Homepage Forums Policy Gov 2.0 Summit (also, private investor 2.0 and citizen 2.0)

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #878
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    I am interested in attending the “Gov 2.0 summit” Sept. 7-8 to gather ideas for better ways for data and government to support fusion research. More about Gov 2.0 here.

    This looks like a great place to network and find people that are interested in more effective approaches to large hairy problems like the fusion challenge. A place to brainstorm, and another class of expertise to recruit to the cause.

    Many scientists in the fusion community agree that more government spending on diverse fusion projects is essential to advancement in fusion. There needs to be outside the box thinking, and researchers need the freedom to try bold ideas. That’s where the miracles might come from.

    Alas, most government fusion money is spoken for in the big projects, and there isn’t public support for fusion to warrant an even bigger fusion budget. This leaves us at an impasse. (Note: Focus Fusion Society is also working on the “public support” “Pro-Fusion Culture” angle – that’s another topic!)

    I think the fusion community needs to develop some ideas about how to leverage emerging technologies and networks so that instead of just asking for buckets of money, they have a more compelling case to present. This requires some introspection, and some cross-disciplinary collaboration with folks of the type you might find at a Gov 2.0 summit.

    “Gov 2.0” is about the use of data; government release of data; more creative government policies and better leveraging of data. So there are several dimensions. All of which could provide better support for fusion science. Some ideas here which could be a function of Gov 2.0, but also private investor 2.0 and citizen 2.0 – I don’t want to limit it:

    1) The first is technology itself. Communication technology can be better developed to help fusion via better data support and comparison (Gov comes in here, because they have all the data on file – here’s some data you can start building apps with. Minor problem for fusion community requiring introspection: many research projects are mired in secrecy, even the collegial ones. People don’t release data until they feel better about it. These issues need to be addressed.

    There are many advantages to working out microformats and metadata on fusion projects and sharing them across projects (with the help of a government funded, or privately funded program) many people could start to design all kinds of fusion research supporting apps…. These would feed into support and feedback for researchers, as well as things you could pull out to put into digestible formats for public awareness and appreciation. If it’s not clear what I’m talking about, take a look at this article on open data and transportation.

    2) Better communication and coordination among government funded research projects for components. For example, the LPPX crew continues to have problems with their switches – but aren’t there government funded projects elsewhere that have developed precision switches for a very different purposes and hence this information is not available? With metadata about things government is making – perhaps these components could be more easily found and shared/applied to vastly different projects. Match problems with solutions. Think of the metadata required to get that communication going.

    3) More money. Yes, we can lobby the government for more $, and run the risk of the zero sum fight for $ that is already spoken for. But I think if the fusion community gets together and comes up with other creative funding strategies which focus not only on the volume of money, but look at creative policy – that might open something up.

    Government fusion bonds, for example. Possibly in conjunction with a “fusion fund”. A combination of government and private investment capital. (think each one through separately, and then think of how they could work together).

    One could develop a fusion fund which allows people to invest in multiple fusion projects at once, and government as well. It’s multiple projects so that the projects are encouraged to share information with each other. This leverages both cooperation and competition. It’s competitive (the big winner takes more), but collaborative (they all at least get some return by being linked up to each other – you hedge your bets). There are different variations of this – perhaps as a tax deductible for private investors until/unless the fusion pays off (Only one of the fusion projects in the funds needs to succeed – and you can allocate most of your investment to the one you think is the winner, but a portion goes to all of them.)

    4) Gov 2.0 is also about technology being leveraged to release the “long tail” – microinvestors – right now, the only entities considered as funding sources for fusion are big government and big investors. But with technology, some SEC rules can and should be rethought. We could make the above fund have an exception for investments so that any person can invest in fusion without being accredited. They are limited by their income – can’t sell the house – but I bet a lot of private individuals would be happy to get the same deal as outlined above. And it’s paternalistic to deny them the opportunity.

