Focus Fusion in the New York Times? Well, not exactly, but perhaps

[JShell]

The relevant quote is below the link. They referred to “cold fusion” because I think they didn’t want to name focus fusion as the actual idea that they were talking about.

I think the really interesting thing is that people can’t see focus fusion as something viable because it would mean overturning all the accepted theories that Eric Lerner has debunked in his book. Or, they don’t want to invest in something that is so radically against the majority because it makes it riskier in their mind. People forget that the majority of people thought that the sun revolved around the earth before Copernicus came along. And that they had no idea about relativity before Einstein. Einstein was a clerk in the government patent office before he came up with the theory of relativity. And he hypothesized the theory when he was considering the simple example of two positively charged bars parallel to one another, moving in the same direction (the charges repel each other with variable force depending on their speed, because magnetic field strength is proportional to speed- yet if you’re travelling “with” the bars, then it “seems” like they aren’t moving at all and thus they shouldn’t repel one another as fast . . . which leads one to the conclusion that time must be moving slower for the electromagnetic laws to hold).

Anyway, I think it could be really interesting to see how the success of Focus Fusion would be physical evidence of how the majority opinions of astrophysicists today are wrong. This will be very difficult for them to realize and accept emotionally, especially because they have held their majority opinions with pride, and have been confidently teaching them to undergraduates for decades.

Focus Fusion can’t solve all the world’s pollution problems, but it could certainly be groundbreaking and inspiring if it works.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/qa-googles-green-energy-czar/?hp

“Q: What do you look for before investing in a company?

A:In some ways we’re like any investor — we want to know if the technology you’re proposing make sense. First of all, does it violate any known laws of physics, in which case it’s really a science experiment. There are some people working on things out there that might seem impossible based on the traditional ways people look at the laws of physics. Well, some of them might actually work — there’s work still going on around cold fusion for example, and a lot of people, including a lot of credible scientists, feel like there’s probably something going on there that could be very useful.

But if it clearly violates the laws of physics, then we’re not interested. If it is something that looks like it has the potential to be really earthshaking, then we could be interested. But unfortunately we can’t fully evaluate all possible technologies, so we aren’t able to make that judgment call on every type of alternative energy. Fusion and cold fusion, for example, are both areas where we felt that we could not develop enough expertise. Furthermore, the amount of money that would be required to make real progress was prohibitive: if we put $10 million into something, well in a couple years they’d need another $50 million, and a couple years after that they’d need another $200 million and so on.

[JShell]

I know I’m replying to my own post here, but what Lawrenceville Plasma Physics needs to debunk now is the misconception that the Google green energy Czar was propagating at the end of his interview . . . that Focus Fusion will involve increasing and uncontrollable costs. If LPP can show that the costs will be under control, and that the technology can start generating revenue (and net profit) within a decade, then the whole concept will be much more viable.

[Aeronaut]

Flawed science has been taught as fact throughout history. And if something appears to violate the laws of physics because the first few sentences in a proposal or personal comment weren’t tweaked to that judge’s prejudices, of course we’re not going to get a fair hearing. Just the way it goes.

On the bright side, though, ten years from now there’s a very good chance that Google data centers the world over will be FF powered. Along with government buildings such as the DOE and all of the National Labs, of course.

Speaking of cold fusion, I get the distinct impression that the research that gets funded is the research that doesn’t threaten anybody by using the C letter- change. “Don’t rock the boat” and that sort of thing.

[DerekShannon]

Yes, JShell, those comments about future rounds of funding requiring much larger sums *before* proving feasibility could be best applied to EMC2, Trialpha, and my buds at Prometheus II. But focus fusion could still fall into that pattern, since there’s plenty of grey area between “absolute failure” and “proof of breakeven before the current funding runs out.”

If the results land in the grey area, it could mean the current approach isn’t quite right, but there is enough promise or new ideas to keep going….for more cash. Or as with any new science experiment a serendipitous discovery could send everything in a completely new direction.

Careful on using scientific success in one area to mean that a scientist is correct in all others. Einstein wasn’t exactly right about the cosmological constant…er, until it turned out he was! But the
EPR Paradox is a good example.

Similarly, Percival Lowell was pretty much wrong about both “Planet X” and the canals of Mars, but his efforts still led to the discovery of Pluto!

