Inc. Magazine’s April issue has a 7 page article about a master salesperson who just happens to have sold (120) $70M nukes that have neither prototype or regulatory approval. He’s also passionate about using them to clean water around the world and has advisers in Parliament.

From the article:

“This in spite of the fact that his technology faces daunting regulatory hurdles, doesn’t exist even in prototype, is less efficient than other nuclear designs, and comes from a tiny start-up in Santa Fe, New Mexico, that competes against some of the best-established names in the world, including Toshiba and Westinghouse.”

So we have 2 choices, imho. We can continue to wish or we can lead the moving target. Since Next Generation Nuke is also unproven technology, let’s start thinking seriously about getting professional sales talent lined up.

Pure salesmanship without a product usually becomes exposed as a scam pretty quickly.  All promise and no product.  That’s not the way I want to roll out this technology, and I don’t think we’ll have to go that route.  Things are progressing nicely, and we’re on the right track.  However, I do agree that a good salesman WITH a good product is one of the keys to success.

AaronB - 02 April 2010 01:24 AM

Pure salesmanship without a product usually becomes exposed as a scam pretty quickly.  All promise and no product.  That’s not the way I want to roll out this technology, and I don’t think we’ll have to go that route.  Things are progressing nicely, and we’re on the right track.  However, I do agree that a good salesman WITH a good product is one of the keys to success.

I’m trying to think of a Next Generation Nuke that doesn’t have materials science challenges and/or is lacking a prototype and am coming up short. Going to be interesting to see if Hyperion can deliver when it’s time to build their first one.

Neither can BlackLight (deliver), but they are doing well financially. Steorn anyone?

Hyperion’s technology is licensed from Los Alamos National Laboratory.  I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that LANL technology is snake oil. 

Regarding the quote from Inc. magazine, every new nuclear technology faces daunting regulatory hurdles, including DPF fusion, and in many of the envisioned use-cases for Hyperion (foreign countries, non-US military bases), regulation is not as much of an issue.  Every company faces issues of capital when building new nuclear designs.  Hyperion isn’t designed to be “efficient”, but to be simple, “right-sized”, and portable.  And being a tiny start-up is no black mark, again as DPF proponents should realize.

It looks like the recent DARPA RFP for a 5-10MW portable nuclear reactor is pretty much targeted at Hyperion.  While the US military is certainly not immune to snake oil, it looks to me as if this is a vote of confidence for this general type of technology.

If it comes down to who you know, I’d bet on Hyperion getting the Darpa deal. If it comes down to who’s first with working hardware in the next 5 years, maybe there’s a horse race here.

Now, let’s look at this in light of 5 years- DARPA et al decline FF, which goes to market about the time Hyperion delivers to the folks with the crystal ball.

Here is the announcement regarding the DARPA solicitation:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&tab=core&_cview=0

Nowhere does it specify “fission” - Just nuclear, and reactor, right? 

Eric, will LPP make inquiries with the administrators to determine whether they would consider a fusion proposal?

I would also like to check whether the applicant should do the whole fuel-making-shebang, or just needs to provide the power?  Even if it’s the whole deal, it might be possible to partner with another company with that expertise.  Such a company might partner with several primary applicants to increase its chances, and would therefore not need to be persuaded to partner with LPP exclusively.

By the way, here is the link to the Inc. article:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/on-the-road-with-a-supersalesman.html#

DerekShannon - 07 April 2010 03:35 AM

By the way, here is the link to the Inc. article:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/on-the-road-with-a-supersalesman.html#

Yep, that’s the one. Thanx for the link, Derek.  Since decaborane is a chemical compound, it seems that fuel could come from any of a number of chemical companies.

I have a hunch that nuclear means fission in DARPA minds, so that pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow is very likely a distraction. Working hardware talks. BS walks. Iow, being on goal 6 with 8 months left to the unity projection, the best thing we can do is focus on our plan and raise public awareness that there may be an end to nuclear waste proliferation.

The reasons I mentioned this article are to dispel the myths that we need working hardware in hand to sell, and to point out that few in business or media seem to have done due diligence regarding clean energy options, time frames, and budgets.

DerekShannon - 07 April 2010 03:31 AM

Eric, will LPP make inquiries with the administrators to determine whether they would consider a fusion proposal?

I would also like to check whether the applicant should do the whole fuel-making-shebang, or just needs to provide the power?  Even if it’s the whole deal, it might be possible to partner with another company with that expertise.  Such a company might partner with several primary applicants to increase its chances, and would therefore not need to be persuaded to partner with LPP exclusively.

I’m already in talks with a fuel producer whose technology is pretty revolutionary too. We’re going ahead with a submission whether the adminstrators will consider a fusion proposal or not.  This is just a 2-page submission anyway, so that translates to one page on our energy technology and a page for the fuel project.  I could write one page on Focus Fusion in my sleep at this point, and we already have several documents that we can cut down to size in about five minutes.

So, yes, we are pursuing this opportunity, even if it is a long shot.  DARPA can decide what to do with it.  Even without them, I’m pretty confident in our continued progress.  We have enough funding in hand for several months, and the machine is working well and providing good data, so I think we’ve entered a new phase of rapid and sustainable progress.  At least, that’s how it seems to me.

Awesome!  Let me know if there’s anything I can do to help, even simple copy-editing ;-D