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

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: @JShell,

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

What think?

Thanx.

Just went thru your latest, and I think it’s very well done.

But, of course, I have a few quibbles. You seem to be taking the carbon-minimization goal as a given, and suggest that making biofuels is a good idea. Those are highly dubious statements. With regards to the latter, the debacle in world food pricing which early biofuel efforts have caused, arguably already resulting in literally millions of starvation deaths as people’s food budgets go only half as far in marginal economies, is surely enough of a real-life-and-death experiment in that direction, don’t you think? In any case, cheap electric power can provide transportation and heating for enough of the market to obviate the need for biofuels entirely, in part by driving down the price of such petroleum fuels as still are necessary to the point that economics takes over.

And the appeal for a $100M contribution from an “enlightened board of directors” is, IMO, way over the top; it certainly contradicts the statement that no more than $10M or so is likely to be necessary to get to a viable pre-fab generator design! At the point that thermal/electrical unity is/are achieved, even in a laboratory rig, the cranking up of the investment and manufacturing infrastructure will take care of itself, without the need for a “blue-sky” $100M+ input.

[Aeronaut]

Great points, Brian. When I make it crystal clear, it’s going to sell energy sector and manufacturing jobs to most readers, and aneutronic fusion powerplants to most of what’s left, and maybe, just maybe, get at least one credible corporation onboard with not just confirmation science, but a seamless transition into a parallel production engineering program without waiting for the niceties of peer-reviewed confirmation.

Carbon, greenwashing, don’t matter what you call that existing market force, since I ID’d the PR value of creating a Genuinely Negative Carbon Footprint in the current world. 😉

After all, Wiki’s aneutronic fusion article makes D-T look extremely difficult, therefore pB-11 must be a nm or two short of impossible.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: Great points, Brian. When I make it crystal clear, it’s going to sell energy sector and manufacturing jobs to most readers, and aneutronic fusion powerplants to most of what’s left, and maybe, just maybe, get at least one credible corporation onboard with not just confirmation science, but a seamless transition into a parallel production engineering program without waiting for the niceties of peer-reviewed confirmation.

Carbon, greenwashing, don’t matter what you call that existing market force, since I ID’d the PR value of creating a Genuinely Negative Carbon Footprint in the current world. 😉

After all, Wiki’s aneutronic fusion article makes D-T look extremely difficult, therefore pB-11 must be a nm or two short of impossible.

FF would make the “carbon footprint” issue/standard irrelevant politically and economically. In truth, it already and always is scientifically. As for PR value, it repels me to lie down with the AGW crowd for any reason, even their money. Except insofar as using it to render them obsolete and silent appeals to my sense of ironic justice!

Wiki’s write-ups are entirely from the point of view of sustained/steady-state fusion. I agree that human-scale steady-state is out of the question, though of course PolyWell is determined to achieve it. We’ll see! (Example of problems it faces.)

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Great points, Brian. When I make it crystal clear, it’s going to sell energy sector and manufacturing jobs to most readers, and aneutronic fusion powerplants to most of what’s left, and maybe, just maybe, get at least one credible corporation onboard with not just confirmation science, but a seamless transition into a parallel production engineering program without waiting for the niceties of peer-reviewed confirmation.

Carbon, greenwashing, don’t matter what you call that existing market force, since I ID’d the PR value of creating a Genuinely Negative Carbon Footprint in the current world. 😉

After all, Wiki’s aneutronic fusion article makes D-T look extremely difficult, therefore pB-11 must be a nm or two short of impossible.

FF would make the “carbon footprint” issue/standard irrelevant politically and economically. In truth, it already and always is scientifically. As for PR value, it repels me to lie down with the AGW crowd for any reason, even their money. Except insofar as using it to render them obsolete and silent appeals to my sense of ironic justice!

Wiki’s write-ups are entirely from the point of view of sustained/steady-state fusion. I agree that human-scale steady-state is out of the question, though of course PolyWell is determined to achieve it. We’ll see! (Example of problems it faces.)

I cite Wiki mainly because of all the cross-linking of their DPF and anuetronic articles, but I doubt the majority of my readers will take any of the Wiki links. I’m after a ‘market’ that hopefully we can make extinct over the course of this year. Unfortunately, the business community operates under the cloud of carbon taxes in various forms, which reduce to their energy consumption in most cases. Thus all the greenwashing in the business press advertising and too much editorializing. I’ve considered titling the page “Beyond Greenwashing”, but might be able to title the call to action section with that. I’d also like to work in the tax incentives of job creation. Even if it lacks subtlety, it’s likely to really stir up controversy- and that guarantees it goes viral.

