I realize we probably aren’t there yet, but in terms of developing more avenues for getting the message out (and props to those who put out the most recent video!), perhaps some focus group study and consulting with the online “crowd” websites might be a good strategy for future focus fusion public relations (and even advertising?)? Would the website even be able to handle large numbers of people if they did find out about focus fusion, or is it better to wait until the technology is more proven?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/business/smallbusiness/05sbiz.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc;

advertisers know that word of mouth has the largest zing

i’d like to have a reactor of my own,
and be the envy of every power company on the block

Great post and link, JShell. My first read of “crowdsourcing” was the high profile and unprofitable social networks. It fits well with some similar ideas I’ve been developing. This just may be the fastest and least expensive way (overall) to commercialize at least the onion and promote the entire project. We’ll need to include ideas for developing political/regulatory, training/certification, tooling, manufacturing, and sales/service chains as well so that developers are encouraged to treat the entire project as a system which can capitalize on economies of scale to deliver the most benefits to the most people in the least amount of time for the least amount of money and hassle.

Basically we’d point them to a string of my more recent posts and see what options we can come up with for ~$1,000 or less, since there should be few if any hidden assumptions left to identify and challenge- i.e.- most of the “creative problem solving” may have been done already, becoming the crowd’s starting point more or less. For $5k we could post the gig to several of these crowds, and have a clean win in PR/publicity/advertising among a very influential set of communities.

Part of the work here on this web site and the others (Facebook and linkedIn), are the foundations of both advertising and word of mouth campaigns. Until there is an actual product, we need to formulate the winning audience messages. As usual, these need to be for the technical and non-technical public.

More input is always needed, planning and market research are extremely important to this embryonic scientific venture, and hopefully a social change in the near future.

Here is a flash of an idea. Do a survey of the world or individual countries (whatever) on the energy perceptions. Ask all the relevant questions about each type of energy generation and what they think is true or false. Or, give them multiple choice on the subjects.  Problem is short attention spans. At the end of the test they can see how they scored. For the ones they get wrong, you could have a paragraph briefly of the true answer and a link to a credible source web site.

You could also do a blind market survey of their background.
origin, income, marital status, etc.

Start passing that around the internet. Challenge people. Too bad we don’t have a immediate and satisfying, “I want it now!”, kind of prize to give away in a random drawing.

what are the winning messages? here’s what i’ve been using as teasers:

1. the public is convinced that energy production must be massive, expensive, polluting, and dangerous. but it doesn’t have to be any of these.

2. this approach to fusion was invented in 1963 and is still in the lead.

3. because only charged particles are produced, you can extract energy directly, at high efficiency

4. a proton, accelerated to 600 keV, can smash a lot of things

5. this thing generates the strongest magnetic fields ever produced, equaling those on a neutron star, without huge external magnets

6. the top three fusion research programmes are all funded, and racing toward break-even. it will happen sooner than you think.

7. no, it’s hot fusion. it reaches temperatures in the billions of degrees, all in a tiny micron-size volume

8. it cant explode, it produces no radioactive waste, and the fuel itself isn’t radioactive, either.

vansig - 10 August 2010 03:09 PM

what are the winning messages? here’s what i’ve been using as teasers:

“winning” and “accurate” can be two different things.  Fusion has historically suffered from being “oversold” and “fraudulent” and run by “wishful thinkers.”  Whatever message we put out can’t fall into any of those traps.  One day, the experiment may prove that all your statements are true, but that day is not today.  Until it’s proven, check your wording.

1. the public is convinced that energy production must be massive, expensive, polluting, and dangerous. but it doesn’t have to be any of these.

True enough, although some of the public just want everyone to turn out the lights and live incredibly simple lives.

2. this approach to fusion was invented in 1963 and is still in the lead.

In the lead of what?  I think what you’re trying to say is that the DPF, invented in 1963, routinely accomplishes fusion.  The idea that it could actually achieve net energy from fusion has proponents, and is currently being tested.  If the results of this test are positive, then we are in for a wonderful new world. 

3. because only charged particles are produced, you can extract energy directly, at high efficiency

Try to qualify things a bit more.  This statement refers to the use of advanced fuels.  LPPX is in phase I right now.  If phase I proves feasibility, then we will likely be able to figure out a way to extract the energy directly during phase II.  And the amount of efficiency is TBD. 

In other words, it’s not a done deal yet.  This sentence makes it sound like it’s already done.

5. this thing generates the strongest magnetic fields ever produced, equaling those on a neutron star, without huge external magnets

Where’s this from?

6. the top three fusion research programmes are all funded, and racing toward break-even. it will happen sooner than you think.

Funding is always precarious, for all fusion programs.  And LPPX could use more funding. 

Try: it “could” happen sooner than you think.  Or perhaps: it “could be made to happen” sooner than you think ... “if funding was more reliable” (hit ‘em in the wallet, this is no joke.  Funding is not flowing). 

