Hi everyone,
I am just wondering what are the main goals of FFS?
I believe everyone involved shares the goal of cheap fusion power.
Unfortunately there is no critical mass of us yet to make a big impact - to change laws and provide funding.
All fusion supporters are divided by their favorite concept:
tokamak, polywell, frc, ff which makes us even weaker.
So I am wondering if FFS was about fusion focus and not just focus fusion would it not attract more supporters and help us get over the critical mass required for ignition?
Aren’t we already setting up to support all forms of aneutronic fusion? My understanding is that as we gather the resources, we support the program with that which requires the least amount of resources, just happens to be the most transparent, and also has a stated schedule and plan to achieve it.
Beyond that lies the land of huge cryogenic electromagnets to develop for every scaling test. And those uncharted waters are going to take much more resources than LPP.
While LPP approach seems to be the most achievable in our eyes, it might not be so in others. So having a place for universal fusion discussion would be beneficial to spreading the message as well as staying in touch.
Thanks, Breakable. Well put. Aeronaut as well for summing up the triage strategy.
The issue is putting our understanding into more formal language, and making sure this is clear throughout our organization’s documentation, e.g., in the website and the bylaws. See this post for discussion of the bylaws.
Glad to help. LPPX can be proven or disproven (for the moment) the fastest and cheapest. Maybe that’ll get the Navy to “declassify” enough to make polywell a viable player for FFS to begin targeting resources for. Look what this conversation did in terms of CBFR!
In principle, any over-unity fusion would be good. But the prospective implementation costs for each are part of the package, and it isn’t even really a contest. FF has by far the best costing prospects.
It seems unfair to deprive FF and LPP of a dedicated cheering section to try and be a Big Tent for fusion, though! It’s not as though the others don’t have their own followers and promoters. Encouraging communication and co-operation is realistic; attempting to be all things to all parties is not.
Underlying all is the implicit/explicit competition for resources (mostly but not solely money, of course) for research and development. It’s pretty hard to fudge on that issue!
In principle, any over-unity fusion would be good. But the prospective implementation costs for each are part of the package, and it isn’t even really a contest. FF has by far the best costing prospects.
It seems unfair to deprive FF and LPP of a dedicated cheering section to try and be a Big Tent for fusion, though! It’s not as though the others don’t have their own followers and promoters. Encouraging communication and co-operation is realistic; attempting to be all things to all parties is not.
Underlying all is the implicit/explicit competition for resources (mostly but not solely money, of course) for research and development. It’s pretty hard to fudge on that issue!
Where’s the competition? In stealth mode, which eliminates public scheduling, budgeting,and resource allocation issues. Even PR will be phased if FF achieves unity in 2010 or the first half of 2011. So we’re already one of the cheering sections for aneutronic fusion. Talk-polywell.org is another. Too bad tri-alpha doesn’t have one.
In principle, any over-unity fusion would be good. But the prospective implementation costs for each are part of the package, and it isn’t even really a contest. FF has by far the best costing prospects.
It seems unfair to deprive FF and LPP of a dedicated cheering section to try and be a Big Tent for fusion, though! It’s not as though the others don’t have their own followers and promoters. Encouraging communication and co-operation is realistic; attempting to be all things to all parties is not.
Underlying all is the implicit/explicit competition for resources (mostly but not solely money, of course) for research and development. It’s pretty hard to fudge on that issue!
Where’s the competition? In stealth mode, which eliminates public scheduling, budgeting,and resource allocation issues. Even PR will be phased if FF achieves unity in 2010 or the first half of 2011. So we’re already one of the cheering sections for aneutronic fusion. Talk-polywell.org is another. Too bad tri-alpha doesn’t have one.
Well, it would be nice to have the ear and contributions of, e.g., Paul Allen (who is reputedly feeding TriAlpha).
Not sure what you intended to type above, bolded. Don’ git it.
Visualizing the timeline as a horse race, the crowd’s going to cheer as each horse crosses the finish line. Each cheer is the publicity that goes with that group’s breakthrough.
In principle, any over-unity fusion would be good. But the prospective implementation costs for each are part of the package, and it isn’t even really a contest. FF has by far the best costing prospects.
...if it works. So, yes, it’s very much an open contest.
Where’s the competition? In stealth mode, which eliminates public scheduling, budgeting,and resource allocation issues. Even PR will be phased if FF achieves unity in 2010 or the first half of 2011. So we’re already one of the cheering sections for aneutronic fusion. Talk-polywell.org is another. Too bad tri-alpha doesn’t have one.
I believe they prefer stealth mode. Fusion has historically been maligned in the press, and publicity has tended to hurt it, especially as things take longer to develop than desired. The projects that can get funding in stealth mode prefer it. Those that have no choice, such as LPP or Polywell, try to leverage the press.
There is a larger press issue to be addressed here.
So I am wondering if FFS was about fusion focus and not just focus fusion would it not attract more supporters and help us get over the critical mass required for ignition?
As far as branding is concerned, “focus fusion” is not affiliated in everyone’s minds with the dpf. If the dpf + pB11 are successful, you can bet we’ll have great bragging rights for sticking with the name. If it turns out to be less than necessary for net energy, it will still have added to the science of fusion so that we can respectfully keep it with pride, and at the same time it’s an ambiguous enough name to be generic.
“Focus Fusion” is also inherently action oriented - it’s a command to focus fusion. In contrast, fusion focus is a noun phrase, not as active.
Each fusion organization out there serves the greater fusion cause. We’re all part of the same endeavor, the same quest. So we all become affiliates of each other. There are activities we pursue that are synergystic. We can make these more explicit. At the same time, we are one of the few organizations that seeks to bring aneutronic fusion and this particular approach to it to the fore. These will all be stated in our mission. I don’t think it’s an either/or thing.
Focus Fusion Society 