    These are some initial things that come to mind. I think it would be fruitful if a few fusion folk attended the above event and we brainstormed with people there. People outside of the fusion and government boxes. Do you see the possibilities?

    #7729
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    A side note, I would love to attend the above event, but it’s pricey. It’s in DC and the event itself is $995, not to mention transport and lodging. I will be sending the organizers an email about getting fusion innovation on the agenda and to try and get the fee waived. Failing that, I still think it’s a great idea to attend and get the Focus Fusion agenda out there in that environment, but it would require donations from our membership for us to be able to attend. And it’s probably a good idea to send more than one person. And lots of fliers.

    Think about this and also Patientman’s post on attending energy fairs and conferences where I will discuss this issue further.

    As for this thread, use it to discuss the issues to be raised at Gov 2.0.

    Thanks!

    #7734
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    I like the fusion fund and bond ideas- much like savings bonds, iiuc.

    I’d like to propose a strategy of investing in risk/reward based scenarios, where aneutronic outranks D-T on just about any data point. Drilling down within the aneutronic community, FF is again the logical first to fund choice since its the cheapest, most transparent, most accountable, and the only known full scale proof of concept model operating. In short, I recommend leveraging our transparency and results to the hilt. When scaled through university research programs, the savings of cloning FF-1 could easily become billions per year. The academic recruiting and training payoffs of LPP’s success would also scale accordingly.

    The rest of the aneutronic community can be pitched as magnet and cryogenic research with direct payoffs in MRIs and large-scale powerplants which don’t use or make radioactive fuels and materials. I know the polywell forum has a verry lonnng thread keeping track of Freedom of Information Act requests and useful information. A transparency-based presentation format could do much to overcome this secrecy.

    #7743
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    Ok, I subscribed to the FFS membership, because I saw the cost was pretty low (I think it was much higher before). I hope this will help with funding a little.
    I would donate, but i am pretty poor and need to take care of a lot of people in my extended family and soon I will have my own 3’rd kid – so I am looking more for investment opportunities, than just donations.

    #7767
    AvatarPatientman
    Participant

    “Gov 2.0” is about the use of data; government release of data; more creative government policies and better leveraging of data.

    1) The first is technology itself. Communication technology can be better developed to help fusion via better data support and comparison (Gov comes in here, because they have all the data on file – here’s some data you can start building apps with. Minor problem for fusion community requiring introspection: many research projects are mired in secrecy, even the collegial ones. People don’t release data until they feel better about it. These issues need to be addressed.

    There are many advantages to working out microformats and metadata on fusion projects and sharing them across projects (with the help of a government funded, or privately funded program) many people could start to design all kinds of fusion research supporting apps…. These would feed into support and feedback for researchers, as well as things you could pull out to put into digestible formats for public awareness and appreciation.

    2) Better communication and coordination among government funded research projects for components. For example, the LPPX crew continues to have problems with their switches – With metadata about things government is making – perhaps these components could be more easily found and shared/applied to vastly different projects. Match problems with solutions. Think of the metadata required to get that communication going.

    4) Gov 2.0 is also about technology being leveraged to release the “long tail” – microinvestors – right now, the only entities considered as funding sources for fusion are big government and big investors. But with technology, some SEC rules can and should be rethought. We could make the above fund have an exception for investments so that any person can invest in fusion without being accredited. They are limited by their income – can’t sell the house – but I bet a lot of private individuals would be happy to get the same deal as outlined above. And it’s paternalistic to deny them the opportunity.

    1) Communication Technology and raising money do not always connect under the same topic. Data Communication Technology is a place that I can lend some expertise and experience. How you cross pollinate is an added level of discussion.

    2) Meta-data is somewhat limiting in certain types of searches. Document searches create a deep er level of information. Meta-data in a catalog database will get you to the document, but unless you can search the document, such as a pdf or Html file you will miss detail in your overall project. I set up a small 100,000 data asset management system.

    3) An open information system still needs security and a “buy in” from all the parties will be required. My guess is either a third-party central storage location or each institution needs a dedicated storage server, which has a mirror in a central location. The security of which will need a great deal of debate.