If an alternate theory of cosmology turns out to be incorrect as an explanation for the origin of the Universe, but can be applied to a new energy technology that saves the world, that would still be a pretty good turn of events.

[Rezwan]

First of all, does it violate any known laws of physics, in which case it’s really a science experiment.

That’s a strange statement. Science experiments are things that violate known laws of science? In any case, this was not a reference to focus fusion. The ideas behind it don’t violate laws of physics. The dpf does achieve fusion. The question is – can it be tweaked to achieve net energy with the modifications suggested by Lerner et al.

I think the Google folk are referring to the ever receding success line for fusion. A promising idea appears, but then as you get closer to making it happen, you discover that it’s much harder to do than you thought. This has occurred with the mainstream fusion community, laser & magnetic fusion. There is the risk of it’s occurring with the dpf. When they say here:

Fusion and cold fusion, for example, are both areas where we felt that we could not develop enough expertise. Furthermore, the amount of money that would be required to make real progress was prohibitive: if we put $10 million into something, well in a couple years they’d need another $50 million, and a couple years after that they’d need another $200 million and so on.

Cold fusion is superfluous. This statement applies to mainstream fusion. This is a problem faced by all fusion researchers.

Check out “Sun in a Bottle” – the definitive unrelenting, unyielding criticism of fusion research. I think the folks at Google read it. Oddly, the biggest problem the book sees with fusion research is the “wishful thinking” of fusion scientists. This, itself, bothered the author most of all.

Fair warning to not promise anything with focus fusion until AFTER the successful completion of proof of concept experiments.

But that book was interesting. Lots of paradoxes. We want to try to do on earth, what the sun does, without the mass. Pretty cheeky. Scientists who try to do this are derided as “wishful thinkers” and con artists for asking for money to try to do something very difficult. This is the mainstream folk I’m talking about. And, of course, the mainstream isn’t working with boron-proton fusion – which is an order of magnitude harder. So what does that make focus fusion?

[Actually, it makes focus fusion pretty interesting. The book is all about how scientists are failing while trying to stabilize and control the plasma (containing a sun in a bottle, of the title), while focus fusion is about leveraging the plasma’s own instabilities. It doesn’t violate any known laws – not much is known, actually. But because not much is known, this approach may turn out to not work, either. We can’t guarantee everything, and we can’t know until, of course, the proof of concept research is done.]

This book, rips fusion research to shreds and practically calls for the tarring and feathering of fusion scientists. However, at the beginning of the book, it says “In the long term, fusion is the only option.” However, by the end of the book, the author is so hopeless that he just seems to settle for fission energy.

This attitude toward fusion research is a real barrier to progress. Because the problem is so hard to solve, folks are not willing to apply resources to it, and just hoping for a miracle some time in the “long term”. If not wishful thinking, it’s wishful denial.

The fusion community needs to overcome this stigma. Perhaps by comparison to other things. For example, how much money has been spent to find a cure for cancer? And has a cure been found yet? How much is finding a cure for cancer worth? And, along the way of finding a cure, haven’t we learned that eating oranges and exercising is a good idea? Likewise the quest for fusion may take some work. Are we prepared to do that work? Is it worth it? And can we consume less energy and develop alternative energy sources along the way? Why do people single out fusion as “pie in the sky”. Curing cancer is also pie in the sky. We all get old and die. Why are we wasting money on that? Whatever reason you come up with – it should be similar for fusion.

The book was unfair towards fusion – because really, I see so much waste and fraud in other fields, and the fusion guys – they’re trying to solve a problem. Some of them crack under pressure, a few have been fraudulent – but not more so than any field. The quest marches on. Why isn’t it a priority? Possibly because we have plenty of energy in the US, and our military is fine at controlling access to oil. The people who would really benefit from energy – the rest of the world, have more immediate needs and no means to fund it…and so forth.

You know – we need a strategy meeting to talk about fusion perceptions. That should be the next meeting. Let’s set something up.

[Rezwan]

if we put $10 million into something, well in a couple years they’d need another $50 million, and a couple years after that they’d need another $200 million and so on.

You could cap it at 10 million. That would definitely cover LPP’s experiment with enough room for contingencies. Then you could see if it needed more. This is an opening avenue of fusion research – a bold attempt at a new approach, and with a superior fusion fuel.

There is the thrill of science here! Boldly exploring something new.

