Bylaws – Mission Statement update.

[Rezwan]

Folks, the bylaws are in a sad state and need to be updated. When FFS first formed, the bylaws were:

I. PURPOSE: The goal of the Focus Fusion Society is to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind. We will pursue this goal by developing the Plasma Focus device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion. To finance the research needed, we will raise funds from the general public and publicize the need for government funding of research aimed at developing this ideal energy source.

These bylaws were amended a year later to read:

I. PURPOSE: The purpose of the Focus Fusion Society is to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available at, below, or at no cost to areas, groups, or individuals who would otherwise be denied access. The Focus Fusion Society is organized exclusively for this scientific and charitable purpose under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal code. We will pursue this purpose by developing the Plasma Focus device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion. To finance the research needed, we will raise funds from the general public and publicize the need for funding of research aimed at developing this ideal energy source.

Three main issues stand out:

1) I’m not sure why “at, below or at no cost to areas…” was added. “made available to all mankind” seems sufficient. The low cost is already contained in the word “cheap”. Perhaps you could say, “made available to all mankind, with all fairness.”

2) The purported purpose in the first sentence is to get nuclear fusion to work – broadly put. But the next bit limits the scope of the organization to the plasma focus with pB11. In the event that the plasma focus doesn’t work that way, that kills our mission. Also, it can be seen as overselling the dpf, and setting up the scientists for excommunication upon failure, as seems to be the trend with people who dare to try ideas outside of the box. A better approach would be to say, “by focusing first on the DPF as it’s the most elegant concept, and then…” In other words, build in the uncertainty into the mission to show that we’re sane people and have all our bases covered – a full fledged strategy to meet the primary mission – cheap, clean, safe, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion.

3) Initially, our organization was designed to raise the money to finance research. In the ensuing years, we didn’t raise much money. This is, of course, because we weren’t very good at using a nonprofit to raise money. This is something we plan to change this year. Nevertheless, LPP has since become more viable as a commercial company, and people seem hesitant to give money to FFS for LPP when they don’t get a financial return. There are many other activities that FFS is assigned to do that are not research but seem to fit better with the “charitable organization” model, and are very important to LPP’s support. These include education, networking, affiliation and outreach. Also lobbying and creating a pro-fusion culture. These activities also benefit fusion in general. We can emphasize these. As to conducting research directly – if we got $, we’d really be giving grants to LPP…I’ll have to look up the laws about this. Personally, I’d rather lobby for a quick exemption to funding fusion for the long tail…but people seem to dismiss that. I need to find the right person to talk to about that.

[Breakable]

1)Is probably a good addition as “CHEAP” can be relative. What is cheap in USA can be expensive in Uganda.

2)Would be nice to include as many options as possible.
I am not sure about other members but I don’t mind neutronic nor even fission-fusion hybrids as long as the end goal is achieved. Of course I also support other endeavors like thorium reactors or renewable energy, but those have their own supporter base, where fusion seems to be quite divided by different concepts. So I would probably suggest to change the statement
“We will pursue this purpose by developing the Plasma Focus device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion.”
to
“We will pursue this purpose by supporting any nuclear fusion development, by applying a priority to the cheapest, cleanest and most rapid approach”.
This could probably win more people over from other camps as well as bring independent (amateurs) to brag about their developments here.

[Rezwan]

OK, I’ve reworked it.

I. PURPOSE: The Focus Fusion Society (“FFS”) is organized exclusively for charitable, educational and scientific purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal code.

The specific objectives and purposes of FFS shall be to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind.

We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research; developing education, affiliation and outreach programs; fostering a pro-fusion culture globally; and developing a platform for open source research support, beginning with, but not limited to, support of research involving the Plasma Focus device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion.

Note, the first sentence about the purposes is written with reference to 501c3 federal requirements.

The second sentence is for state requirements.

The third is an attempt to cover all the bases, leave things open…and kind of takes a leap.

Suggestions?

[Rezwan]

Note that I have dropped this sentence:

To finance the research needed, we will raise funds from the general public and publicize the need for funding of research aimed at developing this ideal energy source.

I think “finance the research needed” is covered by “developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”;

“we’ll raise funds from the general public” is limiting – we’ll be raising it from foundations and government as well.

“…this ideal energy source” is a promise on unproven technology. It’s not ideal until proven – so at this point we’re in a catch 22. Need to prove it first before you can get the $ to prove it.

The goal is to get the money and resources to explore this option, and other fusion options beyond that, in the event this doesn’t work.

Does that cover all our bases? Can we make it vaguer, yet clear?

[Rezwan]

Breakable wrote: 1)Is probably a good addition as “CHEAP” can be relative. What is cheap in USA can be expensive in Uganda.

Perhaps we can say “proportionately cheap”?

“We will pursue this purpose by supporting any nuclear fusion development, by applying a priority to the cheapest, cleanest and most rapid approach”.
This could probably win more people over from other camps as well as bring independent (amateurs) to brag about their developments here.

I like this. The word “priority”.

Yes, we do want to build a coalition from all fusion camps. Diversity of fusion approaches.

