Homepage Forums Environmental Forums Riding the Global Warming Wave

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4115
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: November of 2010 is very realistic, imho, unless Eric posts otherwise. My homepage copy and header are a lot stronger now. Next edit will include how fusion will also be the topic of the 2012 Presidential and Congressional races. The sword of Damocles to keep the pols interested, lol.

    I enjoy pushing for public acknowledgment and awareness, too — but I deeply distrust the governmental and corporate mechanisms and interests that might get involved. My preference would be to get all the way to functioning prototype, and then say, “TA-DA! Licenses for sale; cheap energy for all forever!” :cheese:

    #4116
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    November of 2010 is very realistic, imho, unless Eric posts otherwise. My homepage copy and header are a lot stronger now. Next edit will include how fusion will also be the topic of the 2012 Presidential and Congressional races. The sword of Damocles to keep the pols interested, lol.

    I enjoy pushing for public acknowledgment and awareness, too — but I deeply distrust the governmental and corporate mechanisms and interests that might get involved. My preference would be to get all the way to functioning prototype, and then say, “TA-DA! Licenses for sale; cheap energy for all forever!” :cheese:
    Distrust is easy when one fells dis-enfranchised. The way around that is to make everybody aware that if they don’t do the right thing they won’t be able to win elections or find support in government any more. :coolsmile:

    #4119
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote:

    November of 2010 is very realistic, imho, unless Eric posts otherwise. My homepage copy and header are a lot stronger now. Next edit will include how fusion will also be the topic of the 2012 Presidential and Congressional races. The sword of Damocles to keep the pols interested, lol.

    I enjoy pushing for public acknowledgment and awareness, too — but I deeply distrust the governmental and corporate mechanisms and interests that might get involved. My preference would be to get all the way to functioning prototype, and then say, “TA-DA! Licenses for sale; cheap energy for all forever!” :cheese:
    Distrust is easy when one fells dis-enfranchised. The way around that is to make everybody aware that if they don’t do the right thing they won’t be able to win elections or find support in government any more. :coolsmile:

    The two halves of your comment don’t connect, for me. I am distrustful more because I can see many ways in which tying up, delaying, taking over, or burying FF would benefit numerous corporate and government interests and priorities. A short-term and parochial response on their part, granted, but that’s how most make such decisions.

    #4120
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    The way I see things, if I do nothing, I know the results will suck. If I provide each parochial interest group with a reason to pull for FF, the odds of smooth passage go way up. Combining bottom-up as well as top-down leadership is what keeps everybody honest and pulling in the same direction.

    #4121
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: The way I see things, if I do nothing, I know the results will suck. If I provide each parochial interest group with a reason to pull for FF, the odds of smooth passage go way up. Combining bottom-up as well as top-down leadership is what keeps everybody honest and pulling in the same direction.

    Whoa! If YOU do nothing, the results will suck? Um, newsflash: the future of FF does not depend on your projects or even support. We’re all fans and supporters here, with different things to contribute, but I doubt very much that your efforts to recruit corporate and/or government support are vital. Sorry if that sounds insulting.

    As I have said before: if, by ~2013 or so, Eric and LPP have a working prototype of a 5MW generator and manufacturing plans and licenses ready to go, then the game is basically won. The economic advantages of the technology will overwhelm all blocks and opposition.

    #4122
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    I don’t believe having a working prototype is enough.
    If there is no solid theoretical framework to explain it there will be no support from other scientists – no serious scientist wants to investigate a “Perpetual mobile”, even if it has fusion attached to it.
    And if the scientific community will not be interested, then the public, government and serious investors will not be as well.
    Imagine having a working prototype and no funding, no interest and no legislative support.

    And many things can happen until 2013 – what about the buss factor for this project?
    How many people have to be hit by a bus now for it to fail? Is it more than 1?

    I am happy there are other alternative approaches to fusion power being investigated even now, and if at least one of them succeeds then the other ones have a better chance as well.

    #4123
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    I always get a kick out of your literal interpretations, Brian, so I don’t take it personal. The point of my previous post is that I’m not required to share your pessimistic views of people and organizations.

    Breakable, I’m proceeding on the assumption that Eric takes no unnecessary risks, especially when it comes to scheduling. His Wiki bio is fascinating reading. I believe he’s already published over 600 scientific articles and papers, so his work is not unnoticed in the scientific world. He’s already lined up the University of Ferraro in Italy for confirmation testing, and the UN is operating a fleet of DPF machines very similar to FF. I posted a link recently to a Polish machine of similar specifications that was operating 8 years ago.

