Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #904
    Rezwan
    Participant

    I called up a reporter from the NYT to see if he’d run a story on LPP. He asked if there were any results – if they’d done it yet. Apparently, it’s not news until you have solved the fusion problem. The thing with media is that it helps if you frame the story for them, and they get that it’s a fresh new look at something. So we need to reframe this story, and get media on board with a reframe.

    The real story
    To me, the real story isn’t “have they done it yet?”, (there’s no guarantee they can – and they need more resources to complete their work).

    The real story is that due diligence (and I’m using this word incorrectly – I’ll have to do another post on that) requires we check out this promising, inexpensive lead.

    Or perhaps the real story is:
    “How come humanity isn’t working together to try a diversity of approaches to achieve fusion?
    Why do most people not care, and
    why does most money go to 2 huge approaches at the expense of the alternatives?”

    Bill Gates in his TED talk, made a strong case for more money to research FISSION. I juxtaposed that with observations from the ICC (Innovative Confinement Concepts – fusion alternatives) workshop at PPPL – (Long article, but lays out a compelling story)

    That’s a good frame. Is it the best frame? And to be effective, it needs to be turned into a few mini-movies/posters/ other forms. Who’s going to read through that rambling article?

    The current fusion story is about humanity’s collective (lack of) problem-solving skills as seen in the fusion field. The scientists aren’t supported well because the public and policy makers don’t support them, and because everyone has this limiting frame for fusion. What ever happened to the spirit of exploration? Or the understanding of the process, especially with the tough problems?

    Another frame: Fusion scientists suffer an utter lack of social validation. This is best described by Nassim Taleb.

    #7946
    Brian H
    Participant

    Once upon a time Kenneth Chang did a story on Focus Fusion. Below is a copy/paste of the exchange I had with him:

    From: Kenneth Chang
    Subject: Re: READER MAIL: Kenneth Chang
    To: brianfh01@yahoo.ca
    Received: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:49 PM

    Please send me details. If it’s as you describe, yes, of course, I’d be interested. Thank you.

    On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:49 PM, NYTimes.com wrote:

    To: KENNETH CHANG

    You have received reader mail via nytimes.com. To respond to this reader, simply ‘reply’ to this message.

    READER’S NAME:
    Brian Hall

    READER’S E-MAIL:
    brianfh01@yahoo.ca

    READER’S MESSAGE:
    Hi, Kenneth; A bit over 2 years ago, you did an article on various fusion energy approaches, and in it made some mention of Focus Fusion. There have been considerable developments since then which you might like to revisit. First, last fall the project received funding from private investors and the Abell Foundation, each about half of a total 1.2 million. This was sufficient to embark on the scientific proof-of-concept experiments, now in the late stages of assembly and preparation (for late June, early July ’09). By about the end of ’10, these are expected to be complete. If as successful as anticipated (better than break-even using hydrogen-boron fusion), it should be a simple matter to obtain engineering funding to finalize designs for a mass-produceable generator, about a 3-year project. These would be licensed for manufacture anywhere and everywhere on the planet. In other words, by about 2014 some of the generators should be coming on-line. They would take over electric production rapidly wherever introduced, as their capital and production costs are around 5% of conventional sources. Specifically, about 5¢/W to build, and billed at ~0.3¢/kwh. Economics will oblige their rapid adoption. The net benefits of such massive energy cost reductions would be a ‘de facto’ surge in deployable wealth and resources for virtually everyone on the planet. AGW will be an unpleasant memory of a temporary confusion. Sound newsworthy to you?

    ARTICLE REFERENCED (if any):
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/27fusion.html


    Kenneth Chang
    Science Reporter
    The New York Times
    (212) 556-7271

    I responded the same day:
    [Cont.]

    #7948
    Brian H
    Participant

    [Cont]
    Hi, Kenneth;

    I am not an official spokesperson for the project, but here is a “layman’s” summary I have sent out here and there:

    There is a firm and associated non-profit society in NJ, called, respectively, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, and The Focus Fusion Society. They are dedicated to advancing and putting into play a revolutionary and incredibly cost-efficient energy source.

    I have been following this for years, and now funding and progress have accelerated. I’ll walk you through my own understanding and projections of outcomes a bit first, and then you can get the data from their sites, directly.

    Scientific/technical:
    The process is a form of what’s called Dense Plasma Focus fusion. It involves inducing fusion of a combination of elements or isotopes to self-ignite by (usually) magnetic contraction. There are two main varieties: steady-state (as exemplified by the Bussard approach), and pulsed. This is the latter, and is vastly easier to control.

