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

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

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.

Dang it Brian, you’re making me think! 🙂
Public support and awareness will be required in order to loosen regulatory issues despite the entrenched lobbying of several industries. But in an elegant campaign design, it happens as a cascading byproduct, not the direct target.

We don’t sell anything. Selling is hard work, compared to making it easy for leaders with specific problems to buy FF heaters. Hmmm…. maybe I should target boiler manufacturers as well as end user companies. Since boiler operators have to be licensed, I’m sure the manufacturers do, too. The hardest part of this will be getting them to believe they really can run almost anything they can build for less than $10 a year in fuel costs. Maybe I should lead with a $10,000 annual fuel bill…….

This market is engineers, marketers, and salespeople, not physicists and scientists. They read blueprints, not patents and physics constants. I’m sure they’ll also be highly motivated to further develop their competitive edge by making making the boiler power its own pumps and fans, then ramp up into powering more of the building.

I had a gig cleaning a very old industrial boiler room a few years back. Cleaner, quieter, smaller have to be important benefits. (I almost said selling points- old habits die hard).

The PC was an incredibly constipated design for its day. IBM controlled the architecture- the specification- and reaped branding benefits that were off the charts. Google is one of many competing search engines. Since the goal never was to concentrate manufacturing, I fail to see how “control” is an issue.
As Rematog pointed out earlier, https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewreply/2050/, you aren’t getting boiler level heat out of an FF generator, and the rig necessary to exploit its heat is far more costly than just using the electrical output to do the job. 2 pure electric FFs cost far less than 1 FF plus heat-recycling superstructure. Using the FF as a boiler heat source is like using a car motor to help your carriage horses run faster. The FF heater is a huge and hopeless deflection of effort and time and attention, IMO.