Please note that I referred to the AGW gaggle. I’m about to change that word to cult. I’m also going to introduce a numerically-oriented sidebar that will be titled something along the lines of “A philosophical difference, by the numbers” for potential investors, licensees, and their end users (the market). I need to go over the thermal and electrical budgets again before I dare put that up in it’s entirety.

The main thrust of the numeric section is going to be that winners pick pB-11 but ditch the electromagnets through elegant design, resulting in vastly superior field strength and inherent extra safety of pulsed operation- a feature exclusive to DPF designs. I should have it posted early tomorrow.

[Kyle]

@Aeronaut: I think your page 3 in particular, is an excellent draft for the “Why we are writing you today” portion of a viral marketing effort on the part of FFS. After that page, however, I would go directly into some detail about the science and engineering of the FFS project and make an appeal for both: one, the support of the effort/join FFS non-profit; and two, a specific ask for a small contribution, 100% of which would go directly to funding the research.

I think you could more effectively leverage FFS as the political agent in any political effort FFS wanted to undertake, but VASTLY more importantly, the tax-deductible small contributions go to fund the FFS grant(s) to the DPF research. Like you, Aeronaut, I am firmly of the opinion that a direct appeal to a large micro-contributor market will be the quickest and most likely route to assure funding for DPF “proof of concept”. (And by “proof of concept” I mean that we have experimentally demonstrated less expensive “to-the-grid” power.)

I am very glad to see the many active and thoughtful contributors on this site; I think we are beginning to see the right assembly of resources to see cocncrete results.

Respectfully,
Kyle

[Brian H]

Kyle wrote: @Aeronaut: I think your page 3 in particular, is an excellent draft for the “Why we are writing you today” portion of a viral marketing effort on the part of FFS. After that page, however, I would go directly into some detail about the science and engineering of the FFS project and make an appeal for both: one, the support of the effort/join FFS non-profit; and two, a specific ask for a small contribution, 100% of which would go directly to funding the research.

I think you could more effectively leverage FFS as the political agent in any political effort FFS wanted to undertake, but VASTLY more importantly, the tax-deductible small contributions go to fund the FFS grant(s) to the DPF research. Like you, Aeronaut, I am firmly of the opinion that a direct appeal to a large micro-contributor market will be the quickest and most likely route to assure funding for DPF “proof of concept”. (And by “proof of concept” I mean that we have experimentally demonstrated less expensive “to-the-grid” power.)

I am very glad to see the many active and thoughtful contributors on this site; I think we are beginning to see the right assembly of resources to see cocncrete results.

Respectfully,
Kyle

FFS has been a tax-exempt receptacle for donations to the research for years, and has generated very little. Why would this be different?

[Kyle]

Hello Brian, it’s a pleasure to make your internet aquaintance. 😉

Directly to point is a thread on the micro-contributor approach (and fundraising in general). I look forward to hearing your thoughts/reaction to that string.

Respectfully,
Kyle

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

@Aeronaut: I think your page 3 in particular, is an excellent draft for the “Why we are writing you today” portion of a viral marketing effort on the part of FFS. After that page, however, I would go directly into some detail about the science and engineering of the FFS project and make an appeal for both: one, the support of the effort/join FFS non-profit; and two, a specific ask for a small contribution, 100% of which would go directly to funding the research.

I think you could more effectively leverage FFS as the political agent in any political effort FFS wanted to undertake, but VASTLY more importantly, the tax-deductible small contributions go to fund the FFS grant(s) to the DPF research. Like you, Aeronaut, I am firmly of the opinion that a direct appeal to a large micro-contributor market will be the quickest and most likely route to assure funding for DPF “proof of concept”. (And by “proof of concept” I mean that we have experimentally demonstrated less expensive “to-the-grid” power.)

I am very glad to see the many active and thoughtful contributors on this site; I think we are beginning to see the right assembly of resources to see cocncrete results.

Respectfully,
Kyle

FFS has been a tax-exempt receptacle for donations to the research for years, and has generated very little. Why would this be different?

@Kyle, Sounds like you’re reading the pdf, but thanx for reminding me of the “Why I’m writing you today”. It was proven back in Elmer Wheeler’s day, but it caught me off guard and still seems to work, lol.

Long story short, I just posted a few edits plus the sidebar I mentioned earlier today with fresh (but not really complete) content at http://energymadecleanly.com. Adding the picture of FF-1 made an incredible difference in its impact.

