New Mission Statement

[Rezwan]

Getting clearer by the post! Thanks for this. You make some excellent points and you’ve set up the issues very well. My favorite line:

However, personally I think DPF aneutronic fusion is pretty cool

🙂

The DPF indeed has a rich heritage and a lot of fascinating science. It deserves a thorough exploration.

Alas, I’m no expert in it. My understanding is good, but not deep. As someone noted on another post, it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in something. My approach to that is to work on developing our organization as a nonprofit, with fundraising, so that we can get a budget, to hire someone to develop extensive materials to explain the science, and to moderate discussions. It’s something I’d have to outsource.

The crowdsourcing you’re suggesting might also work. Alas, no one has jumped forward yet to take charge of that, suggesting that other folks on the site don’t feel they are experts either. If you’re just being shy, I would like very much for the experts on these forums to come forward and develop content and materials and landing pages etc. to explain the DPF (and specifically the aneutronic aspects).

I.e., if you have the ability, it would be fantastic if you (and others) can take initiative to develop the technical aneutronic DPF materials! I keep pushing that to the “YIKES! Later when I have time to sit down and really grok this stuff” pile.

Most of the people here in this forum seem to regard LPP as the work that we are primarily interested in here, with other fusion projects being “other” fusion projects. It would seem to be a dilution and limitation not to be able to take all of the characteristics of DPF aneutronic fusion and use them to bring up some support.

I don’t mean to limit folks. As mentioned, I’d love it if people took initiative. This is, again, a resource problem. And a simple lack of expertise on my part. If you want that done, either I have to hire someone, or you guys have to do it on a volunteer basis. Eric and the crew have no time (I used to try to get them to sit down and explain stuff – but that was a dilution of their time and they had the research to do – plus there were gaps in my knowledge, and that’s just frustrating).

You guys can do the hard core stuff. Try to make it clear enough for me to lift stuff to use for our games section – scroll down to the DPF themed Flash game trilogy. This is not to dilute the science, but to start somewhere basic that I feel comfortable with, and build knowledge from there – drill deeper as things progress. I see this as useful for myself and others who want to come along.

And not to trivialize either the science or these games – they’re actually pretty sophisticated (well, you might not be able to tell from the short description. In my head they’re pretty detailed). Once we can get focused on them, it will still be months to develop them. And they have to exist in some sort of context, so there’s no getting away from the whole “knowledge map” idea. Those of you who are already conversant with this material just won’t get why the people you try to explain it to tune it out.

As to your other point here: “most of the people in this forum”, “it’s what mostly the people here are talking about”. About 250 people have ever posted, 30 or so actively – and that’s been pretty steady for some time. Sure it’s a majority, but of a small group. And I suspect developing more DPF material isn’t what will bring a lot more people over to the cause, especially as most people are turned off by physics, and other people find fusion in general suspicious and take the apathetic “Wait and See” attitude. It’s vital for the cause to develop popular, accessible materials.

I.e., while you might develop a well run technical forum, it would be bad to drop the rest of the forums because that’s where the broader support is eventually going to come from. Of course, it’s hard to see that now as well, because of the resource issue again. We need to turn the site into a platform that is a cool mix of science and culture.

Of course, I understand FFS is not legally part of LPP. We can’t be Eric’s cheering club, and I expect he doesn’t want that.

Of course he want’s cheering! (Or should! Who wouldn’t?) And deserves it! Three cheers for Eric!

We have no problem with cheering. Soliciting investment, yes, but not cheering. Songwriting is also cool.

I am bringing this up because I hope to get input from the wider community on this website, FFS members, etc. Is DPF aneutronic fusion the main thing here, or just any aneutronic fusion? I do not mean what do we think is most likely to be successful, or what we personally support, but I mean what do we think FFS is about?

Great question!

[Rezwan]

Is DPF aneutronic fusion the main thing here, or just any aneutronic fusion? I do not mean what do we think is most likely to be successful, or what we personally support, but I mean what do we think FFS is about?

“I do not mean what we think is most likely to be successful.” This shows an “pro-specific technology” approach. – like you like to focus deeply on a technology, for its own sake.

I am definitely going to resurrect the DPF site we started, and you can take it over. We need something like that, very technology specific. It looks like you have the focus for it.

Like you say, if this does not work out, the name can be changed to “Focus on Fusion Society” at that time and we can all carry on.

Name Change: Actually, we’ve discussed it, and wouldn’t change the name even if it doesn’t work out. Because science is about trying things. So if we’d keep the name if it’s successful, why would be not keep it if it wasn’t? The pursuit of knowledge is its own reward. Other stuff is gravy.

“at that time and we can all carry on” – time is running out for a lot of fusion programs. They could all benefit from synergy. There’s too much at stake for taking a linear approach, one thing at a time.

However, let’s think positive, and put our energy into making it work out.

Alas, I was just reflecting on this today. I’m a bit of a negative person. I suppose you might call it a pessimist. (pessimists for fusion!) I prefer realist. But in any case, positive thinking seems unnecessary. You do the work. You don’t have to fake emotion around it. Just do it. So, yes, put your energy into making it work out. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But why mask things with unproven positivity? It’s healthier to acknowledge the risks, and diversify the portfolio. That seems sensible to me. General fusion managed to raise $35 million for a fusion project with just such an approach. No need to fake anything. And their scientists want other approaches tried as well. There’s no either/or here.

