some questions

[TallDave]

He didn't look at both. He confused the two. There's a difference.

I'm not convinced that's the case. He seemed to say both had an impact.

Given the paucity of data, I guess you're free to believe the WB effect is measurement error or misinterpetation.

Maybe we'll get some more info from WB-8.

[chrismb]

I'm assuming we can believe Rick.

I try not to do 'assumptions' [excepting for the purpose of deciding the objectives of the next experiment] and I don't do 'belief' and 'faith' when the subject of that belief is a physical system. Are there results that can be stuck with, rather than relying on the probity of the experimenter?

..nobody believes a theory except the theorist, and everybody believes an experimental result except the experimentalist.

I like it! 100% with you on that.

Of course, it is in the nature of a theorist that they propose some given mechanism that they then have to have faith in, else they'd not move on to the next step of their hypothesising. Meanwhile, others look on without much belief as it's not been something thought up before (else it'd not be a new theory worth theorising on!).

And, as you say, a good experimentalist is the type that looses sleep over the results, until it's repeated and confirmed many times by others. 'Armchair scientists' need not apply - only those who have released novel and/or ground-breaking experimental results into the public domain know the blind panic and cold sweat from the fear that something's been overlooked (which ordinarily occurs when one sees one's own results in print on the first day after publication!).

[MSimon]

If you're working on a shoestring, the opportunities for mistakes potentiates.

Thus my tag line.

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?

[MSimon]

And, as you say, a good experimentalist is the type that looses sleep over the results, until it's repeated and confirmed many times by others. 'Armchair scientists' need not apply - only those who have released novel and/or ground-breaking experimental results into the public domain know the blind panic and cold sweat from the fear that something's been overlooked (which ordinarily occurs when one sees one's own results in print on the first day after publication!).

So then the question is:

Did WB-7 confirm the WB-6 results sufficiently to justify spending money on WB-8?

[TallDave]

I try not to do 'assumptions' [excepting for the purpose of deciding the objectives of the next experiment] and I don't do 'belief' and 'faith' when the subject of that belief is a physical system.

I agree. Words to live by.

Are there results that can be stuck with, rather than relying on the probity of the experimenter?

That's what you're going to find out for us. The ski mask is in the mail.

[chrismb]

That's what you're going to find out for us. The ski mask is in the mail.

Has anyone taken up my previous suggestion viewtopic.php?p=19008#19008 .

I suppose I'd better wear skis aswell, incase someone stops me and asks why I'm wearing a ski mask. Might look suspicious otherwise. A crazy Brit walking through Santa Fe with skis on would be believable enough, I'm sure. Though, that might interfere with my ingress into the building.

Maybe someone could just ask EMC2 more directly, or the Navy.... but I'm not convinced EMC2 are at the stage you think they are, so I'll just let them get on with their results in their way, in their time.

[Art Carlson]

And, as you say, a good experimentalist is the type that looses sleep over the results, until it's repeated and confirmed many times by others. 'Armchair scientists' need not apply - only those who have released novel and/or ground-breaking experimental results into the public domain know the blind panic and cold sweat from the fear that something's been overlooked (which ordinarily occurs when one sees one's own results in print on the first day after publication!).

It's happened to me. Doing my dissertation, I lived and breathed the measurement and associated theory for years, and in retrospect I think it was quality work. Still, at the end when I sent it off for publication, a reviewer pointed out a factor I had forgotten to consider. Once it was pointed out it was obvious, but it reduced the calculated sensitivity by a large factor. Fortunately the sensitivity was still large enough for the null result to be significant, but it could easily have been different. I don't have any reason to think that Rick is any less skilled or scrupulous than I was. It's always possible to miss something. darn the Navy [There's that censor software again!] for denying him the benefit of public review.

[Art Carlson]

If you're working on a shoestring, the opportunities for mistakes potentiates.

Thus my tag line.

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?

The most cost-effective and quickest step the government could take to promote polywell fusion would be to remove the gag order on EMC2.

[chrismb]

The most cost-effective and quickest step the government could take to promote polywell fusion would be to remove the gag order on EMC2.

But..is there a gag order?? Who's asked?

If there are DoD contract solicitations going out, then one of the obvious matters to tender for it is to have sight of previous work. It cannot be a fair and open tender, if prior findings are gagged, surely?

MSimon, you're the one with the USN background - go ask them!...

[Art Carlson]

But..is there a gag order??

