Reply To: FUSION Power for SHIPPING [] NO Co,Co2 Emission;No Oxgen Depletion ;NOx is absobed[]No Damage to Environment.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: What others think, say, and do is what the mass media used to be about. Nowadays there’s a bunch of splinter media that can be monitored in places like Google Trends. This is beginning to be referred to as “the global consciousness”. Our goal ultimately is to influence this. Ford was all over Google Trends the morning after the Knight Rider pilot, for instance. In the short term, early adopters will have very brief exclusivity relative to how early they got in and how fast the bandwagon gains momentum. I submit that it’s foggy, so we don’t really know much about the hill, other than it is there, and very little effort should be needed to get the bandwagon rolling.

While the instant credibility these heavy hitters can lend FF is desirable, they are mentioned only as candidates for an open-source license. I personally favor the collegial collaboration model that software had back in the Day, when Microsoft was still known (to some geeks, anyway) as a place that wrote interpreters and assemblers.

No way, no how, do I advocate letting any one corporation other than LPP controlling FF, and I apologize if I ever did give the impression that I do.

What we have to sell is a device (concept, actually) that can help real people solve real problems while the scientific and engineering challenges are being minimized, which may turn out to be never. By offering blueprints with the license, the early adopters can raise the bar on green vs. greenwashing.

Its all about separating the dreamers from the doers.

I’m trying to sift from what you write the answer to my question: “what is to be gained with public support and awareness?” It is very hard to sell a concept to the non-conceptual public, or to businesses. You, and to some extent Rezwan, seem to be prepared to have the Society batter its brains out trying to do both. For what? Eric’s research will or will not succeed. If it succeeds, it will be easy to attract potential early adopters to fund $3-5Million worth of engineering refinement. What is NOT worth doing is turning that over to someone else to accomplish, for example. That is an open invitation to loss of control, or being “squelched”.

But as a side note, there is something I haven’t mentioned before, because it isn’t quite yet an issue: once something is demonstrated to be possible, it is not necessary to divulge the secrets of how it’s done to have others duplicate or surpass your results. The CERTAINTY that it is possible is enough. I am not saying this is a threat to LPP; rather on the contrary, I am saying that once Eric succeeds in Phase I, you can be sure that within a few years somewhere someone or someones will have a working FF generator. And then everyone will be hell-bent to duplicate that. SO: LPP’s plan to be absolutely open and free-handed with licenses is the best way to keep some leadership and influence; attempting to control the information is bootless.