And how much sooner?  LPPX has pushed back their proof date because of switches and other contingencies, and if funding disappears for some reason, suddenly we’re still at stage x, and not at the end.  So the end could remain a year away, unless acted on by experimental action and consistent funding. 

In other words, as you know, the running joke is “Fusion is always 20 years away”, with LPPX the joke might become, “Fusion is always 1 year away”.  Again, until proven, it is still on the horizon.  And could remain there even while provable, if necessary, adequate resources are not brought to bear and all the stages of the experiment are not followed.

Wait, I see an opportunity here.  With LPPX, “fusion is 1-20 years away” - LPPX changes the range of that elusive projection.  This makes fusion as a whole a more interesting field to watch and might bring people off the benches.  This is a reframing opportunity.

7. no, it’s hot fusion. it reaches temperatures in the billions of degrees, all in a tiny micron-size volume

8. it cant explode, it produces no radioactive waste, and the fuel itself isn’t radioactive, either.

Basically true!  It may still .000x (?) neutrons.  Which would get absorbed in the shielding, and is no more than background, really.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t want to sell a dream to wishful thinkers.  I want to appeal to the problem solvers, the curious, the people who like a challenge and who would like to cross the technological threshold/barrier/filter to a fusion future.  I want people who are positive and optimistic, but nothing that even suggests “delusional”. 

I would pitch it as mankind’s finest hour sort of thing.  Overcoming this challenge with due diligence and a sense of fun and adventure.  The gold on the other side of achievement - well is it really about the gold?  That’s funny.  It probably is.  An investor is looking at this and thinking, “what is my ROI?” and trying to calculate kw/h prices. 

Transforming civilization:  priceless.

But that’s just me.  You can craft different messages for different people.

What is the purpose of “advertising” at this point?  It seems to me of questionable value to promote aneutronic fusion at this stage of the game, as I’m not clear what the “ask” is, what action you want people to take. I would think that what is needed far more is hard dollars invested in the research, but that isn’t going to come from the general public (and presumably is better handled by LPP than the FFS).

Tulse - 10 August 2010 06:52 PM

What is the purpose of “advertising” at this point?  It seems to me of questionable value to promote aneutronic fusion at this stage of the game, as I’m not clear what the “ask” is, what action you want people to take. I would think that what is needed far more is hard dollars invested in the research, but that isn’t going to come from the general public (and presumably is better handled by LPP than the FFS).

LPP is limited in personnel.  They are all tied up doing the experiment.  And they mostly appeal to investors who want ROI.  They are under a lot of pressure.

What FFS can do is promote aneutronic fusion to policy makers and philanthropists, who are more interested in the pursuit of science and not as put off by the risk of sub-financial return.  There’s a huge role for FFS.  Unfortunately, we’re also hampered by lack of personnel.  And the excellent work and desire to do things of our members and volunteers doesn’t get channeled constructively.  There is a lot of energy out there that’s not being tapped because our organization isn’t what it could be. 

What we really need is to get off the ground and turn into a credible, recognizable, effective nonprofit organization.  This requires a well stated mission and plan, committed membership, and a strong board.  The strong board is particularly important for fundraising and has crossover value for LPP.  people who are likely to be on a board are also likely to, or know people who are likely to, be accredited investors.  Relationships need to be forged.  This takes time and the backing of a credible organization.

An appealing, high profile nonprofit can make something a better bet for policy makers. 

In short, there are a lot of things a nonprofit can do that create a better investment climate for certain types of research.  It’s the pressure and inspiration of numerous nonprofit green organizations that creates subsidies for renewable research, for example.

It’s a tried and true method.  Chatting on these forums is fun, but doesn’t get the job done.  We need to roll up our sleeves and do the official nonprofit dance.  Many social media efforts out there get help and structure from an organized nonprofit.  (See, again, “dosomething.org”)

We need an adequate, paid staff to carry something as ambitious as promoting aneutronic fusion out.  And a board and dedicated membership to ensure that it’s funded.  And, of course, a really good plan of action for fusion.  I’m working on it!  It will be ready for first round feedback soon.  Really, there is so much FFS can do.

It’s been said in copy writing that people buy “results” as well as the stature of the media which one advertises in. I see 3 distinct audiences that we need to reach almost simultaneously-

1. Showing the general public a visual (at least) of their world enriched by fusion energy. With or without a call to action. The purpose of this is to make the concept(s) easier for the business and or political worlds to promote;

2. Showing the business world the incredible leadership vacuum and profit potential of backing further LPP research;

3. Showing the bureaucrats that this is going to happen, and inviting them to lead the way to at least a triple bottom line.

My platforms of choice are the iPhone and Droid, possibly the Dell Streak. I confirmed last night that fairly targeted clicks can be had for as little as 5 cents each, covering all of North America. Geo-targeting can be as local as the city level. This can be the basis of quizzes which could hand the viewer off to a set of YT links, and so on.

If we have any Ajax/ Java programmers in the house, a pair of apps to the iphone and droid stores could buy LPP some more time without necessarily requiring another round of funding.