    Eric is working in a vacuum no more than Edison was in his race. Once Baby demonstrates that net power has been done repeatably, I’m sure we’re going to see a gold-rush mentality at the university level.

    #4126
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: I always get a kick out of your literal interpretations, Brian, so I don’t take it personal. The point of my previous post is that I’m not required to share your pessimistic views of people and organizations.

    Breakable, I’m proceeding on the assumption that Eric takes no unnecessary risks, especially when it comes to scheduling. His Wiki bio is fascinating reading. I believe he’s already published over 600 scientific articles and papers, so his work is not unnoticed in the scientific world. He’s already lined up the University of Ferraro in Italy for confirmation testing, and the UN is operating a fleet of DPF machines very similar to FF. I posted a link recently to a Polish machine of similar specifications that was operating 8 years ago.

    Eric is working in a vacuum no more than Edison was in his race. Once Baby demonstrates that net power has been done repeatably, I’m sure we’re going to see a gold-rush mentality at the university level.

    Each organization and politician and bureaucrat will operate on the “Qui Bono?” principle, meaning “Who Benefits — will it be me/us?” If the answer, short or medium-term, is “No”, then they will act in ways to derail or obtain control of the threat. All of human history supports that assumption. You or others may or may not be able to get the long-term perspective to prevail, but self-interest is not always of the enlightened variety. So be prepared for opposition and even subversion.

    Breakable’s concern about Eric getting hit by a bus (or bullet) is not irrational. I hope the knowledge and drive required to see FF thru to completion are adequately dispersed and distributed to protect against decapitation of the process and project.

    #4127
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Very well said, Brian. There’s three new pages on my site. The Plan ends with the call to action referring not just to short-term political gain, but to a place in history that can be secured by taking the actions I outlined on The Plan. Scarcity and limited time-frame hot buttons are in there too, of course. ;-P

    #4128
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Each organization and politician and bureaucrat will operate on the “Qui Bono?” principle, meaning “Who Benefits—will it be me/us?”

    I thought that meant “Where’s Bono”, as in U2 lead singer. It’d be great to get him on board with promoting fusion alternatives.

    About the date, when I contacted intrade for a focus fusion listing, that was the thing we had to work out with them before they would list us. We settled on 2014 as sufficient time to prove the concept either way. Including peer review, though. That was important to them. More at this link: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/288

    You’ve got to keep that disclaimer in there. This is still unproven and it all comes down to “will it work?”

    I think getting interest in that question alone will carry the game. With ITER’s recent troubles, I don’t think most people expect this to work, so it’s still at the level of speculation and game. Once the game gathers interest, and is publicly won (inshallah), people will want to benefit from it, will demand it. There will be large public & political support.

    But yeah. At this time, politicians and people are rightfully skeptical. And we’ll have to respect that skepticism. The burden of proof is on focus fusion. Will it work?

    In the meantime, the preparation work you guys are doing is great. Laying the groundwork for when, not if, this works, explaining the options to people, and the possible ways of integrating this. Anticipating barriers and arguments, devising workarounds. Keep up the great work!

    #4130
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Rezwan wrote:

    Each organization and politician and bureaucrat will operate on the “Qui Bono?” principle, meaning “Who Benefits—will it be me/us?”

    I thought that meant “Where’s Bono”, as in U2 lead singer. It’d be great to get him on board with promoting fusion alternatives.

    About the date, when I contacted intrade for a focus fusion listing, that was the thing we had to work out with them before they would list us. We settled on 2014 as sufficient time to prove the concept either way. Including peer review, though. That was important to them. More at this link: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/288

    You’ve got to keep that disclaimer in there. This is still unproven and it all comes down to “will it work?”

    I think getting interest in that question alone will carry the game. With ITER’s recent troubles, I don’t think most people expect this to work, so it’s still at the level of speculation and game. Once the game gathers interest, and is publicly won (inshallah), people will want to benefit from it, will demand it. There will be large public & political support.

    But yeah. At this time, politicians and people are rightfully skeptical. And we’ll have to respect that skepticism. The burden of proof is on focus fusion. Will it work?

    In the meantime, the preparation work you guys are doing is great. Laying the groundwork for when, not if, this works, explaining the options to people, and the possible ways of integrating this. Anticipating barriers and arguments, devising workarounds. Keep up the great work!