    The device itself consists of a ring of 8 cathode pins surrounding a tubular anode, all in about the size of your palm with fingers pointed upwards. It sits in a chamber full of rarified hot hydrogen ions, and decaborane (B10H14) which supplies Boron and additional hydrogen. A 45KV pulse is sent up the cathodes from a capacitor bank, and produces a rolling ‘donut’ of charged gas which is drawn into the anode tube. There, it twists into a kinked cord which is drawn down, knotting more and more until it forms a sub-microscopic pumpkin-shaped “plasmoid”, which implodes under the pressure of its magnetic fields. A brief fusion event occurs, in which single protons (ionized hydrogen) merge with B(11) ions, producing C(12), which immediately fissions into 3 He(4) ions. A powerful electron beam exits the plasmoid in one direction, and helium ions in an opposing beam in the other. The electrons are absorbed in the chamber gas, reheating it, and the helium ions pass out through a standard “solenoid” (wound copper wire tube) which experiences a huge pulse of induced current as it slows the charged beam. That current is fed back into the power control system, and mainly recharges the capacitors.

    About 40% additional energy is produced as hard X-rays. (This very low and manageable % is achieved by a new (patented) quantum process for limiting the “X-ray cooling” which normally squelches plasma fusion events.) These escape the core and encounter a new (patented) shell of thousands of layers of foil(s), drained by a wiring grid. The X-ray photons interact with the foils, gradually giving up all their energy as current. This current is drained off as the “profit” from the generator.

    The whole affair is “pulsed”, with higher output from faster pulses. The most manageable “sweet spot” seems to be around 330cps (Hertz), which produces a steady 5MW power supply. One of these generators can run a year on about 5 kilos or so of boron — a trivial amount. Fuel costs are negligible.

    There is no radiation outside the housing, and it can be entered after about 9 hrs “cooling off” in complete safety. There are no waste products, other than a small amount of garden-variety helium. Some excess heat is produced, which can either be readily vented or used for local purposes (building heating, industrial processes, etc.)

    It is critical to note here that this is NOT a “thermal cycle” heat engine like ALL other nuclear/fusion/fission processes. That is, it does not depend on generating heat to boil water to spin a turbine to generate electricity (at about 30% efficiency, typically). Net energy efficiency/recovery in FF is estimated at 50+%, which accounts for much of its startling cost advantages.
    _____
    Now, the economics.
    A complete prefab generator and maintenance housing, about the size of a home garage, is expected to cost around $250,000 in mass production. This is about 1/20 the cost of best current plant construction costs for generating installations. They can be trucked and set up virtually anywhere, the only constraint being that there must be provision for real-time monitoring and control, and access a half-dozen days or so a year for refueling and component replacement/maintenance by engineers/technicians. They can either plug directly into existing grids, or be used as local power sources — e.g., by factories or buildings. Or ships. Or spacecraft.
    Power pricing (with all amortization, fuel, maintenance etc. rolled in) for its output is estimated at ¼¢/KWH at source. That’s $0.0025. Again, about 1/20 of best current numbers.

    This is “disruptive technology” with bells on.

    Imagine yourself as a government or investor with $XXX,000,000 to put down on new power generation capacity OR operation/upgrade of existing plant. Which are you going to put your money into: (1)technology which has suddenly been rendered obsolete by a 20+:1 cost disadvantage? Or (2)scrapping the old and replacing it with the new ultra-economical alternative? Hint: if you choose (1), those who choose (2) will eat your lunch. And breakfast and dinner, too.

    ______
    Extrapolations.
    It can plausibly be argued that the prices of all human goods and services reflect roughly the amount of energy put into bringing them from source to purchaser, whether that is gold or internet-delivered bits and bytes or arugula or beer or cars or … Fuel, heat, movement, and so on are major components of those energy inputs. Reducing those costs by 95-98% will have a dramatic impact on human wealth, across the board. It will suddenly be readily possible to provide resources and life basics to billions who cannot now afford them. And the wealthier world will experience an explosion of benefits and choices which were impossible just yesterday.

    [Cont]

    #7949
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Yes, Kenneth is the reporter I talked to as well. I also talked about the results as you did. He’s looking for more impressive results. We can call him after a couple more orders of magnitude.

    Do you see how this is still playing into the “results” frame?

    The story is about getting results, selling a finished fusion research project, rather than about what humanity is doing to find answers for fusion – or how to better support and appreciate scientists who do this work.

    That’s the distinction I want to make. Any ideas about how to do that?