[Tulse]

The traditional Big Fusion approaches already have well-heeled advocates, as evidenced by the billions (and billions and billions) poured into ITER, NIF, and prior projects. I’m not sure that a grassroots effort is needed to promote these forms of fusion. It seems to me that aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches are in far greater need of champions, especially as they are often dismissed by Big Fusion supporters.

If ITER ultimately produces something that can be turned into practical fusion power, it won’t need a non-profit society to help. So I don’t think advocacy for “fusion in general” in needed, so much as assistance to those approaches that aren’t supported by massive research funds.

[Rezwan]

We need the word “aneutronic” in there, too. Not as a limitation, but maybe something like – “reaching to the promise of” or “with preference to…”

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: It seems to me that aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches are in far greater need of champions, especially as they are often dismissed by Big Fusion supporters.

Per the draft above:

“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”

Can you suggest wording that could make this more explicit? I DO want to convey that we are championing aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches – that priority is given to these. We don’t have to say this in the bylaws, by the way. On the website, we just have a link to diverse, and that opens the whole case file on diversity.

If ITER ultimately produces something that can be turned into practical fusion power, it won’t need a non-profit society to help. So I don’t think advocacy for “fusion in general” in needed, so much as assistance to those approaches that aren’t supported by massive research funds.

The folks getting massive research funds don’t see it that way. They think they’re underfunded, too.

[Breakable]

Tulse wrote: The traditional Big Fusion approaches already have well-heeled advocates, as evidenced by the billions (and billions and billions) poured into ITER, NIF, and prior projects. I’m not sure that a grassroots effort is needed to promote these forms of fusion. It seems to me that aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches are in far greater need of champions, especially as they are often dismissed by Big Fusion supporters.

If ITER ultimately produces something that can be turned into practical fusion power, it won’t need a non-profit society to help. So I don’t think advocacy for “fusion in general” in needed, so much as assistance to those approaches that aren’t supported by massive research funds.

While the BIG FUSION approaches have their supporters and probably don’t need more, it would not be a bad idea to entice those supporters to look at other fusion approaches as well. If FFS will encompass fusion support without discrimination, maybe it will be able to draw support from a broader base that includes current opposition to aneutronic fusion. At least we could become a place where discussion and analysis and comparison of different approaches takes place and this could lead to reevaluation of DPF route compared to Tokamak.

On the other hand if we try to distinguish and disenfranchise ourselves from big fusion supporters as much as possible, then they will probably reciprocate. As you might know LPP is called pseudoscience by some, so to loose that stigma it will take a lot of convincing on the rational as well as on the emotional levels. While this route might be preferred by some, on the other hand only demonstrated and peer-reviewed over-unity can conquer the skeptics, which is unfortunately still a little out-of-reach today.

[Breakable]

Rezwan wrote:
“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”

My suggestion is to merge the changes:

“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research, while applying a priority to the cheapest, cleanest and most rapid approach”.

[Rezwan]

Here’s an attempt to make “aneutronic” explicit:

The specific objectives and purposes of FFS shall be to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind. In particular, we embrace the idea of aneutronic fusion and promote its active pursuit.

Or…we encourage the pursuit of aneutronic fusion despite its advanced status…No…

Ugh.

[Rezwan]

How about:

Rezwan wrote: The specific objectives and purposes of FFS shall be to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion, preferrably aneutronic fusion, into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind.

[Tulse]

Wrestling with wording like this is always hard 🙁

If the FFS doesn’t want to limit itself to aneutronic fusion advocacy specifically, then I’d suggest that simply prioritizing/emphasizing “clean” and “safe” would be sufficient. (I’m presuming that the reason the FFS would want to advocate for aneutronic is precisely because it has those qualities, and not just because it is aneutronic.) If you want to advocate for fusion in general, I think it would be a mistake to explicitly mention aneutronic in the bylaws, as that would immediate raise the hackles of those pursuing other methods. I think that everyone, regardless of technological preference, wants the cleanest and safest alternative (all things being equal), and so emphasizing those would be a “neutral” way of promoting aneutronic.

[Brian H]

A few points:
-Cheap is fine, though “inexpensive” is more formal. Remember that electricity has a “going price” in every market, and FF would be a fraction of ANY market cost. So apples to apples, FF is beyond “cheap”.

-Since FFS actually does no research itself, wording which suggests it will find or develop anything directly is inaccurate. Supporting those who actually do the R&D is as far as FFS can go.

-Mentioning aneutronic as a good model, “such as aneutronic fusion”, would seem quite reasonable. After all, FFS stands for “Focus Fusion Society”, and it clearly has its direct roots and ‘focus’ there! Bending over backwards to be even-handed would/does come across as somewhat artificial and disingenuous.

-Direct attention on application of the technology to ‘socially correct’ causes is probably beyond the real scope or reach of the Society. Given the resource at the projected costing, those already attending to such matters would be far more suitable and expert at actual implementation. I.e., FF would be a godsend, which they will need very little coaching or encouragement to exploit.
In other words, it is unnecessary overreach to try and lay out or direct the uses to which FF (e.g.) would be put. And it diffuses and pads the statement with distracting verbosity. KISS.

IMO.

[Author]

Posts