It caused some discussion when our fellow fusioneers at the company Trialpha Energy received $40M in funding in 2007, but I haven’t seen it noted much that just this July they received another $50M (FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS!) from similarly big-named but pretty much confidential backers, all while operating in “stealth” mode, not even a company website!
Most blogs are referencing this early report from SoCalTech.
Let’s start a new discussion about what lessons may lie in Trialpha’s apparently very successful approach to getting funded, as compared to the approach taken for focus fusion both through LPP and FFS. I’ve added a poll here to fuel the debate!
Yep, big magnets cost big bucks (but boy are the images impressive!). I almost voted 3, but went with 4. We’re the only transparent horse in the race, have the lowest ongoing and incremental budgets, and if successful, will produce the lowest priced machines on the market. No reason to change that now, that I can see.
Something to keep in mind is that the programs getting the big bucks for as yet unproven technologies (both fusion and fission) have in-person salespeople and very likely have a sales department budget at least the size of our total operating budget.
I vote 1 because, although I love the information and debating on this site, the most important priority is to get working fusion reactors out into the world asap, and I do think a lot of investment will still be needed on engineering post the break-even.
Option 5 for the poll: It would be a potentially fatal PR move as disappearing this late in the game after the repeated declarations of openess would raise serious concerns as to failure or capitulation to the oligarchs.
It’s LPP’s project… but its potential for change is vast and these are desperate times in all too many different ways. Starting openly and then shutting down access would be a very bad PR move and financially that would be a strong counter to any promised “stealth” funding gains.
Our organization is idealistic in its emphasis on openness. This is good, but I’m not sure it’s practical.
A “pros and cons” chart would be good here.
OPENNESS
Pros: 1) awareness among the public - leading to eventual public support and then better public policy - a pro-aneutronic fusion climate;
2) awareness among investors - it informs and attracts investors who might not have been aware before.;
3) awareness among other knowledge people (“open source science”). Open-source boosts come from
a) awareness of other scientists and technicians about this project so they can add their knowledge to the effort;
b) awareness among people who wouldn’t have thought of it, but have something to offer (e.g., “I don’t know fusion, but I do know switches”);
c) information support boosts - if we figure out how to improve the websites, turning them into a platform for scientific exchange. A thoughtful investment in information support could speed up the development of the science. Get the collective brain thinking about these ideas.
4) there’s always the fear based reason - keeping an idea in the open keeps it alive in the event that someone tries to bury it.
5) Inspiration - if the project works, it will be a thrilling tale the human spirit. And if it this particular approach to fusion doesn’t work out, and we handle it well, it will still inspire people to boldly go forth and find other things that do. We can set a great example of how to handle these complex, uncertain and bold knowledge seeking ventures.
Cons: 1) it makes it hard to control expectations - people churn or amplify every up and down tick on the progress charts or start selling shares in something before it’s proven - it turns into a free for all, and quite literally free.
2) Appearance of “overselling” - fusion has long suffered from being “oversold and underfunded” - and an open website approach doesn’t make things easier. If you start off publicly, with a cool idea in our infosecond world, people expect immediate results as if they’re watching a movie. A closed approach would take the pressure off. We need a conversation about this - how not to oversell, while not scaring off investors.
3) Scaring investors - most folks on the website are just checking things out for entertainment but not offering real material support. Since investors are the only ones materially supporting the research - it should be their decision. But openness can scare off investors, leaving the project even more vulnerable. Investors like control, clearer ownership mechanisms.
STEALTH MODE
Pros: Doing things behind closed doors has a long and glorious tradition. Some of the reasons are bad, but the good reasons are, if you want to incubate an idea, it’s best to let it go through its ups and downs, fits and starts, in private. People like to look good, so they just don’t want you looking while they sort through the ugly times. If you saw them at the ugly times, it would spoil the mood, so to speak. You don’t go on dates looking like a slob. Everyone wants people to love them for themselves - but they all hedge the opening gambits.