    4) A cataloging system is used for engineering documents and by utilizing SQL with a solid programming language like Java or maybe .NET you can set a central searchable site for retrieval of the document with check-out and check-in privileges. Your could also use a biometric finger print to enhance the security.

    5)The system would require some 3 to 5 year full development time and implementation time table. Depending on the amount of data, number of participants and of course funding. I am assuming that there will be a continuous flow of updated documents and in the millions world wide.

    This is just a brief introduction of my knowledge on the subject. It would be good to have a central location for Fusion related information and provide for the progress of the science. I am not sure if a government run system would be advantageous, too much bulk in all their systems. An Oracle system has too many layers, but has a degree of structure that you are looking for.

    #7768
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: I like the fusion fund and bond ideas- much like savings bonds, iiuc.

    I’d like to propose a strategy of investing in risk/reward based scenarios, where aneutronic outranks D-T on just about any data point. Drilling down within the aneutronic community, FF is again the logical first to fund choice since its the cheapest, most transparent, most accountable, and the only known full scale proof of concept model operating. In short, I recommend leveraging our transparency and results to the hilt. When scaled through university research programs, the savings of cloning FF-1 could easily become billions per year. The academic recruiting and training payoffs of LPP’s success would also scale accordingly.

    The rest of the aneutronic community can be pitched as magnet and cryogenic research with direct payoffs in MRIs and large-scale powerplants which don’t use or make radioactive fuels and materials. I know the polywell forum has a verry lonnng thread keeping track of Freedom of Information Act requests and useful information. A transparency-based presentation format could do much to overcome this secrecy.

    But you can’t pitch it like that UNTIL it’s successful. It’s a proof of concept, so until the proof comes through you can’t sell clones and payoffs and such. That’ll bring the SEC knocking on your door.

    I was thinking the SEC would make an exception for fusion microfinanciers precisely because conventional wisdom holds it to be so unlikely. The big boys wouldn’t mind people “throwing their money away” on something so in the future. This would get it through the radar. All portals for investment would have massive disclaimers all over it about how unlikely the payoff is and how long term it is. The people who would invest in something like that would be people who want to go down in history as having played a part, however small when mankind was working on fusion. They’re the people who want to see the job done, think it’s worth a bit of their disposable income, are OK losing that money, but do hope that in the long run, something good will come out of the pool, and their kids or grandkids might get the dividend.

    Think long term, think duty and diligence, but don’t go into it with quick gain as the main motive.

    If LPP, in the fusion pool, turns out to be quickly successful and throws conventional wisdom on its ear – participants would get a return that much sooner. It’s nice to have that as a possibility, but best not to play it up. Because then it looks like a promise, and we can’t promise anything. Nor should we. That kind of behavior will, again, bring the SEC down on you because you’re persuading people by appealing to their wishful tendencies.

    It’s always better to under promise and over deliver.

    And if the fusion fund and market is handled right, other things may come out of the work in the short term to provide funds for the long term. I mean the scientists, better networked, might come up with all kinds of interesting ancillary products and applications on the road to fusion. This could make the funds sustainable, and not such a money pit.

    #7769
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Breakable wrote: Ok, I subscribed to the FFS membership, because I saw the cost was pretty low (I think it was much higher before). I hope this will help with funding a little.
    I would donate, but i am pretty poor and need to take care of a lot of people in my extended family and soon I will have my own 3’rd kid – so I am looking more for investment opportunities, than just donations.

    Thanks! And Congratulations on Kid 3.0!

    I hear you on the investment thing. There needs to be a sea change in micro-investing for us little guys. That would take a whole lot of lobbying and law changes.

    #7770
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    Rezwan wrote:
    Thanks! And Congratulations on Kid 3.0!
    I hear you on the investment thing. There needs to be a sea change in micro-investing for us little guys. That would take a whole lot of lobbying and law changes.

    Tnx. Any luck on the Profounder front?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.