Just some final reminders on what Dr Nebel said.
Just some final reminders on what Dr Nebel said.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
"Whether or not the Navy funds the next phase, the past year's effort has been worth it, Nebel said. "We're generally happy with what we've been getting out of it, and we've learned a tremendous amount," he said. All that learning won't go away. "Regardless of what happens to it, we're going to get this thing well written up and documented," Nebel said.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.
Friday, May 22, 2009
EMC2 has just been awarded a contract for a WB-8 and WB-8.1 device under the America recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
...."until his funders have made that decision"...
(..an award made - but without a decision, it seems...??)
"Whether or not the Navy funds the next phase, the past year's effort has been worth it, Nebel said. "We're generally happy with what we've been getting out of it, and we've learned a tremendous amount," he said. All that learning won't go away. "Regardless of what happens to it, we're going to get this thing well written up and documented," Nebel said.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.
Friday, May 22, 2009
EMC2 has just been awarded a contract for a WB-8 and WB-8.1 device under the America recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
...."until his funders have made that decision"...
(..an award made - but without a decision, it seems...??)
The point made by Chris, Art and others, is that Dr. Nebel always said it was the DOD/Navy's call on data release.
The FOIA was then submitted, and the FOIA Denial was based soely on EMC2's request for withholding based on Proprietary Commercial Data.
This has raised the question of Dr. Nebel's veracity in previous public statements to the contrary.
Nobody thinks that EMC2 should not reap the benefit of the technology. However, reaping the benefits, and protecting that is somewhat different from some discussion or release of performance information and data.
Why all the reluctance to release ANY real information on performance data? especially when it has been indicated previously that EMC2 wanted(s) to do it, but it was the navy that did not. The navy was asked to release via the FOIA, the navy had no issue other than EMC2 saying they did not want to release it. It is not the Navy blocking release, it is the navy agreeing to honor EMC2's request not to release.
The FOIA was then submitted, and the FOIA Denial was based soely on EMC2's request for withholding based on Proprietary Commercial Data.
This has raised the question of Dr. Nebel's veracity in previous public statements to the contrary.
Nobody thinks that EMC2 should not reap the benefit of the technology. However, reaping the benefits, and protecting that is somewhat different from some discussion or release of performance information and data.
Why all the reluctance to release ANY real information on performance data? especially when it has been indicated previously that EMC2 wanted(s) to do it, but it was the navy that did not. The navy was asked to release via the FOIA, the navy had no issue other than EMC2 saying they did not want to release it. It is not the Navy blocking release, it is the navy agreeing to honor EMC2's request not to release.
Re: Just some final reminders on what Dr Nebel said.
I pretty much guarantee it is "written up and documented"; we've seen several hundred pages of reports listed. He didn't say YOU would be able to see the documents.chrismb wrote: Thursday, August 28, 2008
"Whether or not the Navy funds the next phase, the past year's effort has been worth it, Nebel said. "We're generally happy with what we've been getting out of it, and we've learned a tremendous amount," he said. All that learning won't go away. "Regardless of what happens to it, we're going to get this thing well written up and documented," Nebel said.
I suspect strongly this means that he really doesn't want to discuss the data, but if he doesn't get the money, he may have to in order to get other funding.chrismb wrote:Thursday, June 12, 2008
The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.
True. The funding he wanted came thru, so he doesn't need to publically discuss the data.chrismb wrote:Friday, May 22, 2009
EMC2 has just been awarded a contract for a WB-8 and WB-8.1 device under the America recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
...."until his funders have made that decision"...
(..an award made - but without a decision, it seems...??)
Where is the confusion?
{1}: Would someone find me any statement by Dr. N. that say he wants to release the data that Art... wants him to release? Were I being pressured to release such data and I had a handy excuse like the Navy Ban, I might use it too. I remember statements like "when I was at the Lab, we would... and such like, but "I want to give you all this data, but they won't let me" doesn't ring any bells.ladajo wrote: {1} The point made by Chris, Art and others, is that Dr. Nebel always said it was the DOD/Navy's call on data release.
The FOIA was then submitted, and the FOIA Denial was based soely on EMC2's request for withholding based on Proprietary Commercial Data.
This has raised the question of Dr. Nebel's veracity in previous public statements to the contrary.
{2} Nobody thinks that EMC2 should not reap the benefit of the technology. However, reaping the benefits, and protecting that is somewhat different from some discussion or release of performance information and data.
Why all the reluctance to release ANY real information on performance data?
{2}: Folks, this thing is so dang cheap that releasing any REAL data that proves this works is tantamount to opening the gates to massive competition. I think I might want to keep this under my hat until I built up a goodly head start too.
If this actually works out with pB&j, (call it a year or too from now) I suspect there will be a flood of patent applications of important details and then a massive funding search. But releasing data may start a clock they don't want started. Why the heck would she (Dolly) do that?
I don't think it will require much searching.then a massive funding search
1. The Navy will want to build one operational reactor as proof of concept.
2. The Air Force will be interested in using the devices for at minimum air base power.
3. I personally know of two sufficiently large commercial entities interested.
4. We know from Famulus that at least one VC group is interested.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
He told me privately (I hope he doesn't consider this a breach of confidence) "We have been asked by our funding agency not to have any more discussions on our work. ... I hope this won't last long."KitemanSA wrote:{1}: Would someone find me any statement by Dr. N. that say he wants to release the data that Art... wants him to release?
