New Logo Design

[jamesr]

I’ve never liked the use of the peace/CND logo. I get why it fits and the motive behind it. It just seems a bit too close to the Hippie culture, and not professional enough.

If we want t be taken seriously by industry, academic institutions and governments then we need a logo they they would be happy putting alongside theirs on letters, marketing material etc.

[tcg]

I have to agree with Jamesr. The peace symbol, which originally was created by the Neuclear Disarmament movement — it is formed by superimposing the semaphore flag symbols for N and D within a circle — does not have universal appeal. I am unfortunate enough to live in a very conservative county ( Orange, California ) and this symbol is generally regarded as representing weakness, surrender, and stoned kooks with no guts. Personally, I like it and it fits the hB11 reaction perfectly, but it carries a lot of baggage with many folks.

Education of the masses about the DPF will be necessary, but no simple task. Most Americans are not well educated and are resentful of having this pointed out. To attempt to acquaint them with something new implies that they are ignorant, and they often have a characteristicly negative response. Since I work with a lot of these people, I have found that presentation is everything. If you want to express something, you have to use the language of the target audience, not your own. The message has to be simple, sugar coated, and have no words or images which could cause brain lockup. It won’t be enough to explain the nuances of the DPF to physicists because there are very few of them. You have to appeal to a much broader and more humble audience.

[Rezwan]

OK, I’m hearing what you don’t like, but until we come up with something else, we’ll go with this.

So – some ideas. For fusion in general, we could incorporate DT’s equation and intertwine it? 2 planes of equations?

Or something completely different and abstract? Or apparently abstract until you think about it deeply – which will be even more confusing for we humble masses?

It’s fine with me to use the “nuclear peace” symbol in specific contexts.

Show me some designs, I’m standing by : )

And I think some previous submissions are out there. I will round them up and put them in this forum.

[Aeronaut]

Rezwan wrote: OK, I’m hearing what you don’t like, but until we come up with something else, we’ll go with this.

So – some ideas. For fusion in general, we could incorporate DT’s equation and intertwine it? 2 planes of equations?

Or something completely different and abstract? Or apparently abstract until you think about it deeply – which will be even more confusing for we humble masses?

It’s fine with me to use the “nuclear peace” symbol in specific contexts.

Show me some designs, I’m standing by : )

And I think some previous submissions are out there. I will round them up and put them in this forum.

TCG hit the nail square on the head for west Michigan, as well. Show them something like the specter of winter heating bills being divided by 20, followed by trimming that much fat off of next summer’s A/C bills (and perhaps all the vices which they could “afford” as a result), and you just might net them by the shipload.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote:

TCG hit the nail square on the head for west Michigan, as well. Show them something like the specter of winter heating bills being divided by 20, followed by trimming that much fat off of next summer’s A/C bills (and perhaps all the vices which they could “afford” as a result), and you just might net them by the shipload.

How is that a logo?

And also, where is the awe for fusion science? For taming the plasma dragon?

That’s just a mundane need to trim some energy bills.

Also, that’s a while off. A working fusion reactor is at the end of phase II. LPPX is in the middle of phase I, it’s not proven yet, and many uncertainties lie ahead. So if you show the bills and savings, you’re promising and overselling. And none of the other fusion approaches would suggest at this point that they will be cheaper.

[Rezwan]

tcg wrote:
Education of the masses about the DPF will be necessary, but no simple task. Most Americans are not well educated and are resentful of having this pointed out. To attempt to acquaint them with something new implies that they are ignorant, and they often have a characteristicly negative response. Since I work with a lot of these people, I have found that presentation is everything. If you want to express something, you have to use the language of the target audience, not your own. The message has to be simple, sugar coated, and have no words or images which could cause brain lockup. It won’t be enough to explain the nuances of the DPF to physicists because there are very few of them. You have to appeal to a much broader and more humble audience.

That was harsh!

