Homepage Forums Building a Better Focus Fusion Society About FFS – Feedback request

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7619
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Patientman wrote:
    And, the mission of Focus Fusion maybe stated in a much different light. We are not directly conducting the research and development and therefore, limited in that outcome.

    The Focus Fusion Society, as I see it, is dedicated to a final outcome of cheap, clean, safe, abundant energy with aneutronic fusion. That puts it in an interesting position relative to LPP.

    LPP is one approach to aneutronic fusion. It is the one with the most promise, with the best concept. It is not, however, guaranteed to succeed. This is a proof of concept experiment, which means by definition, the concept is unproven.

    The Focus Fusion Society thus fully supports LPP through networking, documentation, building awareness, and reframing the fusion issue for the public and policy makers. It also has to manage expectations. In the event it takes LPP longer than expected to produce results, or in the event that it doesn’t (but at least inspires other aneutronic approaches out there), people have a way of turning nasty on those who’ve made public attempts at fusion. This is where fusion gets its “oversold” rap and turns people off. We don’t want people turned off because of setbacks or failures. No matter what the outcome, the quest for aneutronic fusion must continue.

    I would say in this light, our goal is to stress the due diligence, discipline and duty required in pursuing fusion. In this light, we are objective, unemotional scientists and science lovers. At this phase, LPP’s job is not “to make fusion happen”, but “to duly carry out their experiment to show whether fusion is feasible under these conditions or not.”

    I’m almost done with the basic structure of FFS’ general fusion plan. It’s got 3 basic plans within it. Plan A is the LPPX plan – making sure we’ve done due diligence with the LPP experiment. If the outcome of LPPX phase 1 is proof of feasibility – hurray! We’re on to phase II and switch to “Plan AF” – “after fusion”. This plan kicks off with “celebrate achievement!” and then “convince world and fearmongers fusion isn’t a bad thing and try not to get killed by oil interests etc.” And many other things.

    If, however, the result of phase I is no go, or need more work, or we need to try something more advanced to boost the possibility – then we are at “Plan BF” – “Before Fusion”. Again, we stress due diligence, with LPP and with other fusion contenders.

    For purposes of planning, a lot of reframing the issue, policy support, economic support issues and the like are the same for LPPX and other fusion contenders, so it’s a good idea to work together now to build a broader fusion coalition.

    I’m touched by the faith a lot of people have on this site that the LPP experiments are simply pro forma. It’s not the preferred “objective scientist” approach, but enthusiasm is always nice. Then again, I’m concerned this attitutde creates unsupportive conditions for the scientists, both at present, and if things stretch out. I also find it trivializes the potential accomplishment. I get a sense from people posting on the website that they’re saying “What’s taking you so long” rather than, “Goodness! That sounds incredibly difficult, if not impossible! How can we better support you?”

    To sum up – I think FFS needs to take a comprehensive approach, a broad perspective so that it can both support and be a safety net for the people involved in the work of fusion – and to keep the quest going until fusion is achieved. And then we switch our operations to making sure everyone has access to the energy.

    LPP needs money. FFS needs money. (Send some to FFS now! It’s tax deductible! Oh, that’s another thing FFS will try to do once we become a world class nonprofit – lobby for exemptions to the SEC investor laws so that people can send money directly to LPP and be investors. Micro/longtail investing. Gov. 2.0. Of course, there’s the uncertainty thing again. LPP could succeed right away and there will be no need to change investment laws for it – although on principle, I think those laws should be changed.)

    It’s a lot to think about and do, and to really make it work, we need to go to the next level as a nonprofit organization. You nail it here:

    Patientman wrote: I only wish to help the focus of this non-profit business in raising more funds and rise above the “Green” noise which keeps the FFS story buried.

    Those green organizations are incredibly well organized. And there are so many of them. Lots of $, very well connected.

    Patientman wrote: It is up to Rezwan and the board to determine the mission statement.

    The board. We need to develop one. Our organization is totally anemic without it. Right now the board consists of 3 people with very little board experience. FFS is a membership organization. Changing the bylaws to allow for a more effective board has been on my to do list for ages. Of course, the board should really be doing that, not me.

    As to mission statements, From “The Board Member’s Guide to Fund Raising” by Fisher Howe:

    A structured strategic or long-range planning exercise is often the best approach to the preparation of a mission statement. The mission statement will be what comes out of a planning exercise, not what goes into it; it will be the core understanding around which can be built a clear, unambiguous articulation of purposes, programs, and priorities – clearly of great value to board and management. It also affords a firm basis for arriving at an estimate of the resources needed to support the organization on which a fundraising program depends.

    #7620
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Rezwan wrote:

    I only wish to help the focus of this non-profit business in raising more funds and rise above the “Green” noise which keeps the FFS story buried.