Ownership…a sense of ownership and control is a lot easier to organize around.
You don’t always have full control over which of those paths you follow, but priorities make a difference. If you are trying to maximize investment and return on investment, you do what will be most attractive to potential investors (without giving away the farm). If you’re a start-up ideas specialist, you may just push for a viable initiative, get venture backing, and then sell out to intermediate-stage growth specialists (that part of the game is boring to many inventor-startup types, anyway).
But LPP has, according to Eric as I read him, always had company growth and financial return as a weak third place priority, after making fusion energy readily available and applying it to the long list of issues it affects, and proving out Eric’s alternate magnetic/plasma-centric physics and astronomy. Keeping secrets and maximizing returns takes away from that, potentially and probably.
________
Getting back to Tri-Alpha for a moment, its technology purports to achieve steady-state pB11 fusion (at only “a million degrees” or so, according to some quotes). As one writer puts it, the design is “bewildering”. No kidding!
The temptation is strong to wonder who’s kidding whom. But that would be cynical.
Our organization is idealistic in its emphasis on openness. This is good, but I’m not sure it’s practical.
A “pros and cons” chart would be good here.
STEALTH MODE
Pros:
.
One particular con, and what I was referring to upthread, is that you can’t easily undo the stealth mode if things go south and you need even more investment… especially if you’ve made statements regarding openess before going stealth.
Very bad PR move. And PR equals investors, PR equals money.
And potential investors will look at the flip-flop, or potential double flip and be leery of exactly what LPP is after. The current investors, especially the small-dollar ones, might not like the thought of being used as bait to lure the sharks in when the whole project might wind up eating everyone’s lunch with the next round of tests.
Given the stakes a lot of the more charitable explanations might have trouble gaining traction in that environment…
Stealth mode isn’t the thing that draws big money. It’s the size of the investment (~ $100M), and they get there by successive iterations of match funding.
If you only ask for another $1M here and there, then those people with deep pockets wont take you seriously.
Produce an R&D and deployment plan and schedule that will bring the installed base to 1000 generators; then ask for the amount of money that will cut that time in half.
Hmm, this is a conundrum. I would say that the current “open” format benefits from open-source-type benefits and it fits with Eric’s overall vision of altruism for the project, but it also means that potential investors might take the project less seriously at this point . . . I agree that people (wealthy people especially?) like to see a well-presented idea, even if the physics behind it isn’t so solid . . regardless of the situation now, at some point, even if the project is successful in proving break-even or net energy generation, it will probably still need to do some serious engineering and production logistics to come up with a marketable final product. If LPP goes to market scale, it might be hard for it to remain open in the way it has been in the research stages. But others would know more about this than I do now.
Although caution is wise regarding Big Oil’s (strong) desire to see this fail, I think the fear-based concern should be pretty minor. As long as LPP doesn’t sign away its decisionmaking power to anyone, and it has good coverage of all relevant patents, idea burying shouldn’t be an issue. Who knows, maybe one of the Big Oil companies would want to hedge its bets by investing once the theory is proven? They do have tons of cash on hand, without tons more wells to drill, aside from the tar sands in Canada.
Also, a related question might be what LPP would look like if it was trying to do sales of the focus fusion as an energy generation device . . . or to do sales of licenses for other companies to build and sell the devices-
Also, a related question might be what LPP would look like if it was trying to do sales of the focus fusion as an energy generation device . . . or to do sales of licenses for other companies to build and sell the devices-
Aeronaut has been taking this approach, but I’m uncomfortable with it. One thing at a time. Proof of concept first. Should Phase I proof-of-concept deliver a verdict of feasibility, there will be plenty of time in phase II (developing a working reactor prototype) to come up with licensing models.