What is it that people want? Spending millions on lunar landing prizes so that rich tourists can visit the moon. Does that affect all of mankind? Wouldn’t some work on fusion – which could potentially supply the energy for everyone to visit the moon or at least have decent lives be a priority?

Somehow we have to make fusion – and for now the very impossibility of it – sexy.

Now is the time to kick some “impossible” fusion butt, not to wuss out. Pathetic.

[JShell]

“Fusion Perceptions” is a good point. I think that is the real key here. Hearing about how other earlier books have shaped people’s perspectives on fusion power is interesting. I think that people hold onto oil because it has been what has worked (and made money) in the past. People have to start to believe that fusion power could be profitable before they’ll think that a breakthrough could be self-sustaining, and that it could eventually fund more of its own research (in addition to other challenges). As far as the military-industrial complex goes, stopping that is pretty hard, but I have to hope that as the world becomes more globalized, that people will find less need for war (and war materials). I feel like developing countries can’t invest in fusion power for the same reasons why they can’t invest in public health programs–they’re costly and lots of developing countries are just barely scraping by.

[Aeronaut]

Rezwan wrote:

if we put $10 million into something, well in a couple years they’d need another $50 million, and a couple years after that they’d need another $200 million and so on.

You could cap it at 10 million. That would definitely cover LPP’s experiment with enough room for contingencies. Then you could see if it needed more. This is an opening avenue of fusion research – a bold attempt at a new approach, and with a superior fusion fuel.

There is the thrill of science here! Boldly exploring something new.

What is it that people want? Spending millions on lunar landing prizes so that rich tourists can visit the moon. Does that affect all of mankind? Wouldn’t some work on fusion – which could potentially supply the energy for everyone to visit the moon or at least have decent lives be a priority?

Somehow we have to make fusion – and for now the very impossibility of it – sexy.

Now is the time to kick some “impossible” fusion butt, not to wuss out. Pathetic.

I just devoured a book called Viral Loop, which is the story of viral idea spreading. Some interesting facts I picked up were that the Twenteens- essentially high school and college age demographics- are the early adopters that will spread an idea with no marketing or advertising expenses whatsoever.

What seems to be hidden out in plain site when we discuss funding and site appeal is that we’re targeting people who decided at least a decade ago that fusion energy was never going to pan out. I’ll call this the Billionaire idea. The mainstream media and search engines reinforce this due to all of the “authority” stemming from having a dot gov or dot edu domain and thousands of documents in their keyword silos.

If we were able to seed a viral campaign to get a million or more people to each contribute $1 (vote with their wallets), and it took 10M uniques to do that in a month or less, would we crash the server? Also, how much extra would that cost us in bandwidth? The early histories of Ebay, PayPal, FB, etc. all revolve around keeping the server from crashing due to volume, and to monetize faster than bandwidth fees can bankrupt the company.

Assuming only 10% click through from the main index page, it may be time to consider making it an HTML page with only a few links to the EE components. I just wrote a draft Special Report that you can download at http://energymadecleanly.com/Vol1.pdf

I’m open to suggestions on how to improve it. Most of this I wrote off the top of my head over the past 48 hours. I expect to have a much more polished version posted late Monday, and begin promoting on Tuesday.

[JShell]

Also, separating Eric Lerner’s plasma physics and focus fusion research from his cosmology is a good distinction– thanks for correcting me on that one. The world doesn’t have to have a firm answer for the beginnings of the universe as long as LPP can get a good working hypothesis for what is really happening in the plasma focus fusion device.

[JShell]

“Viral Spreading” is totally a great way to go. However, as a total novice (and a younger person), there are seven things I think would need to be clarified before Focus Fusion could really take off.

– First, whatever is said needs to be very short, and relevant to what people already know about fusion power (ie, its different from fission, not radioactive, not going to explode, its a series of bursts instead of a miniature sun, its a different approach to an old problem, etc . . .)

– Second, any marketing campaign needs to be realistic about the challenges ahead. Simply promising the sky and asking people to pass the message on doesn’t make people feel as smart as if they are given a detailed account of the challenges ahead that need to be overcome, and how they can help with them. If someone emails/tweets/messages out about how this technology is going to bring utopia, then in some ways that could make it less believable, if people think that its “too good to be true”. They could also be more disappointed and feel stupid if it doesn’t work. So under-promising and over-delivering might be a good strategy.