Back to positivity – I’m still working out the balance. I find that a lot of people require the positivity thing, and this attitude of mine is perceived as a downer. Then again, Fusion has been called the “science of wishful thinking”, with enthusiasm met by the “wait and see” stonewall, (i.e., you talk to folks and they say, “Whatever. Let me know how it turns out”). But we want to engage people now, without “over-selling”.

I can’t change that, so that would be another thing to outsource. A chipper communications person 🙂

I suppose one could lean towards positivity, followed by being absorbed by the specific technology in question. The fusion is a possible outcome that would be nice, but you (one) would focus on the thing right in front of you at the moment.

I lean towards negativity/realism/diversification, followed by – expansion? holism? Where I am trying to get a sense of all the chess pieces and the optimal collective action outcome.

At the end of the day, the problem we’re here to solve is the fusion puzzle, the specific technology is a means to an end. We’re being practical by investigating the coolest, most cost-effective route first (DPF + pB11!) And we’re being responsible by looking at the broader picture and ways to develop synergy in case things stretch out.

“just any aneutronic fusion” – you say it like it’s so easy. Where is the awe for what is being attempted? Aneutronic fusion!

Can team DPF do it? (And cut to you: Team DPF rep – sell it!)

[Warwick]

Rezwan wrote:

However, let’s think positive, and put our energy into making it work out.

Alas, I was just reflecting on this today. I’m a bit of a negative person. I suppose you might call it a pessimist. (pessimists for fusion!) I prefer realist. But in any case, positive thinking seems unnecessary. You do the work. You don’t have to fake emotion around it. Just do it. So, yes, put your energy into making it work out. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But why mask things with unproven positivity? It’s healthier to acknowledge the risks, and diversify the portfolio. That seems sensible to me. General fusion managed to raise $35 million for a fusion project with just such an approach. No need to fake anything. And their scientists want other approaches tried as well. There’s no either/or here.

Back to positivity – I’m still working out the balance. I find that a lot of people require the positivity thing, and this attitude of mine is perceived as a downer. Then again, Fusion has been called the “science of wishful thinking”, with enthusiasm met by the “wait and see” stonewall, (i.e., you talk to folks and they say, “Whatever. Let me know how it turns out”). But we want to engage people now, without “over-selling”.

I can’t change that, so that would be another thing to outsource. A chipper communications person 🙂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

People that are positive about existing circumstances (and immediate opportunities) are sometimes so because they’d rather appreciate reality than compare it to a more ideal condition. The only people that have the potential to ever change anything are those that are positive, or at least stoic, about the potential of the future, while remaining steadfastly negative about the present. So keeping it real is the only way to go.

I say “or at least stoic” because really it doesn’t matter. You might as well try to make a change; if it’s not possible then it will not have mattered. It makes sense to be indifferent about whether improvement is possible or not.
But it’s probably easier to spread a positive attitude to something than a stoical one.

You’re right of course that any particular endeavour could fail. I don’t think that committing to specifics is overall a bad thing though; no one is going to look at it and assume that success is assured.

This is also a cultural thing as what most Americans consider normal may be slightly more positive than in some other countries (in my limited experience). e.g. if you go to watch a film with an American and it turns out to be a bit rubbish, there’s not much point in taking the mick out of how bad it is … they just don’t see why they’d want to get into the hate.

[Rezwan]

Warwick wrote:
But it’s probably easier to spread a positive attitude to something than a stoical one.

And more fun. But at the same time, you need to cultivate a stoic backbone. (“You need a backbone, not a wishbone!”) I’m working on stamina more than stoicism. See also paradoxical commandments.

I like the distinction made by the Confidence Monitor between optimism and confidence. Optimism is the belief that something is possible – say that net energy from fusion is achievable. Confidence is the calculation that “those who should be doing something about it, are.” Or, “enough/the right resources are being brought to bear on the problem”. If we have optimism about one approach, are we confident that it has enough resources at its disposal to demonstrate the fact? If we aren’t sure that a specific project will work, are we confident that a broad enough range of projects is being pursued?

This is also a cultural thing as what most Americans consider normal may be slightly more positive than in some other countries (in my limited experience). e.g. if you go to watch a film with an American and it turns out to be a bit rubbish, there’s not much point in taking the mick out of how bad it is … they just don’t see why they’d want to get into the hate.

Ooh, yes. Those dismissive folk are “fusion haters”. Show fusion the love!

[Rezwan]

Folks, we’ve come up with a new mission statement for the Focus Fusion Society. Here it is:

The mission of the Focus Fusion Society is to bring people together to pursue the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from aneutronic fusion, to ensure that the ensuing technology is made available to everyone, and to foster a pro-research ethic and pro-fusion culture.

And our official tagline:

We bring people together to bring nuclei together.

We’re putting the emphasis on people and organizing over science and energy. It’s human beings (scientists) who do the science which may liberate the energy. Science doesn’t do itself. It’s other human beings who fund/support those scientists. Scientists don’t fund themselves.

Some have said that the specification “aneutronic fusion” is limiting, but we feel that the pursuit of aneutronic includes the pursuit of other types of fusion. In any case, our strategy includes a strong educational component that benefits the pursuit of other energy resources as well.

Note, the primary action verb clause is “bring people together to pursue…” and our energy dream is the best dream of them all.

[Author]

Posts