They are correctly identifying the advantages of fusion energy.
Lots of “It is imperative to provide funding for our programme!” for both ITER (and any potential American tokamak project), and NIF.
Several laments that the current state of the art in “Big Fusion” is outside the US.
In terms of inertial fusion and NIF, they lament the lack of access to NNSA facilities for civil projects. There is a lot of optimism about the projected ignition shots that should occur soon.
In terms of magnetically confined fusion, they are fixated on the steady state.
No mentions of anything but tokamak fusion and inertial confinement with focus on ITER and NIF.
Some focus on the potential for intellectual property rights and precision manufacturing reinvigorating the US economy.
They are correctly identifying the advantages of fusion energy.
Lots of “It is imperative to provide funding for our programme!” for both ITER (and any potential American tokamak project), and NIF.
No mentions of anything but tokamak fusion and inertial confinement with focus on ITER and NIF.
Some focus on the potential for intellectual property rights and precision manufacturing reinvigorating the US economy.
And NIF doesn’t even offer a perspective on energy generation. It’s nothing but an excellent weapons-research tool to create mini termonuclear explosions without violating the nuclear test ban treaties. The fusion energy argument in NIF is only a decoy to draw public attention away from the nuke research. And to give Arnold Schwarzenegger something better to say than “For a better understanding of Judgement Day”
Gigantic lasers, with an overall efficiency of less than 0.5% are used, so 99,5% of all input energy is already wasted before the beams even strike the target. And this target is a “hohlraum” that converts IR light to X-rays, which again wastes about 80% of the laser input energy.
It will take an awfully high Q (Q=1000, anyone?) to compensate for that, given the fact that less than half of this DT-fusion output energy (in neutrons) can ever be converted to electricity.
Am I right that focus fusion nees a Q of “only” 3 or 4 to produce net power?
And last but not least, the NIF laser can fire only once every 5 hours. The laser delivers about 2 megajoules per pulse, so the laser pump energy must be around 400MJ. That’s more than 200 pounds of TNT. Or you could also use it to shoot an enemy satellite out of the sky when it passes over.
If I had to choose between ITER and NIF as a hope for future energy, I would definitely put my eggs in the ITER basket.
Sounds like the peer review and press release path is the one for Focus Fusion. To that end, I’d like to work up what is called a diary for Daily Kos, and post it there for comment, and build on that for a public document. I realize that this site might be thought of as the public document, but the pieces of the story are scattered all over it.
Although I have background in linear accelerator construction from a half-century ago, my real hope is that I am not immersed in the technology so far that I’m unlikely to be able to communicate. I’ve spent my lifetime explaining technical doodads to the consuming public and my hobbyist peers, learning on my end what can and can’t be easily understood by the Average Person, and perhaps even what that average person can get fired up about, and what the level of comprehension of the general public is.
All the while, not overpromising or committing errors in misleading average persons about the likelihood that projects like this will cost them significant (to the average person, again) tax dollars at their level. Sometimes you can explain something in “cups of coffee” or miles traveled more effectively than in megadollars per megaperson. As Doug Hofstadter labors to explain in “I am a strange loop”, over hundreds of pages: we’re built to understand things at our own level, not that of the cosmos, nor the quantum level.
Only a weird few can understand and operate in those realms contemporaneously (should I say “at the same time”?) and we owe much of our science and comfort to them, but explaining what they do before the comfort and convenience occurs from their work is more art than science.
What I’d like to do is start a collaborative effort to put together a thousand-word or so essay, aimed specifically at garnering support from the politically oriented internet types, since they are the coming wave in swaying public opinion. The newspapers, even their internet comment sections, are becoming the shouting mob already. Twitter’s a wonderful idea, but it’s a jab, not a solid punch. Science need focus, just like fusion does, and I’d like to see some combination of words and images, such as a diary with inline images, carefully explaining in one place, as the go-to link (not site, but link!)
It needs to tell the whole story, with pictures, on one scrollable page, with no fancy video player needed, for the vast majority that you need to get your public support to sway the financial and media people. What do you think?
Everything needed is on this site, but it’s not in one place, on one page, and we live in a one-page world. Ignoring the limited attention span of the voters and funders might not be a good idea. They have all the money.
Welcome to FFS, Ormund. Excellent first post, too. If you can really tell the compelling story in only 1,000 words, my hat’s off to you. I say go for it.
Thanks. It’s Ormond, all O’s. They were having a 4 for one sale on O’s when I was born.
I’ll start work, and post what I come up with as a draft. Then you can all committee and I shall accept your revisions as I can understand how to fit them in.
I’ll start with a short (it’s done to death) CO2 danger thang, and a raise all boats with cheap energy thang, and then do a little fear of neutrons thang (Probably title it “Aneutronic” Twenty Mule Team power source, or maybe even tie it in with Ronald Reagan to appeal to the righties, and post it on Redstate, the big right wing blog, too. I read most of the big ones, contribute to a few where it looks like it will tend toward the saving of the most important species: us.)