    Those green organizations are incredibly well organized. And there are so many of them. Lots of $, very well connected.

    I don’t get the sense from any that they are other than proponents for very specific initiatives and solutions, whether solar or negawatts or whatever. Though many agree on the need for de-population. 😉

    Personally, I regard FF as “post-green”. Greenness will be a consequence, but not the most important one. That is the unleashing of human creativity and achievement.

    So co-opting one or more sub-sets of the Greenies may be useful in the short term, but fails as a primary strategy or goal. IMO.

    #7622
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Brian H wrote: So co-opting one or more sub-sets of the Greenies may be useful in the short term, but fails as a primary strategy or goal. IMO.

    No one said anything about coopting greenies, or that this was a primary goal. Only that these folks are well organized and we are not.

    If you don’t have anything constructive to say, please refrain from posting.

    #7623
    AvatarPatientman
    Participant

    Wow! Ah, ya. Green noise. That is the same as Communication Noise. As defined by many scholars discussing all the advertising and marketing media stuff that comes at you from radio, TV, billboards and Internet. So it is not just the people who support the “Green” movement. You see too many corporations that jumped on the band wagon and have the “me too” stupidity. Although, some are sincere in contributing to changing the world.

    Maybe there needs to be two contingency mission statements. One that puts forth the current mission of education and enlightenment on the subject and one for after, which does… What? More of the same? Doesn’t LPP take on those responsibilities of marketing and normal corporate progression of its work? FFS can not directly interact in some ways, due to the laws separating the non-profit from the profit. Right?

    #7624
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Rezwan wrote:

    So co-opting one or more sub-sets of the Greenies may be useful in the short term, but fails as a primary strategy or goal. IMO.

    No one said anything about coopting greenies, or that this was a primary goal. Only that these folks are well organized and we are not.

    If you don’t have anything constructive to say, please refrain from posting.
    Worse would be being co-opted by them!

    Actually, I think the “post-green” meme is a very positive contribution! There’s a large constituency who want to be constructive but are repelled by the Green Noise.

    #7625
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Brian H wrote: Actually, I think the “post-green” meme is a very positive contribution! There’s a large constituency who want to be constructive but are repelled by the Green Noise.

    There is nothing to prevent someone from being constructive if they want. “I was repelled by Green Noise” is a flimsy excuse. And it’s destructive because it says that some people will only be constructive once the thing they find repellant disappears.

    In this manner, they give themselves permission to be repellant.

    Then again, you have an interesting point.

    Applying this to the present case, I think a large constituency would be more constructive on this site were it not for your many repellant remarks and put downs. It would thus be a good idea to ban you, which requires that I click one button, and then check off whether I just want to suspend you and keep all your previous remarks, or delete them all.

    I’m not sure it’s the most constructive thing to do. It would certainly clear up the “Brian Noise” on this site and help us produce a clearer, more constructive Focus Fusion signal.

    Consider yourself warned.

    #7627
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Rezwan wrote:

    Actually, I think the “post-green” meme is a very positive contribution! There’s a large constituency who want to be constructive but are repelled by the Green Noise.

    There is nothing to prevent someone from being constructive if they want. “I was repelled by Green Noise” is a flimsy excuse. And it’s destructive because it says that some people will only be constructive once the thing they find repellant disappears.

    In this manner, they give themselves permission to be repellant.

    Then again, you have an interesting point.

    Applying this to the present case, I think a large constituency would be more constructive on this site were it not for your many repellant remarks and put downs. It would thus be a good idea to ban you, which requires that I click one button, and then check off whether I just want to suspend you and keep all your previous remarks, or delete them all.

    I’m not sure it’s the most constructive thing to do. It would certainly clear up the “Brian Noise” on this site and help us produce a clearer, more constructive Focus Fusion signal.

    Consider yourself warned.
    Repellant remarks? A malign smear! List some. Those which simply happen to disagree with your personal politics and philosophy don’t qualify, of course. I certainly hope. :zip:

    #7649
    AvatarHenning
    Participant

    Rezwan wrote: I’m not sure it’s the most constructive thing to do. It would certainly clear up the “Brian Noise” on this site and help us produce a clearer, more constructive Focus Fusion signal.

    I’m also quite pissed off by that “Brian Noise”. I would love to just press “ignore member”, but sadly/luckily Brian posts also useful stuff. Couldn’t you just split your personality to “Brian GW Skeptic” and “Brian Constructive”? Or post your “Brian GW Skeptic” stuff, including ranting on Greens, on any random Tea Party forum? There you’ll be received with open arms – and raised guns.