    I’ve written once or twice that I think fusion is controllable at the mega-level, if you have stellar gravity to work with, or at the nano-level, where (as Eric is demonstrating) magnetic forces can briefly be manipulated to create adequate temperatures, but at the meso- or human scale, the forces and energies generated by fusion cannot be held in steady state. This is what both ITER and Bussard’s approach attempt to do, but their efforts tip over into surges and leakage and runaway spiking. Not to mention that they depend on keeping equipment functioning under a torrent of neutrons.

    Anyhow, Rezwan [ed], as I’ve been saying to Aeronaut; if there is once a prototype smoothly cranking out power, it’s game over. Sceptics will have to play catch-up as best they can. The device will be a Reality Proof that doesn’t allow much meaningful argument.

    #4132
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Peer review becomes even more critical after the Cold Fusion Fiasco. ‘Til then, there’s no reason we can’t benefit from FUD instead of getting whacked on the head by it.

    “What if this grabs headlines the day before the Primaries? If not by then, what if it happens before the election?”

    #4138
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: Peer review becomes even more critical after the Cold Fusion Fiasco. ‘Til then, there’s no reason we can’t benefit from FUD instead of getting whacked on the head by it.

    “What if this grabs headlines the day before the Primaries? If not by then, what if it happens before the election?”

    Peer review applies to getting articles approved by the little collegial clubs that run science journals. The problem with Cold Fusion was that no one could replicate the results, which were subtle and hard-to-measure excess heat production in test tubes storing hydrogen in titanium/palladium molecular vacuoles, and possible hard-to-detect stray neutrons here and there.

    Like I said, a prototype cranking out power, with designs available for anyone who wants to duplicate the structure and do the same, is a whole different story, and the peers can blow smoke out their posterior orifices if they don’t like it.

    #4140
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    Peer review becomes even more critical after the Cold Fusion Fiasco. ‘Til then, there’s no reason we can’t benefit from FUD instead of getting whacked on the head by it.

    “What if this grabs headlines the day before the Primaries? If not by then, what if it happens before the election?”

    Peer review applies to getting articles approved by the little collegial clubs that run science journals. The problem with Cold Fusion was that no one could replicate the results, which were subtle and hard-to-measure excess heat production in test tubes storing hydrogen in titanium/palladium molecular vacuoles, and possible hard-to-detect stray neutrons here and there.

    Like I said, a prototype cranking out power, with designs available for anyone who wants to duplicate the structure and do the same, is a whole different story, and the peers can blow smoke out their posterior orifices if they don’t like it.
    Please, don’t get me started on scientific peer cliques. 😆 What I have in mind is greasing the skids so that several universities can’t wait to throw the switch. Not just on a test rig like Baby, but one that actually has enough foils to exceed breakeven. This would be a coup for the schools of physics and engineering, not to mention the pols and business people who had the balls to make it ready to happen. It would also bring deployment at least a year closer, possibly two. After all, no guts, no Glory.

    #4142
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote:

    Peer review becomes even more critical after the Cold Fusion Fiasco. ‘Til then, there’s no reason we can’t benefit from FUD instead of getting whacked on the head by it.

    “What if this grabs headlines the day before the Primaries? If not by then, what if it happens before the election?”

    Peer review applies to getting articles approved by the little collegial clubs that run science journals. The problem with Cold Fusion was that no one could replicate the results, which were subtle and hard-to-measure excess heat production in test tubes storing hydrogen in titanium/palladium molecular vacuoles, and possible hard-to-detect stray neutrons here and there.

    Like I said, a prototype cranking out power, with designs available for anyone who wants to duplicate the structure and do the same, is a whole different story, and the peers can blow smoke out their posterior orifices if they don’t like it.
    Please, don’t get me started on scientific peer cliques. 😆 What I have in mind is greasing the skids so that several universities can’t wait to throw the switch. Not just on a test rig like Baby, but one that actually has enough foils to exceed breakeven. This would be a coup for the schools of physics and engineering, not to mention the pols and business people who had the balls to make it ready to happen. It would also bring deployment at least a year closer, possibly two. After all, no guts, no Glory.
    Your time estimates are still wrong, IMO. Eric made the point in the video that you CAN’T rush the completion by throwing extra money or people at the project. What has to be tested and followed-up is on a critical-path chart with hard nodes that can’t be run in parallel. There’s no year or two slack to be squeezed out of the sequence.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.