your opinion is based on simple observation. You have not read relavent availble documentation. You base the bulk of your opinion in that since they are not done they must be failing, and you wrap that in a nice bundling of they would never tell us if they are not doing well. These are all fallacies. But they may be based in your personal cultural bias due to you upbringing and perceived youth.

If you think I have been aggressive with you, you obviously have not seen me get aggressive. Review some other threads. I would say I have merely been piqued by your niave behaviour. On most topics I am fairly moderate and tempered (I think). On a couple, I give no ground at all. Entrenched would be an accurate comment. That said, I do pay attention to the others comments, and I do think on them. I learn.

You have offered nothing here but unbased commentary that appears to be fishing for reaction. Others calling it Trolling.

You are entitled to have have opinion. Just as others are entitled to agree or disagree with it. But if you ask to be spoonfed by others on supporting or countering your blind shots in dark like "I am sorry for Polywell" and not explain clearly why or what you really mean, around here you will take some fire.

State your position and say why with substance. You lack substance.

[rcain]

i must say, i feel people are being a little 'harsh' with Polywelfan.

having said that, it does seem on the face of it that Polywelfan (who last posted here 'some months ago'), hasn't actually bothered to read/catch up and comprehend all of the intervening posts/updates. Instead, he has 'jumped in' with a 'controversial' and seemingly 'unfounded' assertion.

Polywelfan - couple of things:

1) true - there is no 'earth shattering' positive news on the device. we are all aware.
2) no one realistically expected any such 'announcement' - this is after all a military project. and even if it were simply commercial, early announcement of positive results before ensuring a 'solid' and 'unassailable' lead in the field would simply be handing advantage to the competition. would it not?
3) the (rather meagre) news stream we have been privy to, has in general been all 'positive'. ie. the project continues (to date - although we shall see if that is still the case in 6 months time - or whether the project is canned - which would indeed be 'a sad day for Polywel - but it has not happened yet).
4) this is 'basic scientific research' - which naturally proceeds (as a rule) in small, well controlled increments. 'Eureka' moments are rare indeed historically. Fusion is very evidently no exception.

So can I ask - have you read all posts in this discussion thread? if not, please do so. then we will listen to your views more attentively.

[rcain]

isn't the next quarterly report due any day now?

erm - i was under the impression none such was due (but i may be wrong). all hangs on any 'go ahead' for 8.1 now becoming visible. no?

[ladajo]

isn't the next quarterly report due any day now?

erm - i was under the impression none such was due (but i may be wrong). all hangs on any 'go ahead' for 8.1 now becoming visible. no?

Agreed, no more Recovery reports expected. As I understand, they have spent the Recovery money. Although, admittedly, that is probably a grey area on reporting requirements.

For now we watch the money. It is the last public access window we have. Unless we can get Brian Wang to give it a go again. The one year on look if you will.

[Betruger]

I am not an english native speaker

ka ching

And that is prove for what? That I am wrong?

That you are fish outta water. Relax and soak in the vernacular, only way you'll get anywhere.

[Betruger]

Unless we can get Brian Wang to give it a go again.

And/or Alan Boyle.

[ladajo]

Thanks, that was the other I was thinking but did not type.

[cuddihy]

Check out the report for the continuation and expansion comment. As for the James Bond stuff, since the US Navy is funding this, they would like to get a small lead time edge on competition,

https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file ... ted_JA.pdf

Thanks CHoff, I must have missed this before.

Parts of it are encouraging, but on the whole it doesn't change what I said about maturity of the technology.

[Betruger]

Has anyone seen or heard of what Dr Nebel's up to nowadays?

[happyjack27]

To evaluate from the almost nothing we have, let me enumerate it first:

1 the project is still going, it has not stopped.
2 they have received the additional, optional funding.
3 they are having some nondescript issues with electron flow that they are investigating, by adding more control over electron injection.
4 the project has not reached its deadline for reporting results.

The way you approach complex problems like this is you start from naviety, and add the most certain first, an then from there, build off of it one piece at a time, going from most informative to least, and pretending not to know anything about the parts you haven't considered yet. (and at each step, putting the parts you've already considerd back into possible parts to consider next.)

So let's look at 3 first, cause its easiest to get out of the way. The machine is fundamentally a magnostatic electron confinement device. The fact that they are focused on electrons, thus, implies that the engineering is all good and working as designed. Good. That puts us that much closer to getting answers. Whether they are answers we like or not.

Now 4 tells us little, unfortunately. Whether they get net power giventhe current empirical results and the scaling laws or not, either way they'd still be working on it. All this tells us is that it hasn't gone embarrassingly wrong or incredibly good. Or maybe it had gone incredibly well, and they're just taking this opportunity to tweak it.

However, 2, and the fact that they have scaled up power and tried the pb11 option tells us that it hasn't gone horribly wrong, while 3 tells us that it doesn't in it's current form match the theoretical scaling laws, due to some issues with electron confinement.

Whether its performance can still scale to net power or not cannot be determined before the electron issues are figured out. Let me be clear that this does not imply that it currently looks like it can't scale to net power any more than it implies that it can. The scaling laws of the electron issues cannot be known until both the cause is know _and_ a solution is demonstrated. What can't be mitigated or corrected might scale faster than gross power output. Or it might not. Point being, that until they run their experiments and answer those questions, it's unlikely that they know the chances of success any better than we do.

Hence they asked for funding to investigate exactly that. And because the people they asked understood that, they got it. If the people they asked did not understand that, the question would remain unanswered until someone in the right position did.