Project: Posters/comic to clarify aneutronic fusion

[Rezwan]

Folks, we need more materials to convey the concepts championed by the Focus Fusion Society.

Aneutronic fusion draws a blank from most people, and explaining this concept takes a bit of time. Can we get this down into a poster – like a one page comic with several panels guiding the person from one thought to the next?

A well designed poster would be invaluable to this concept.

Our fabulous aneutronic peace symbol (attached) is just one part of the explanation – you also have to explain the trouble with deuterium/tritium, and you have to differentiate both of those from fission.

And then there’s the need to allay those nuclear fears. Perhaps that requires a separate poster.

[Aeronaut]

“Aneutronic Fusion- the Cleaner, Safer, Saner Sides of Nuclear Power for the 21st Century” or a variation may work as the headline. These claims could be detailed in succeeding poster panels. Remember, we’re selling basic concepts, not entire installations, so short, concise copy is a plus. 136 words takes roughly one minute to read aloud.

let’s see… 2 minutes max means 272 words for 6 sub-headings and perhaps 18 bullet points, plus a call to action across the bottom. This would ideally be a continuation of the headline such as “Can We Afford Not to Investigate the Potential?”

[Rezwan]

Several concepts in one, but I despair because this is over-simplifying things. And the more you think about it, the more concepts you seem to need to add. Let’s try to come up with the bullet points first, then figure out the simplest illustration. We want to crystallize these interrelated issues into one easy poster.

1) Fusion Fission: Need to mention that fusion is not fission – fission breaks things apart, has a bunch of neutrons and risks a chain reaction. That’s “The bad”. Grandpa’s Fusion (mainstream) is “the good.” And aneutronic is “the best.” (well, we can’t call it ugly).

2) Differentiating fusion – there are many ways to fuse nuclei. To simplify, 2 main approaches
a) with neutrons means you are going for heat production – good, but still a bit radioactive. the holy grail.
b) without means you can go for electricity directly – and not radioactive. The holiest grail.

3) Nuclear is not evil if it’s aneutronic. Drive home the “Truly clean nuclear energy” here. N-word attack. The peace sign is the best approach here. But this will stumble on disbelief. We need a separate poster to really reassure people it’s not useful in nuclear weaponry.

4) aneutronic means not having to use a steam engine anymore – truly futuristic (all energy ideas so far are antiquated in comparison).

5) Aneutronic needs much greater energy to pull off, so people have historically shied away from it. Except today when there are several aneutronic experiments going forward (the coolest being LPPX, of course) (Show images of a few machines?)

5a) Yes, it’s difficult. Perhaps impossible. But what does it say about our character that we don’t try to solve it? (a dig to character is important. This poster isn’t just about aneutronic fusion – some vague science concept, it’s a mirror into the soul of the person looking at the poster. Will they fuse with the problem and release a greater energy? Or will they walk away untouched?)

6) These experiments need your support. Get involved.

[Aeronaut]

You have to remember that I sold, designed, and painted signs for 14 years, Rezwan. I had at most 3 seconds- usually 1 to 2 seconds for a driver to see, read, and decide to respond to a sign. The standard format was 6 words on 3 lines. The owner filled in the details and closed sales either in person or over the phone. What is our Unique Value Proposition in 6 words or less?

I see the poster’s environment as a room full of people mingling amidst a smorgasbord of ideas hoping to be the best. Therefore our poster must stand out from the same-o visual competition from across the room as people walk past it.

When you saw one of my signs, you read it. You had no choice. You didn’t realize you had no choice, it was so natural. Smile much, say little, hand out brochures, and let the poster sell the message of fresh hope (or new FUD) for old problems.

[Tulse]

Why promote/describe/sell aneutronic fusion, rather than Focus Fusion (or DPF) specifically? Why confuse folks with more details, especially if those aren’t directly relevant?

If the goal is to promote FF, frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

I’d suggest a heading/tagline like “Focus Fusion — The power of the sun in a box” (or something similar). Emphasize in the poster that fusion is the same process that the sun and stars use, and emphasize that Focus Fusion is/will be extremely efficient, producing electricity directly rather than by producing heat to boil water to create steam to turn a turbine to spin a generator, like most conventional powerplants do. This also means that FF generators will be much more compact than most (all?) other forms of electricity generation, and will be easily portable, enabling uses that are currently very expensive. And talk about expense, or lack thereof, how much cheaper FF will be, and how its fuel is (almost) limitless and costs practically nothing.