That is what was always likely, nice to have some confirmation.Art Carlson wrote:He told me privately (I hope he doesn't consider this a breach of confidence) "We have been asked by our funding agency not to have any more discussions on our work. ... I hope this won't last long."KitemanSA wrote:{1}: Would someone find me any statement by Dr. N. that say he wants to release the data that Art... wants him to release?
I can't say it tells us much about whether current results are good or bad, though!
Tom
It is their call. Are you claiming Rick could release information if they didn't want him to? He also told us, right from the beginning, that he had the people working at EMC2 to consider as well (is Rick even able to make that decision on his own? I'm not sure what EMC2's board of directors looks like). You seem to be confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient.The point made by Chris, Art and others, is that Dr. Nebel always said it was the DOD/Navy's call on data release.
Speculative. We have no idea what internal discussions took place. Also, even if that were true refusing a FOIA doesn't mean anything other than they refused a FOIA, which they were legally entitled to do, however inconvenient it is to some guys on the Internet who want to see their data. It doesn't mean they won't, at some time of their choosing, release (or at least discuss) the data. If I were in EMC2's shoes, I'd refuse the FOIA just on the grounds of not wanting to be pushed around.The navy was asked to release via the FOIA, the navy had no issue other than EMC2 saying they did not want to release it.
What do you suppose the FOIA compliance rate is from contractors who have IP at stake? I'm guessing close to zero.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ation.aspx
Last edited by TallDave on Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
"Speculative. We have no idea what internal discussions took place. Also, even if that were true refusing a FOIA doesn't mean anything other than they refused a FOIA, which they were legally entitled to do. It doesn't mean they won't, at some time of their choosing, release the data. If I were in EMC2's shoes, I'd refuse the FOIA just on the grounds of not wanting to be pushed around."
The navy told me that the FOIA had cleared the navy internal process, they had the documents for release, and even gave me the page counts. They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support. This step was the normal final step for release. I was told by the navy that the next thing I would hear would be either, here are your 100 pages, would you like the rest? If so, Please pay $21.50 (approx), or I would hear that it would not be released, based on EMC2's input. It was the latter, and specifically cited in the letter as I have posted elsewhere.
You are making statements based on assumptions and your opinions.
I am making statements based on my factual execution of the FOIA process. Postings I have made here at talk-polywell are direct comment on my letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls I have had to date with NAVAIR Weapons, China Lake.
The navy told me that the FOIA had cleared the navy internal process, they had the documents for release, and even gave me the page counts. They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support. This step was the normal final step for release. I was told by the navy that the next thing I would hear would be either, here are your 100 pages, would you like the rest? If so, Please pay $21.50 (approx), or I would hear that it would not be released, based on EMC2's input. It was the latter, and specifically cited in the letter as I have posted elsewhere.
You are making statements based on assumptions and your opinions.
I am making statements based on my factual execution of the FOIA process. Postings I have made here at talk-polywell are direct comment on my letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls I have had to date with NAVAIR Weapons, China Lake.
That's what NAVAIR lawyers told you. NAVAIR lawyers don't fund the project.They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support.
You have no idea what internal discussions EMC2 might have had with their funders over the FOIA. You are simply assuming, on no evidence that I can see:
1) Rick can make that call for EMC2
2) Rick decided, on his own, not to release the data, under no pressure from the Navy, which after gagging Bussard for 10 years is suddenly happy to release data to anyone that wants it
Or I guess you can assume Rick and Bussard were both lying, for some reason. It's a conspiracy!
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
True, after the NAVAIR Lawyers consulted with the contracting POC's and received the requested documents.They said the final wicket was for them to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim proprietary as they are a private company contracted for support.
That's what NAVAIR lawyers told you. NAVAIR lawyers don't fund the project.
True, however, I do know what the FOIA office told me.You have no idea what internal discussions EMC2 might have had with their funders over the FOIA. You are simply assuming, on no evidence that I can see:
Yes, but not alone, as Dolly still "runs the show". But he is the annointed lead mouthpiece.1) Rick can make that call for EMC2
No, I do not think it was on his own. And for the record, the Contracting Terms were not a gag, it was a <sic> "Don't Release without asking first" clause. Bussard's data from early 90's was all released.2) Rick decided, on his own, not to release the data, under no pressure from the Navy, which after gagging Bussard for 10 years is suddenly happy to release data to anyone that wants it
You assume the navy put pressure on Nebel and before him Bussard, "not to release". If that was so, they easily could have either classified the project, or put in the Terms, "Dont even ask us to release info.".
You also assume to know that there was a "secret conversation" between Dr. Nebel and the Navy. And in this conversation the navy begged Dr. Nebel not to release any info, and could he help them out by claiming proprietary. That does not sound reasonabe nor logical. Would it not have been much easier for EMC2 to just say it is proprietary all along, vice repeated statements of <sic>" I wish I could tell you, but THEY will not let me".
Nope. I think that you are seeing conspiracy in the navy seeking Dr. Nebel's help to block a nefarious FOIA that they had no power over blocking. If the navy did not want anything released, there are much simpler and longer term methods to control it, vice risking careers and such by macchiavellian manuevers. Contractual changes, and stampings of everything "Confidential - Naval Nuclear Polywell Information" would do the trick. It is certainly a proven method and has put the fear of god in to everyone since Rickover thought of it.Or I guess you can assume Rick and Bussard were both lying, for some reason. It's a conspiracy!
I see no conspiracy, I see you seeing a conspiracy.