There is this clause in the "SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD" for the "plasma wiffleball development project", awarded on March 3, 2009, to Matter Conversion Corporation:

5252.204-9504 DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACT INFORMATION (NAVAIR) (JAN 2007)
(a) The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor’s organization any unclassified information
(e.g., announcement of contract award), regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of
this contract or any program related to this contract, unless the Contracting Officer has given prior written approval.
(b) Requests for approval shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the
purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer at least ten (10) days
before the proposed date for release.
(c) The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement in each subcontract under this contract. Subcontractors
shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.

[Art Carlson]

Rick Nebel also made a couple comments on information politics in this thread.

We anticipate that we will be getting a lot of data over the next few months. Consequently, it would good to let you know what to expect from us in terms of information:

1. We can’t release data. The DOD has to determine what it wants to release. Eventually this will all come out, but they are our customer and this is their call. We are free to discuss anything which has been released (such as the WB-6) but they will control the new data. I’m willing to discuss where we are and what we are learning, but I can’t give you a lot of numbers.

2. Don’t expect us to be making a lot of pronouncements to the press like the cold fusion people did. We will have a very high level review panel that will be looking at our results, and we don’t want to prejudge their conclusions.

I understand that people are interested in our results, particularly on this website. I‘ll keep you informed. This is typical of DOD contracts, and the rationale behind it is pretty simple. They don’t want contractors making public statements that aren’t correct, or haven’t been looked at. That sort of thing can turn into a huge embarrassment.

The perfect example of that was the cold fusion mess. That was funded out of Advanced Energy Projects at the DOE. The Utah people got paranoid and went public before their work was adequately reviewed. Advanced Energy Projects no longer exists at the DOE. We’re not going to let that happen. We’re going to have a credible, independent review, and we won’t prejudge what they have to say.

[rcain]

If you're working on a shoestring, the opportunities for mistakes potentiates.

Thus my tag line.

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?

.. to which the only logical answer might be,

'cause it doesnt work yet!


....neither of them.

[rcain]

But..is there a gag order??

There is this clause in the "SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD" for the "plasma wiffleball development project", awarded on March 3, 2009, to Matter Conversion Corporation:

5252.204-9504 DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACT INFORMATION (NAVAIR) (JAN 2007)
(a) The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor’s organization any unclassified information
(e.g., announcement of contract award), regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of
this contract or any program related to this contract, unless the Contracting Officer has given prior written approval.
(b) Requests for approval shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the
purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer at least ten (10) days
before the proposed date for release.
(c) The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement in each subcontract under this contract. Subcontractors
shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.

... well that suggests its just a matter of being nice, and asking them.

as suggested, i think that's be up to you MSimon.

however, Rick's words are clear that the 'reality' is like any client-suplier relationship, confidentialy and trust are paramount and that the customer 'owns' the information produced. the customer in this case being a (quasi-) public-owned body.

another easier way might just be to subcontract talk-polywell.org to ecm2 corp (for some....reason) and then appeal for 'scraps' of data on a need-to-know clause.

not sure about that suggestion from someone back there that theorists 'devise mechanisms' - surely a good one, like any good experimentalist, should simply be attempting to 'describe' relationships, what is going on, accurately, completely and consistently.

machines, abstractions, inventions and moments of 'eureka' ... more the preserve of engineers, inventors, dreamers, madness and genius.. i would propose

anyway, can we get back to some theory...

the question is now, what is going on at these corner cusps? are the losses too large? - geometricaly, and thus the whole power balance of the machine falls over

and why isnt ionic cusp-plugging better defined, measured and understood? except, i think it might be already.

(re. the maths - when 'counting' densities, are we properly acounting for the overall 'shape' of the manifolds? cusps (densities and intercepts) are conical, volumes and densities themselves are cubical... sort of thing....

.. i might or might not get back to on that when i find out how stupid a thought it was later....
)

[KitemanSA]

Someone may want to put in a Freedom of Information Act request. But remember that Defense Technical Information that is subject to the arms export control act is exempt from a FOIA response, so in the request be sure to mention that by international law, fusion data cannot be classified, at least that is what I think that Art said.

[MSimon]

If you're working on a shoestring, the opportunities for mistakes potentiates.

Thus my tag line.

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?

.. to which the only logical answer might be,

'cause it doesnt work yet!

....neither of them.

So let me get this straight. Because the device is not proven adequate measurement is unnecessary.