    Brian, one more thing: Focus Fusion isn’t proved, so don’t act as if you can waste all energy, because in a few years we’ll have free energy anyway. The only proven way of having free energy is the green stuff you’re ranting about [don’t start a discussion here!]. Focus Fusion or any other fusion is still a fantasy and it pretty well might stay this forever. It’s like you’re dancing on a high wire without any net as safety. If you drop, you’re dead.

    #7650
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    Brian H wrote: Repellant remarks? A malign smear! List some. Those which simply happen to disagree with your personal politics and philosophy don’t qualify, of course. I certainly hope. :zip:

    Let’s not bother with that, and instead look to winning messages: those ways of thinking, and arguments that will make mainstream fusion researchers stop dismissing DPF as a side show

    #7656
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    The thing is, we’re trying to send positive messages about fusion on this site, but people who visit it are faced with an abundance of postings by Brian. He posts more than anyone, and many of them are repellant, as repellant as he finds whoever it was he was alluding to.

    Brian, it’s your style, not the content. I find a lot to annoy me about “greenies”, too, but would never try to talk to them the way you do. And can’t discuss the issues with you without your shrilly demanding that I think exactly like you or be crucified. You have a repellant way of pushing your ideas down everyone’s throats as if they are the god given truth. Only on the technical areas do you throw in a qualifying AFAIK or IMO. Otherwise, you shrilly assert things, and cut off options for dissent, equating dissent to your opinions with whatever. You really mirror those you criticize. I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.

    So, just as with Brians own example about people not getting involved because they are repelled, people may not be getting involved with FFS because Brian seems to be its voice.

    Henning, I hear your vote of confidence. A good point. He does have constructive remarks – although due to his certainty in expressing things that are in doubt, and his utter BELIEF in fusion working with no reserve of objectivity, I tend to wonder about any other information he has.

    In any case, I think it would be good for the site to let other voices emerge (Brian’s had quite a bit of time to express himself, and it may be driving other people off)

    We could confine Brian to the Technical posts about DPF where his comments are useful and just revoke his noise elsewhere.

    The goal is to ensure the forums are an open, respectful, enjoyable environment for constructively networking about fusion. I honestly think a lot of Brian’s posts are detrimental to this. They create a hostile forum environment. If he wasn’t so prolific, we would let it pass. But he is relentlessly over-represented and it drowns out and intimidates other voices.

    At this point in the forum posts, I feel like the judge who sentenced the guy to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza. But it was the third strike. You hit my last nerve, buddy. People aren’t being constructive because they’re repelled by greenies? Wow. Look in the mirror.

    #7657
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    vansig wrote: Let’s not bother with that, and instead look to winning messages: those ways of thinking, and arguments that will make mainstream fusion researchers stop dismissing DPF as a side show

    In my experience, there is an increase in awareness of mainstream fusion researchers regarding the DPF. Many are naturally skeptical, but most are interested to see how things work out. They don’t outright dismiss it. They say it’s plausible, wish there was more peer reviewed literature about it, commiserate with the funding shortages, overall supportive. But as scientists, they can’t upgrade it from “side show” until it proves itself. Many say they are following the progress, and when pressed about its chances of success, they say, “I don’t have enough information to evaluate that.”

    That is a true statement, and so we must continue with the due diligence of getting the experiments done so that there will, indeed, be more information to evalutate these statements.

    #7663
    Avataremmetb
    Member

    vansig wrote: Let’s not bother with that, and instead look to winning messages: those ways of thinking, and arguments that will make mainstream fusion researchers stop dismissing DPF as a side show

    Heartily seconded. Let’s keep the atmosphere positive. Lest we scare away all the serious knowledgeable people. Rezwan: please contain your passion, people are very well able to appreciate the fact that this is an open forum. As in: open to *all* voices. For the occasional scientist dropping by this might actually be a breath of fresh air, a welcome diversion from the mutual praise community they find themselves locked in, professionally. 😉

    #7664
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Rezwan, as you observed, the Green organizations are rolling in funding, and have the ear of virtually every political power center on the planet. Despite having contributed almost nothing except large expenses and significant indirect job losses to the world economy. And are VERY self-righteously sneering at and condemning anyone who points this out as being anything from a Denier to an ecological bandit to a shill for Big Oil. And worse; the flood of witlessly gratuitous insults is unending and pervasive. As a beneficiary of their approval, none of that would seem problematic to you, perhaps. If I sound adamant at times, it’s because the seriousness and weight of the information which is being actively suppressed is very great, and howlingly bogus generalities and “principles” are being taken and imposed as givens. And they are playing for all the marbles: full global control of all energy sources and uses, and the financial flows therefrom. Which is just about everything.