A little detail on how it works, emphasizing lack of bad radiation, and hitting on the technical (ha!) simplicity, mention the fine and advancing work going on (gotta neutralize the “fusion is always fifty years in the future” myth by hammering the aneutronic aspect, and a teeny bit about X-ray capture and conversion to defuse the automatic skeptics, who can be technically quite competent.
I’ll need some links to the strongest arguments against, and also to why FF is the best of the breed. Karl Rove was right, you have to attack the strongest contrary arguments, and then move on. I’m hoping to utilize some of my skills in argument to actually present a solid case that can be adopted by advocates, but won’t be susceptible to honest skepticism. It’s quite a bit harder to disarm the dishonest skeptics. That’s where the comments section of the diary has to be carefully tended. Any of you registered at DailyKos or RedState?
If I could fly straight into committee mode before you have spent too long on your initial paper (great idea by the way); for many people the “save the world by reducing CO2” thing is getting a little stale. It’s not my opinion but the findings of a report commissioned by the WWF, the Earthwatch Institute, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and others. Here’s a link to a copy
Thanks for the corroboration. I accept that global warming exists and is anthropogenic, but I’m sort of a scientist, and most people don’t live their lives scientifically.
Your response is exactly what I’m looking for, and what I think will give focus fusion (FF) credibility and thus funding.
I can also use more evaluations by “peers” pro and con, especially ones that directly address current state of FF art.
Maybe LPP removed it deliberately, maybe it just vanished.
I’ve printed it on paper, but I don’t have a digital copy of it anymore.
Take good care of that printout! It may once have great collector’s value. If you look at what’s now being offered for a scribble from Mr Einstein or Mr Edison…
Sounds like the peer review and press release path is the one for Focus Fusion. To that end, I’d like to work up what is called a diary for Daily Kos, and post it there for comment, and build on that for a public document. I realize that this site might be thought of as the public document, but the pieces of the story are scattered all over it.
What I’d like to do is start a collaborative effort to put together a thousand-word or so essay, ...
It needs to tell the whole story, with pictures, on one scrollable page, with no fancy video player needed, for the vast majority that you need to get your public support to sway the financial and media people. What do you think?
Everything needed is on this site, but it’s not in one place, on one page, and we live in a one-page world. Ignoring the limited attention span of the voters and funders might not be a good idea. They have all the money.
Ormond, thanks for the initiative! That would be great. Between you and Keith we can have Daily Kos covered. As to the essay all on one page - I’ve started reorganizing the site to that effect. As you see now, the link in the menu to “What is Focus Fusion” takes you to a single article that explains it. It’s still a work in progress/I still have to go through the article and rewrite it and update it with the new pictures. I’m working my way through the site to make it all more streamlined, simplified and easy to navigate.
Although, in fact, today I’m working on a video that explains the DPF (fancy video!). There is a lot to do.
I did not find a clear issue date inside but the content suggest it must have been issued in 2003.
I guess this needs a bit of updating too?
I regret there are so many undated resources available on the web. Since electronic documents do not “age” or become gradually less available as printed media do, the correct date of origin is very important.
This also goes for forums and news articles about “new technology” and things like that, where sometimes the month, day and even time of posting are given, but not the YEAR!
As things go, I google for some info, find something that looks promising, but after some reading, the stuff appeared to be almost a decade old and reading it was a total waste of time.
Sounds like the peer review and press release path is the one for Focus Fusion.
That is made clear to me from this hearing. Also in communications with the committee, wherein I was asked:
Do you have a unique way to get there that has been validated through peer review in physics and fusion journals outside of the aneutronic community?
The reality of the scientific method is that it takes place in a social/political/human world. Much as we’d all like to just do things in the most straightforward way possible, test out the cheapest, most plausible (or least unplausible) alternative first, and move up to the big, unwieldy things, the matter gets stuck in procedure/tradition.
The “aneutronic community” (AC?) is referred to pejoratively in that quote. Apparently, the AC is not part of the big boys fusion club at this time. That club is pretty well organized. Well connected, and they cooperate enough to get government to underwrite the compiling of a “state of the research” document, and this document is what the quest for fusion is limited to, and all the govt can see.
Take a look at it - (ReNeW project site has links to the pdf you can download). The document they produced spells out all the problems/challenges the official fusion world has mapped. They call them “Thrusts”. Interesting imagery. Militaristic, swordplay? So, the Aneutronic community could use a document like this, to map out the rest of the fusion challenge in terms the political world can relate to. It needs to be created/compiled by the collaboration of the disparate fellows of the AC, outlining the AC’s thrusts.
So, to sum up, no big newsflash - the AC needs to get more organized. And an object to organize around could be an AC ReNeW doc, put together with the cooperation of hundereds of AC scientists, who, hopefully, have a list a mile long of peer reviewed docs.
Anyway - I’ve set up a tentative section to begin compiling this. It’s probably misnamed. “Plasma Network”. Need to brainstorm on that as well. As you see, that section is just a placeholder for now. http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C66/
Focus Fusion Society 
but the content suggest it must have been issued in 2003.