If you want, mention that it produces no ongoing waste and very little radiation (I’d actually be curious to calculate how much radiation would be associated with a FF device as compared against that emitted by burning coal, as I bet FF comes out ahead).

Perhaps I’m missing something as to the purpose of a poster on aneutronic fusion in general, though, so I apologize if the above is off-target.

[Breakable]

Headline suggestion:
The Power of the Sun in your hands

Subheadlines suggestion:
No radioactive contamination
No nuclear weapons
The sun that always shines

Notice to self:No spider-man theme

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: You have to remember that I sold, designed, and painted signs for 14 years, Rezwan. I had at most 3 seconds- usually 1 to 2 seconds for a driver to see, read, and decide to respond to a sign. The standard format was 6 words on 3 lines. The owner filled in the details and closed sales either in person or over the phone. What is our Unique Value Proposition in 6 words or less?

I see the poster’s environment as a room full of people mingling amidst a smorgasbord of ideas hoping to be the best. Therefore our poster must stand out from the same-o visual competition from across the room as people walk past it.

I wish aneutronic fusion was a quickly grasped idea. Unfortunately, it stumbles on a lot of cognitive barriers. Our poster needs to be a deeper think piece. We have a bit of work ahead of us for this concept – it’s a bit layered and technically sophisticated. I don’t think 6 words is adequate.

Also, it’s designed to be discussed and to tell a whole story. Something like this. Compares two complex ideas in a short, easily grasped space, and holds your attention.

I see the poster’s environment as virally being replicated throughout cyberspace. And also, as a thing you hand people and talk to them about it, and each question they have (and they have many as they start getting into the subject) you can refer back to the poster. Yes, we’ve covered that point.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: Why promote/describe/sell aneutronic fusion, rather than Focus Fusion (or DPF) specifically? Why confuse folks with more details, especially if those aren’t directly relevant?

Credibility, differentiation, context.

Fusion doesn’t have a good reputation to begin with. But people who think about it, assume that the government and scientists must have done their due diligence and are working on what they need to be working on. The concept of aneutronic fusion isn’t even on the radar.

To come out of the blue and talk about focus fusion and the DPF and that it’s aneutronic is bewildering and raises a ton of questions. Whoever I talk to needs a full half our of explanation, and then they ask the same questions again an hour later, and a day later. It will take a lot of repetition and clarification to get the idea across.

If the goal is to promote FF,

Is that the goal? That would make us the marketing department of LPP, and not an independent nonprofit organization with a broader pro-fusion mission. What if FF doesn’t work? Does the Focus Fusion Society close shop? This is a strategy question – I am in the process of setting up a new forum to discuss this.

FFS is a unique nonprofit organization that seeks clean, cheap energy from nuclear fusion whatever form that ultimately takes. We are currently following the LPP experiment because it’s the most elegant concept imaginable. Also, it’s our namesake, it’s how we got started. And we’re hoping this is the winner.

However, it is not a proven concept, so we need to keep that in mind, and build a broader coalition that takes a clear-eyed approach to the pursuit of fusion. In a way, we need to model appropriate fusion-questing behavior. One of the historical problems with fusion is that people have fallen into the trap of wishful thinking and it has hurt fusion overall. If we put our support of LPP in context of a broader strategy for fusion, and emphasize our rational approach to it, we increase credibility and interest.

frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

That’s deceptive. Also, that will come up when people try to discredit the movement, it will look like we’ve been trying to cover something up.

The points you make in the rest of the paragraph are precisely those we want to educate people about – so they get how important this is in the nuclear context. Not all fusion is the same. And fusion isn’t fission. This should be common knowledge for everyone.

Anyway, don’t underestimate the public. It’s not their flaw here, it’s our flawed ways of communicating these ideas that we need to question. (Don’t blame the listener – look at how you’re conveying your message).

[Aeronaut]

Thanx for the link, Rezwan. Both extremes seem to apply to society. From your project: Design a FFS Poster thread, the design begins with these key parameters:

Posters can either highlight a specific project that you have worked on or describe a theme that has been important to your career. However, these are not going to be traditional posters. They should be summaries or conversation starters, not filled with detailed content. Additionally, they should be relatively simple in design and make use of images to tell the story.