I think most Americans are decently educated. Perhaps they’re more action oriented than intellectual, but intellectuals can be pretty annoying. And condescending. Perhaps the “resentful” reaction comes from a sense of being condescended to.

The reactions I get are either curiosity or boredom and disbelief.

Any education endeavor is no simple task. Try to teach someone how to play the guitar. Or cook. Or learn a new language. It takes time.

And it’s about “cracking the code”. The brain is locked up because it just can’t see something, since it’s been conditioned to see it some other way (e.g., “nuclear = bad”). The need here is to look at the lock up and find the key to unlocking it. It could end up being something simple.

I don’t know if it could be simple enough to become the logo.

As to the nuclear peace sign – it does a lot to go straight to the jugular of this lock. Nuclear = ultimately peaceful, and here’s the reaction. Lots of info packed into that. It does need to be explained in order to transcend the perceptions in place, but once you go through that explanation, it becomes unforgettable.

In other words, this isn’t your grandpa’s evil nuclear energy, and this isn’t your grandpa’s soft, weak peace symbol.

Both these concepts get transformed in one blow. Powerful, awesome peace.

[Aeronaut]

No, it’s not a logo. Truly sorry. Btw, is there a rating for this site? PG? PG-13? R? Even erudite sophisticated slobs exhibit physical changes when shown certain types of images which are far more suggestive than they look.

Emotion sells. Logic justifies. When logic can’t back up the impulse buy, the sale is lost. The ivory castle of proof before funding collapses in a heap of overly self-aware introspection.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: Emotion sells. Logic justifies. When logic can’t back up the impulse buy, the sale is lost. The ivory castle of proof before funding collapses in a heap of overly self-aware introspection.

OK, where is this going? Looks like the start of a new thread. Are you making an argument for pre/overselling fusion? That’s a slippery slope.

[Aeronaut]

Where it’s going is that non of us needs proof of accomplishment to sell the program. At least I don’t since I’m neither a scientist or formal board member. I recommend we come up with at least a dozen logos to split-test.

What I’m selling is jobs in the info-marketing sector. Out of all the gazillions of possible niches to build marketing funnels around, are a few labeled aneutronic fusion.

[tcg]

Back to the logo. The peace symbol would be the best choice for many parts of the country. Boston, San Francisco, perhaps Seattle, but not Memphis, Houston, Salt Lake City, or San Diego. The point I was making is that it is not universally seen as a positive image.

Not having a lick of artistic talent, I cannot personally make a recommendation, but since I live in an art community, I know talented individuals who have the vision I lack. I will be approaching several of them and see if they can come up with something for consideration.

[Brian H]

A logo is limited in the amount of info it can carry. It’s impression and “feeling” that you need to reach for. Perhaps a stylized version of the electrodes pic you like so much, shooting a beam, which morphs into a slogan like “Power For the People”.

[Lerner]

Maybe the peace symbol was controversial 50 years ago. It is not now among people we are likely to reach. People who are not for peace are really unlikley to be for focus fusion. I like the current logo a lot.

[Brian H]

Lerner wrote: Maybe the peace symbol was controversial 50 years ago. It is not now among people we are likely to reach. People who are not for peace are really unlikley to be for focus fusion. I like the current logo a lot.

“for peace”? The attraction of a fantastic new energy source for mankind has nothing inherently to do with peace. That may be a possible and preferred outcome, but it’s incidental to the project scientifically, technically, and economically.

[Aeronaut]

We may well end up addressing a dozen super-niches with a dozen or more messages about a universal need: cheap, clean energy. Sounds easy enough, given the universality of the mainbenefit.

So the current logo addresses a few segments of society, investor greed could be another, clean water another, and so on.

[Ivy Matt]

I think the current logo is rather clever and effective at getting across what needs to be gotten across, although perhaps it may mean nothing to someone who knows little or nothing about nuclear reactions. Any new logo would need to get the job done at least as effectively. And, of course, it would have to exist. We can’t really replace the current logo with nothing.

[Author]

Posts