    It might interest you to know that a decade ago I was a classic moderate liberal, pro-government, pro-green member of the majority, too, but with a strong belief in the power of genuine science. It was a gradual discovery of chicanery in the cases presented for AGW and a few related issues, and the consequences of 9/11, that popped the bubble. Along with an inveterate dislike for groupthink rhetoric and tactics being deployed to advance the left’s causes. (I was very sad Gore lost in 2000, but ecstatic that Kerry lost in 2004, on the political front.)
    _________
    Anyhow, back to FF; as to the ‘high-wiring without a net’, however iffy you think its chances of working out or paying off are they are multiples better than those of “renewables”, other than a few standbys like fission (ironically blocked and rendered politically incorrect by the same people now being forced to give it the “carbon-free” stamp of approval.) FF also has a payoff ratio so much higher than any alternatives there isn’t even a comparison. So it looks like this to me: low to moderate risk of failure, wildly net positive cost-benefit ratio. Nothing else qualifies. (For links documenting this on an ongoing basis request inclusion on the mailing list for Some Recent Energy News
    by “John Droz, jr.” . His principal focus is wind energy, as the most egregiously misrepresented, but he covers the science and economics of the entire field. Very conscientious and professional job.)

    As for the “free energy” comment, I have been trying to point out that it is very likely that it will often (though not always) be more, often much more, expensive to harness the low-quality (= low temperature, not up to industrial standards and useful levels) waste heat from FF than to simply accomplish the tasks that heat is to be used for directly with more FF electric output. You don’t spend $20 to save $10. Unless you’re in government.

    #7665
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Brian, I agree with all posts on this thread except for yours. Henning hit the nail square on the head. I think the Green Movement got started in the late 60’s with the book “Spaceship Earth” and Earth Day. They’re well organized and backed because they paid their dues and slogged through their wilderness for probably over 40 years. This leads to the obvius question of what do you know about “them”, and how do you “know this”? I’d guess it’s humanly impossible to catalog all of “their” writings, ideas, forum posts, etc. without a HUGE staff and perhaps several years. Hence you’re cherry-picking your information, same as I often do.

    This is not a blanket endorsement of the group or its politics- only the professional respect due to a group with a dream who was able to make it come true.

    I first challenged you last year(?) to post as if you’d actually tried to figure out how to build or manufacture a FF, because I have on many occasions, so it was obvious that you haven’t, as you’ve failed to show evidence of trying to think outside of enough boxes to give FF a fighting chance of widespread deployment within 5 years.

    This included the onion fabrication techniques and tooling chain (to name just a few requirements), and I recently posted some moderately educated guesses about maintenance and operating costs based on what I hope is a far to frequent quarterly core swap interval as per NRC regulation. The bottom line on the heat issue is that until an onion is mass produced and the price falls accordingly, you’ll need to explain to the business world where the electricity is going to come from, and all the questions which that will leave your position exposed to.

    You will find that you need to build bridges in order to do anything meaningful in life.

    #7667
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: Brian, I agree with all posts on this thread except for yours. Henning hit the nail square on the head. I think the Green Movement got started in the late 60’s with the book “Spaceship Earth” and Earth Day. They’re well organized and backed because they paid their dues and slogged through their wilderness for probably over 40 years. This leads to the obvius question of what do you know about “them”, and how do you “know this”? I’d guess it’s humanly impossible to catalog all of “their” writings, ideas, forum posts, etc. without a HUGE staff and perhaps several years. Hence you’re cherry-picking your information, same as I often do.

    This is not a blanket endorsement of the group or its politics- only the professional respect due to a group with a dream who was able to make it come true.

    I first challenged you last year(?) to post as if you’d actually tried to figure out how to build or manufacture a FF, because I have on many occasions, so it was obvious that you haven’t, as you’ve failed to show evidence of trying to think outside of enough boxes to give FF a fighting chance of widespread deployment within 5 years.

    This included the onion fabrication techniques and tooling chain (to name just a few requirements), and I recently posted some moderately educated guesses about maintenance and operating costs based on what I hope is a far to frequent quarterly core swap interval as per NRC regulation. The bottom line on the heat issue is that until an onion is mass produced and the price falls accordingly, you’ll need to explain to the business world where the electricity is going to come from, and all the questions which that will leave your position exposed to.

    You will find that you need to build bridges in order to do anything meaningful in life.

    Fundamentally I think that you are very premature in your demand that the manufacturing pipeline for FFs be laid out in advance of creation of a prototype. While there may be such issues as how to make an onion, it is one of several matters “in process”, and I treat it like the issues faced so far: serious, but not show-stoppers, with significant advances evident wherever they have been required to date. IOW, the principles seem sound, and engineers are ingenious. I note also that you, too, presume some level of operating FF as the basis of your heat-recovery plans. You can’t have it both ways! If FF operates at all, the economics of energy capture and use change forever.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 54 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.