    The “results frame” puts the burden on a few people (the scientists who manage to scrape together sub-adequate funding) to produce results, while the rest of the world (fusion free riders) sit around yawning, waiting for them to have results.

    My point is that part of FFS mission is to change that frame, and get everyone to take a more active role in getting fusion to happen by creating a pro-fusion culture and funding environment.

    #7950
    Brian H
    Participant

    ______
    Extrapolations.
    It can plausibly be argued that the prices of all human goods and services reflect roughly the amount of energy put into bringing them from source to purchaser, whether that is gold or internet-delivered bits and bytes or arugula or beer or cars or … Fuel, heat, movement, and so on are major components of those energy inputs. Reducing those costs by 95-98% will have a dramatic impact on human wealth, across the board. It will suddenly be readily possible to provide resources and life basics to billions who cannot now afford them. And the wealthier world will experience an explosion of benefits and choices which were impossible just yesterday.

    Desalination, irrigating deserts (even southern California)? Trivial. Powering a nation/world of electric vehicles? Easy and essential. Huge expansion of space exploration, perhaps helped by building a Space Elevator or two? No problem. Elimination of pollution and contaminated soils and air? Cheap and straightforward.

    Energy independence? Every town and neighborhood can have it if they want, for a song. Everywhere.

    ______
    Political.
    Nations and regimes battening on the Devil’s Excrement will be cut off at the knees. They will continue to have some markets for their oil, from a declining transportation/power requirement to continuing feedstock/lubricant needs, but will be lucky to get $10-15/bbl for their best product after a few years. Coal providers will experience an even steeper and more permanent decline, unless some innovative new clean uses for coal (raw material for immensely expanded nanotech?) are invented.

    And so on.

    The crisis-concocting AGW-panic exploiters will be homeless. Perhaps a special welfare fund will be established for them, including huge special residential complexes where frequent unannounced fire and Carbon Monoxide evacuations will be called to keep them excited and interested (not all drills; a certain minimum fatality rate to be ensured to sustain realism.) 😉
    ______
    Timing:
    Investment and resources have been obtained (Nov. ’08) to immediately embark on a 2-yr scientific validation and proof-of-theory project, which would set up a 3-yr engineering and production-initiation phase. Probable time-to-market is thus 5-6 years, 2016 or before.

    Hold onto your hat (and hopes for a sane and prosperous future).

    Links:
    Company
    Society

    The official contacts are “Eric Lerner” , and “Jim Trow”

    Brian Hall

    I don’t know if he followed up, or investigated further. Was this the same individual you reached?

    #7951
    tcg
    Participant

    From what I can see, LPP HAS done it yet. The FF-1 fairly routinely fuses duterium, something the high priced competition has a bit of trouble with yet. Of course, the goal is to fuse pB11 and generate useful amounts of electricity from it cheaply, but the mileposts along the way are significant and don’t seem to be heralded as they might. Certainly, pB11 fusion is what is what would make the professional doubters sit up and notice, since this is something the Tokamak and NIF projects cannot ever hope to accomplish, but he interested and curious may be enticed by other means.

    We should generate a little exclusivity and mystery, imply that the other guys might not have a clue yet. I do feel that FFS has been a bit too humble about its accomplishments so far. Perhaps our attitude should be: “You want fusion? We got it, but that is last week’s triumph, and now we are out frying bigger fish. Do you want to come along? Don’t miss the action here.”

    #7952
    Brian H
    Participant

    Rezwan wrote: Yes, Kenneth is the reporter I talked to as well. I also talked about the results as you did. He’s looking for more impressive results. We can call him after a couple more orders of magnitude.

    Do you see how this is still playing into the “results” frame.

    The story is about getting results, selling a finished fusion research project, rather than about what humanity is doing to find answers for fusion – or how to better support and appreciate scientists who do this work.

    That’s the distinction I want to make. Any ideas about how to do that?

    The “results frame” puts the burden on a few people (the scientists who manage to scrape together sub-adequate funding) to produce results, while the rest of the world (fusion free riders) sit around yawning, waiting for them to have results.

    My point is that part of FFS mission is to change that frame, and get everyone to take a more active role in getting fusion to happen by creating a pro-fusion culture and funding environment.

    Oops, crossed postings!

    I think you might (in the short term) need to smash the “results frame”. Point out to him that no multi-billion dollar research project anywhere in the world has yet reached unity, or even fused pB11. Tell him that staying tuned till the end of Sept. (per Aaron’s projection) will likely see pB11 fusion, with only a few months to go for possible unity — a much better prospect than anyone else.