Tulse - 10 August 2010 06:52 PM

What is the purpose of “advertising” at this point?  It seems to me of questionable value to promote aneutronic fusion at this stage of the game, as I’m not clear what the “ask” is, what action you want people to take. I would think that what is needed far more is hard dollars invested in the research, but that isn’t going to come from the general public (and presumably is better handled by LPP than the FFS).

The public thinks that there is already a fusion research that is being worked on by ITER and NIF. 
If we don’t change this preconception well have fusion in 20-50 years or maybe it will still be away by this much then…

Rezwan - 10 August 2010 05:19 PM

2. this approach to fusion was invented in 1963 and is still in the lead.

In the lead of what?  I think what you’re trying to say is that the DPF, invented in 1963, routinely accomplishes fusion.  The idea that it could actually achieve net energy from fusion has proponents, and is currently being tested.  If the results of this test are positive, then we are in for a wonderful new world.

It’s a race toward break-even. I believe the Polywell will get there within another 5 or 6 years. But DPF is in the lead. In Eric’s words, “we have a bit of an edge”.

The statement places all that “fusion is fifty years away” rhetoric into context. It’s already been 47 years, for DPF, and that research effort has produced results.

5. this thing generates the strongest magnetic fields ever produced, equaling those on a neutron star, without huge external magnets

Where’s this from?

If i recall correctly, Eric mentioned the neutron star in the Google tech talks video. Periodically, we see announcements of “the strongest magnetic field ever produced” and it’s always somewhere between 10 - 200 Tesla. The fields in FF-1 already exceed those, don’t they?

6. the top three fusion research programmes are all funded, and racing toward break-even. it will happen sooner than you think.

Funding is always precarious, for all fusion programs.  And LPPX could use more funding. 

Try: it “could” happen sooner than you think.

Replacing “will happen” with “could happen” weakens it too much. Though i might append,
“but with your help, it will happen sooner”

For me, the purpose of advertising will be to sell generators, and to negate the lights-out, doom-n-gloom future that’s being flogged so heavily, right now.

Breakable - 10 August 2010 10:28 PM

Tulse - 10 August 2010 06:52 PM

What is the purpose of “advertising” at this point?  It seems to me of questionable value to promote aneutronic fusion at this stage of the game, as I’m not clear what the “ask” is, what action you want people to take. I would think that what is needed far more is hard dollars invested in the research, but that isn’t going to come from the general public (and presumably is better handled by LPP than the FFS).

Consider the recent commercials from BP, and the ones last spring from Toyota. They were the contingency plan. The type of advertising plan execution of what to do when things go bad. Throw yourself at the mercy of the public and apologize, a whole bunch. Not exactly the smartest but that is how it is done. As I had stated in a previous post, the noise in the media takes a great effort to overcome and “patience”, as well as planning it the smartest place to start.
We need to get to the “Awareness” level of our efforts, to help the public understand the goals of LLP and FFS. Right now, the ask is “Attention” to the efforts of Eric Lerner and company. To a growing understanding of how much energy costs. I have a saying, “As a world, we have more important things to do like cure cancer, poverty and human rights violations, than to worry about having our heat and electricity turned off when it’s 20 degrees below zero”. Put that one in a commercial and run it during a cold Midwest winter night. People will understand and donate to a society that promotes a change in energy direction

The public thinks that there is already a fusion research that is being worked on by ITER and NIF. 
If we don’t change this preconception well have fusion in 20-50 years or maybe it will still be away by this much then…

The public forgets that it is the many who control the market place and not the few. Too bad, it is those who have the most influence over those with the least. Leave it up to big corporations and it may never get done. The ant lifts a mighty burden.

While I’m all for people participating however they choose, it seems to me that a simple announcement of breakeven from LPP will do far more for the issue than any amount of advertising and advocacy by FFS.  And once LPP can demonstrate above-unity production of energy, funding should be far easier to come by.  I personally don’t see the purpose of doing a lot of advocacy, which at best can have a long-term effect, prior to the demonstration that the technology actually works, and once that is demonstrated, I would think it would sell itself without the need for a lot of other promotion.

Just my two cents, of course.

Tulse - 11 August 2010 03:48 PM

While I’m all for people participating however they choose, it seems to me that a simple announcement of breakeven from LPP will do far more for the issue than any amount of advertising and advocacy by FFS.

Yes, of course.  If they could simply get to that breakeven already. If everything goes without a hitch from this moment forward.

But supposing more hitches arise?  And supposing they run out of funding before breakeven?  You can’t simply announce what you don’t have the resources to accomplish.  Suppose the switch delays go from 8 months to…let’s take it a month at a time.  Suppose the decaborane handling raises all kinds of new and interesting issues.  There’s not a lot of precedent here.  Supposing things stretch out…a bit.  How much tolerance is there for complications?  How much margin for error?  How much committed support to due diligence of seeing the research through? 

Supposing this isn’t all as “simple” as we’d like it to be?