Publish or perish?

[scareduck]

One criticism I have read of the EMC2 group has been that the team has not published any peer-reviewed literature. Bussard said that the Navy put a gag order on publication, but this was subsequently lifted at the time they de-funded him. Does anyone know if anyone from the team plans on publishing their findings to date in a peer-reviewed journal? I agree with others who say that it would be easier for them to get funding if they followed this path.

[cuddihy]

One criticism I have read of the EMC2 group has been that the team has not published any peer-reviewed literature. Bussard said that the Navy put a gag order on publication, but this was subsequently lifted at the time they de-funded him. Does anyone know if anyone from the team plans on publishing their findings to date in a peer-reviewed journal? I agree with others who say that it would be easier for them to get funding if they followed this path.

scareduck, since Dr. Bussard has passed away this month, the original EMC2 group has changed a bit. While it's true the Navy defunded him orginally, defacto lifting the gag order, the project was just refunded in april, ref http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -true.html Nobody on talk polywell knows the terms, but givin the money the Navy's putting in, it wouldn't be suprising if the gag order is in effect --not from a desire to keep the info secret so much as a desire to keep the team focused on the WB-7 effort. (This is essentialy the same reason Dr. Bussard was orginally gagged to begin with, to prevent having mounds of technical writing limiting progress where it matters.)

Either way, have patience. This time next year we should know if:
a. WB-7 worked & disproves the critics
b. WB-7 didn't work and disproves Bussard's engineering ROTs on IEF machine construction or
c. WB-7 worked somewhat but not to the degree scaling laws say it should or worst of all
d. WB-7 didn't work in accordance with the theory and we're not sure why

(b) or (d) would likely result in the end of this line of research

(c) would (depending on the outcome) probably result in a continuation of the research, but at a low level or at the mercy of an angel investor

(a) would be a major world announcement that would affect...everything.

I'm hoping for (a).

[TallDave]

It's interesting so few people seem to know the project has been funded again already, or that it actually happened last month. I guess the confusion's not terribly surprising, given the lack of press releases.

They aren't saying much, so I'm not sure if the r^5 gain scaling is going to be tested in WB-7, though that would be nice. My impression was that WB-7 would be the same size as WB-6 and was just going to validate the WB-6 results (but anyone who knows better, please correct me).

I don't know that a WB-7 failure would be a death knell, though obviously it wouldn't help. The Rostoker/Monckton team is also pursuing an IEC design, and we're hearing more and more panic on oil supplies, oil prices, and global warming.

[Roger]

My impression was that WB-7 would be the same size as WB-6 .

Same here, WB 7 would be a truncated cube while WB 8 would be a truncated dodec.

Though I must say that Simons WB 7x seems mighty tempting.

[MSimon]

My impression was that WB-7 would be the same size as WB-6 .

Same here, WB 7 would be a truncated cube while WB 8 would be a truncated dodec.

Though I must say that Simons WB 7x seems mighty tempting.

It may get funded. I get hints. I can say no more.

In fact I may have said too much.

In any case let me just say that the behind the scenes action is white hot.

Every one is waiting for the results of WB-7. If it is good to go the action following will probably be head spinning.

I post this strictly as rumor and innuendo and I will deny it if asked (some one stole my nic - LOL ).

Don't lose heart. Keep studying. A lot of talent very quickly will be required if things pop. Those ready will reap the rewards.

[cuddihy]

It's interesting so few people seem to know the project has been funded again already, or that it actually happened last month. I guess the confusion's not terribly surprising, given the lack of press releases.

They aren't saying much, so I'm not sure if the r^5 gain scaling is going to be tested in WB-7, though that would be nice. My impression was that WB-7 would be the same size as WB-6 and was just going to validate the WB-6 results (but anyone who knows better, please correct me).

I don't know that a WB-7 failure would be a death knell, though obviously it wouldn't help. The Rostoker/Monckton team is also pursuing an IEC design, and we're hearing more and more panic on oil supplies, oil prices, and global warming.

Correct me if I'm wrong myself, but, as long as your polywell is of sufficient size (which WB-7 should be), you should be able to test scaling laws just by varying the static field, n'est-ce pas?

[MSimon]

It's interesting so few people seem to know the project has been funded again already, or that it actually happened last month. I guess the confusion's not terribly surprising, given the lack of press releases.

They aren't saying much, so I'm not sure if the r^5 gain scaling is going to be tested in WB-7, though that would be nice. My impression was that WB-7 would be the same size as WB-6 and was just going to validate the WB-6 results (but anyone who knows better, please correct me).

I don't know that a WB-7 failure would be a death knell, though obviously it wouldn't help. The Rostoker/Monckton team is also pursuing an IEC design, and we're hearing more and more panic on oil supplies, oil prices, and global warming.

Correct me if I'm wrong myself, but, as long as your polywell is of sufficient size (which WB-7 should be), you should be able to test scaling laws just by varying the static field, n'est-ce pas?

Within limits (probably a total range of 2 or 3 to 1) caused by geometry constraints.

Simon