    Assuming you want NYT’s attention and endorsement! In my personal opinion, it’s useful only secondarily: if it helps with funding.

    #7953
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Your quantitative analysis (copied below), from the perspective of that worthy reporter, is speculation based on a yet-to-be-proven concept.

    This puts it under the heading of “overselling” and reduces your credibility. Even if you’ve put a “might” of “if” earlier in the discussion of the science. All of your calculations rest on something that hasn’t happened yet, and you’re selling the results as if they are a done deal. The reporter will hang back and wait for more concrete results.

    Put yourself in the reporters shoes. If it’s about results – he certainly doesn’t want to be caught prematurely selling some idea.

    Our issue is, how do you keep interest in the story before you have the results? And how do you make results the icing of the cake? The heroic effort of scientists in the face of uncertainty is, a more inspiring story and, more to the point, the only one we can factually assert at this time, pending those pesky results.

    Brian H wrote:
    _____
    Now, the economics.
    A complete prefab generator and maintenance housing, about the size of a home garage, is expected to cost around $250,000 in mass production. This is about 1/20 the cost of best current plant construction costs for generating installations. ….

    Imagine yourself as a government or investor with $XXX,000,000 to put down on new power generation capacity OR operation/upgrade of existing plant. Which are you going to put your money into: (1)technology which has suddenly been rendered obsolete by a 20+:1 cost disadvantage?

    #7954
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Brian H wrote:
    Oops, crossed postings!

    I think you might (in the short term) need to smash the “results frame”.

    Yes, that’s the goal. Smashing the results frame.

    Point out to him that no multi-billion dollar research project anywhere in the world has yet reached unity, or even fused pB11.

    The sad thing about “no multi-billion dollar research project has reached unity” underscores our larger credibility problem. The field of fusion itself suffers major incredulity. All of fusion is in the dog house and suffering the same results issue.

    Saying we’re better than them doesn’t really win many points.

    BUT – this gives all fusion projects some common ground – the media story for all of us is the same. The world is more interested in results than in truly supporting science and scientists and the work they are trying to accomplish. That’s the hidden story here. It’s an important message.

    And, if we spearhead the campaign to change this frame in the media and with the public, we may get a lot of support from our other fusion competitors out there.

    Tell him that staying tuned till the end of Sept. (per Aaron’s projection) will likely see pB11 fusion, with only a few months to go for possible unity — a much better prospect than anyone else.

    He will, indeed, stay tuned, checking back in a while, or waiting for our announcement. He won’t, on the other hand, do anything constructive in the mean time. And if the date gets pushed back, the story, and the project, will just fade away. Again, this strategy relies on rapid results and has no room for delays and contingencies.

    Assuming you want NYT’s attention and endorsement! In my personal opinion, it’s useful only secondarily: if it helps with funding.

    I just raised them as an example. Any media source fits here. They all tend to take the “results” approach. They are all missing the real story of the fusion struggle.

    My new tag line: “The world needs fusion, and fusion needs…the world” That would be the frame. If you want results, you need to take some action.

    #7956
    Rezwan
    Participant

    tcg wrote: From what I can see, LPP HAS done it yet. The FF-1 fairly routinely fuses duterium, something the high priced competition has a bit of trouble with yet. Of course, the goal is to fuse pB11 and generate useful amounts of electricity from it cheaply, but the mileposts along the way are significant and don’t seem to be heralded as they might.

    The mileposts are interesting to scientists who find this stuff intrinsically fascinating. The general public and policy makers only want the results. Wait! I feel another post topic coming on.

    #7957
    Rezwan
    Participant

    tcg wrote: Perhaps we are trying to resonate with the wrong industry. Reporters of news must necessarily be concerned primarliy with results which can be whipped up into eye catching headlines. They have already been burned reporting on fusion “breakthroughs” and are understandably reserved. Perhaps we should be trying to catch the eye of an industry which is primarily concerned with story, with the drama of the struggle — the entertainment industry. I am not talking about Hollywood, more like PBS. Imagine being able to follow the Wright Brothers around for a year while they were developing the machine which eventually flew. No one had that chance. There might be some producers who would see documenting the work at LPP as an opportunity to be in front of the wave as it is breaking, to document history as it is happening. It would be a question of whispering into the right ear.

    Absolutely. Great strategy – and we shall move it into its own post as a project. I’ve been gathering the names of people who make said documentaries, and have yet to pitch them (so much to do, so little time).

    But remember, even these folks tend to spin the “results” frame, as seen in this sonofusion doc.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.