Also, a related question might be what LPP would look like if it was trying to do sales of the focus fusion as an energy generation device . . . or to do sales of licenses for other companies to build and sell the devices-
Only the latter is viable. To tool up as a manufacturer distributor etc. would be insanely expensive and complex. Completely open licensing is the only way to go. Each mfr/distrib. co. would then be responsible for its own plant and distribution costs, etc. The buyers would handle operations and jurisdictional regulations, and would handle siting and distribution and power sales (or make direct use of it, if that were their intent and purpose.)
This method also keeps pressure on regulatory jurisdictions not to drag their feet; de facto competition between regions, states, countries, etc. to implement low-cost energy should keep them honest and on the ball!
Also, a related question might be what LPP would look like if it was trying to do sales of the focus fusion as an energy generation device . . . or to do sales of licenses for other companies to build and sell the devices-
Aeronaut has been taking this approach, but I’m uncomfortable with it. One thing at a time. Proof of concept first. Should Phase I proof-of-concept deliver a verdict of feasibility, there will be plenty of time in phase II (developing a working reactor prototype) to come up with licensing models.
I see the hidden assumption that an existing, well-known company is going to be FF’s white knight, and am moving to remove our sole reliance on that class of the population and economy. A realistic onioneering program in my opinion must be crowd-sourced to a large number of privately owned and operated schools/research centers to simultaneously explore some paths while incrementally exploring other paths as the organization’s confidence level improves- which will be a non-linear curve iiuc.
Call it my manufacturing background or what have you, I believe that a credible onioneering program is going to require custom designed and built automated tooling, which nobody else’s numbers and schedules seem to reflect unless the machine tools are designed and built in parallel with the major research phases, and all of that is done in-house. Mine- and anybody I can scare into trying to beat me to execution.
Rezwan’s triple bottom line concept made a big impression on me. By building my internet-based company in phase 1, it can grow as big as it needs to be as fast as it needs to grow in order to fully exploit the first-mover advantage. Should FF work out. Phase 2 is building the school/lab network- gaining practical experience building 10,000 or more DPFs.
Phase 3 is all of the “paperwork” required to mass market the Aquarius line. Between the lines here is finding a production-oriented way to build cryogenic electromagnets.
I see the hidden assumption that an existing, well-known company is going to be FF’s white knight,
...
No, it’s your ‘hidden assumption’ that FF needs a white knight, or that LPP is going to be in the business of selling product.
Once unity is demonstrated and the basic design looks plausible, any number of firms will NECESSARILY be eager to move the ball down the field as fast as possible. How could they not? Someone else might do it and obtain significant first-mover advantages.
No, it’s your ‘hidden assumption’ that FF needs a white knight, ......
Once unity is demonstrated and the basic design looks plausible, any number of firms will NECESSARILY be eager to move the ball down the field as fast as possible.
It’s your assumption LPP doesn’t need a knight. There’s a gap between now and “once unity is demonstrated.”
That would be where we need to insert the knight. Know any?
No, it’s your ‘hidden assumption’ that FF needs a white knight, ......
Once unity is demonstrated and the basic design looks plausible, any number of firms will NECESSARILY be eager to move the ball down the field as fast as possible.
It’s your assumption LPP doesn’t need a knight. There’s a gap between now and “once unity is demonstrated.”
That would be where we need to insert the knight. Know any?
Well, the approximate timeline we’ve been hearing about is around New Year’s for “scientific break even”. Is a w.k. needed before then? I’m unaware of any suggestion that’s true. Keep in mind that this would be an all-time scientific first. NO fusion project or research has come even reasonably close to it.
There is is space between “scientific break even” and power input/output break even, of course. There the emphasis shifts from what is happening in the plasmoid to how the alpha beam and X-rays are harvested. While not trivial, it’s a much lesser hill to climb, and I’d be quite astonished if there weren’t plenty of actors eager to get in on helping make it happen.
BTW, a “white knight” is classically considered to be “a company that makes a friendly takeover offer to a target company that is being faced with a hostile takeover from a separate party.” Not exactly something LPP should be looking for.
Focus Fusion Society 