@Brian, we got a new decade to work with.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

@Aeronaut: I think your page 3 in particular, is an excellent draft for the “Why we are writing you today” portion of a viral marketing effort on the part of FFS. After that page, however, I would go directly into some detail about the science and engineering of the FFS project and make an appeal for both: one, the support of the effort/join FFS non-profit; and two, a specific ask for a small contribution, 100% of which would go directly to funding the research.

I think you could more effectively leverage FFS as the political agent in any political effort FFS wanted to undertake, but VASTLY more importantly, the tax-deductible small contributions go to fund the FFS grant(s) to the DPF research. Like you, Aeronaut, I am firmly of the opinion that a direct appeal to a large micro-contributor market will be the quickest and most likely route to assure funding for DPF “proof of concept”. (And by “proof of concept” I mean that we have experimentally demonstrated less expensive “to-the-grid” power.)

I am very glad to see the many active and thoughtful contributors on this site; I think we are beginning to see the right assembly of resources to see cocncrete results.

Respectfully,
Kyle

FFS has been a tax-exempt receptacle for donations to the research for years, and has generated very little. Why would this be different?

@Kyle, Sounds like you’re reading the pdf, but thanx for reminding me of the “Why I’m writing you today”. It was proven back in Elmer Wheeler’s day, but it caught me off guard and still seems to work, lol.

Long story short, I just posted a few edits plus the sidebar I mentioned earlier today with fresh (but not really complete) content at http://energymadecleanly.com. Adding the picture of FF-1 made an incredible difference in its impact.

@Brian, we got a new decade to work with.

Random comments:
The regulatory issue seems to be getting aneutronic distinguished from all other nuclear processes; maybe that should be mentioned.

The direct mfg. job benefits will be dwarfed by the spin-off jobs, as electrical power becomes cheap and feasible and preferred for many processes and needs. E.g.: conversions of residential and commercial heating systems from oil/gas to electric. Many other areas that are now marginal or struggling will become growth engines.

Space Elevator: I believe Japan has claimed it could be done for $10bn, and the government is prepared to put up the money! That may be outdated news, tho’.

[Dr_Barnowl]

How about an iPhone app?

If people will pay $1000 for “I Am Rich”, surely they’ll pay some small amount for some cool doodad that shows they care about energy generation?

“Want to support the next generation of energy research, so you can power cool things like cars, air-conditioners … and phones? There’s an app for that..”

[Aeronaut]

Brian,

Excellent points about the spinoff effects of electricity becoming the preferred energy source, and the manufacturing shift that will follow. I’ll make it a point to spell it out much more implicitly today. The sidebar starts right off distinguishing between fission, fusion, and anueutronic fusion before nailing down what makes FF1 the obvious choice. (losers use superconducting magnets).

I’ve seen guestimates of $10G to $50 for the SE. I wouldn’t really be surprised to see deployed and staffed hardware running at least $100G, since what I saw was several years ago.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: Brian,

Excellent points about the spinoff effects of electricity becoming the preferred energy source, and the manufacturing shift that will follow. I’ll make it a point to spell it out much more implicitly today. The sidebar starts right off distinguishing between fission, fusion, and anueutronic fusion before nailing down what makes FF1 the obvious choice. (losers use superconducting magnets).

I’ve seen guestimates of $10G to $50 for the SE. I wouldn’t really be surprised to see deployed and staffed hardware running at least $100G, since what I saw was several years ago.

:cheese: That would be “explicitly”, unless you just want to imply stuff! :cheese:

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:
:cheese: That would be “explicitly”, unless you just want to imply stuff! :cheese:

Right toe, old chop!

There was so much implied to so many target audiences that I’m glad I don’t sell securities, lol. Anyway, it grew long enough to show me a much better line. Now we’re leading a cub scout to a candy store, while the rest of the fusion community is trying to get the child to stop fidgeting.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

:cheese: That would be “explicitly”, unless you just want to imply stuff! :cheese:

Right toe, old chop!

There was so much implied to so many target audiences that I’m glad I don’t sell securities, lol. Anyway, it grew long enough to show me a much better line. Now we’re leading a cub scout to a candy store, while the rest of the fusion community is trying to get the child to stop fidgeting.
Left toe, young feller!

(Ekshully, I don’t follow the cub scout to candy store etc. comparison. You’re going to have to explificate that for me! :blank: :-/ )

[Dr_Barnowl]

cub scout to a candy store

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar? 🙂

[Author]

Posts