– Third, clarity in what you’re asking people to do, and what you’re hoping to accomplish could help the message go a long way. What are the goals of the campaign? General awareness? Government money? Individual investors? Donations to Focus Fusion? What about non-US governments? Overall, its a question of: what do you hope that spreading this message will accomplish? What are the challenges and how can “non-scientists” contribute to the solution?

– Fourth, you would need to quickly “tell the story” of why fusion scientists haven’t talked about focus fusion/aneutronic fusion before now. Why does it seem like the majority opinion is against Focus Fusion? Why haven’t many established professors been enthusiastic about the technology if “its their job” to know about fusion technology? What biases are out there? Who is supporting them, and why? Who makes the grantmaking decisions that have been supporting Tokamuk fusion over Focus Fusion?

– Fifth, what is the overall agenda behind the message being spread? Will anyone benefit monetarily from Focus Fusion or LPP’s promotion? If so, who? And what will they do with the money? Eric Lerner mentioned global poverty at the beginning of his Google video. Is “poverty-reduction” one of LPP’s overarching goals? How does that integrate into LPP’s market strategy? Is this simply an attempt to be a (carbon-free) Exxon Mobil, or is this something more? Eric Lerner’s video talks about how the cost of Focus Fusion could be much less than the current market price for energy, but he doesn’t go into what he thinks his fusion corporation might do with all the excess profit it could stand to gain from producing electricity at low cost and selling it at the market rate . . .

-Sixth, in a major marketing campaign sometimes I feel like less information is better, so that people are interested and can be left a little bit in suspense. I hate to say it but there is also a risk that a large number of rich people who own a coal power plants or own major stakes in oil companies could lose a lot of money if this is successful . . . thus a major marketing campaign would put LPP and Focus Fusion at a greater risk of ideological retaliation, from people either actively dismissing the technology through mainstream media, or trying to bias those in with government power against it. So I don’t know what the best strategy is here, but being honest about the power dynamics at hand seems like a good idea.

-Seventh, people might be more engaged if they had a short term goal, *with a deadline* in addition to the overarching hope of implementing clean, cheap, environmentally-friendly renewable energy ten years from now. What are the short-term steps that will get Focus Fusion to where we want it to be?

[JShell]

Rezwan wrote:
Somehow we have to make fusion – and for now the very impossibility of it – sexy.

This is exactly it. I think that fusion power, poverty reduction, and mitigating climate change are all very sexy. Its just a matter of figuring out how likely Focus Fusion is to succeed (and how expensive it might be for focus fusion to achieve that success).

[Aeronaut]

Excellent points, JShell. I just copied them into a new Word doc so I can make it short, sweet, neat, and complete. Hopefully 5 pages or less. I’m trying to transcend my internet marketing traing, lol.

[Aeronaut]

@JShell,

I just finished the rewrite. It’s no longer a PDF, but the entire page at http://energymadecleanly.com

What think?

Thanx.

[Brian H]

@JS, the problem that comes up when you try to answer questions like “who stands to gain and make money” from FF is that there’s a short, early ramp-up period during which one can look at who’s making money from selling the licenses (LLP) and making the generators (?? -whoever buys a license and sets up plants) and selling power generated at market-beating prices (utilities, etc.). But then the real impacts and Change-Tsunami hit. Because the cutting of power costs by 10 or 20X here and everywhere has implications that sound fantasy-driven and demented if you try and lay them out.

As far as the plausibility of FF goes vs. other approaches, consider that the costs of improving on already known results (new hardware, new experiments) are so high with virtually every other model that the probable payoff per development/research dollar spent is VASTLY better for FF. And on numerous measures, FF is far closer to “unity” than its competition.

Some other much better financed approach (all trying to achieve “steady state” containment) like PolyWell might nose over that marker first, but as you suggest, it’s the sheer plausibility barrier that needs to be broken, and once someone does it, all the subjective and objective risk-weighting formulas flip.

[Brian H]

@JS, P.S. — about the “cold” fusion Focus Fusion comparison:

FF is about the LEAST “cold” fusion you can name. The temps in the plasmoids are about 10-30X higher than the 100 million °K contemplated in the next hottest models, and about 100-300X higher than the 10 million °K projected for the Tokamak design. No one should confuse FF’s 1-3,000,000,000°K with “cold”!

[What permits this is, of course, that the FF process is minute, brief, and self-contained.]

[Author]

Posts