Also,

The other option is to use any other software package, but to convert the file to a PDF format. If using this option, please use a 36” x 24” poster size to guide you.
* Text can be no smaller than size 20, and please limit your word count to 60 words. Ideally, your text would be three sentences that reflect the additional description that you will provide. You should also include your name and poster title somewhere on the poster.
* Please use up to three images, with the image quality at a minimum of 70 dpi.

This seems to have the soonest deadline and can easily be leveraged/ repackaged in progressively more detailed posters as general public feedback warrants. If we want to open a conversation using 60 words or less, let’s identify and prioritize by the readers’ WIIFM? formula: What’s In It For Me?

We’d also need to decide if we’re pitching FFS as hope or a last-ditch defense of something which might pave the way to a FUD-oriented story line. Hmmm………. Take a Stand Against Fiscal Waste?

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote:

frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

That’s deceptive. Also, that will come up when people try to discredit the movement, it will look like we’ve been trying to cover something up.

Then ITER is also “deceptive”, since you would be hard-pressed to find the term “nuclear” anywhere on the non-technical parts of their website. The FFS may choose not to go that route, but I think it is incorrect to call it “deceptive”. And note that I said the term “nuclear” should not be used “in headings and taglines”. I didn’t mean to imply that the term should never be applied to aneutronic fusion, just that that term should not be used in the main marketing message, since that’s really not the main characteristic you want to emphasize.

[Aeronaut]

For clarification, are we designing a poster or a wall chart?

We can budget enough words for a 20 to 30 page booklet of 10 point text on a wall chart. I saw one for D-T fusion on a black background with the main entry text over an image of the Earth in the center, surrounded by around a dozen sub-stories, maybe more. Full disclosure was not the objective. We could work backwards from, say, a 250 page book concept/outline to map what information goes on which of 8 posters in the series.

Each of these could become a salable product and a lot of the source material could come from FFS threads. I’ve seen a guy do this on the Warrior (marketing) Forum a few years ago, turning only 1 thread into a WSO (Warrior Special Offer- their new product advance discount corner area). I know it works because I bought a copy.

[Aeronaut]

Here’s the image.

Attached files

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote:

frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

That’s deceptive. Also, that will come up when people try to discredit the movement, it will look like we’ve been trying to cover something up.

Then ITER is also “deceptive”, since you would be hard-pressed to find the term “nuclear” anywhere on the non-technical parts of their website. The FFS may choose not to go that route, but I think it is incorrect to call it “deceptive”. And note that I said the term “nuclear” should not be used “in headings and taglines”. I didn’t mean to imply that the term should never be applied to aneutronic fusion, just that that term should not be used in the main marketing message, since that’s really not the main characteristic you want to emphasize.

But don’t you see? That’s one of the main selling points of aneutronic fusion. Truly clean nuclear energy. Which is why ITER has been deceptive. Or at least not as transparent as it could be. It still has a nuclear stigma (although mild), and NIF is much worse – they are used for weapons testing and development. By tackling the nuclear question, we really set ourselves apart.

There’s nothing to sugar coat here. No need to downplay nuclear energy. We’ve found a way of redeeming nuclear energy and putting to rest the bad forms of nuclear energy. That’s a powerful message.

Anyway, I think people want to embrace nuclear energy and the future. There’s always something attractive about the “bad boy” to begin with – and then when you find out this particular bad boy is really the hero – it’s that much better. What a thrill.

Power is attractive. A new, super heroic green power of the future – very attractive. This is not your grandpa’s fusion.

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote: That’s one of the main selling points of aneutronic fusion. Truly clean nuclear energy.

Speaking personally, the main selling point for me is the “clean” part (along with “cheap” and “unlimited”). Who cares what the form or source of the energy is, as long as it meets those criteria? Nuclear fission is undergoing somewhat of a renaissance with experts, but the public is still deeply sceptical of it, and I think it is a mistake to believe that the term “nuclear” is a selling point, however it is framed.

[Aeronaut]

If you question how you know that nuke power is making a comeback, (other than through the fusion forums), I’m sure you’ll always be able to trace it back to a sales organization.

All of the Power With No Radioactive Waste* could be a good teaser headline, since we’ve all learned to read the asterisk’s fine print before the main ad copy.

*Seriously! visit focusfusion.org for details.

[Author]

Posts