[JShell]

Well, I see the story as a little bit different than just “lets develop FF so that the world has cheap energy”

I think its an issue of climate change and developing a form of renewable energy that could be cheaper than coal and fossil fuels. I think focus fusion is necessary because

1) Coal, oil, and natural gas for electricity and transportation are major emitters of greenhouse gasses, and the primary sources of energy for most of the developed world. Given the current economic situation, wind and solar are too expensive to replace fossil fuels. They’re also too intermittent and dispersed to replace the energy needs of major cities. Nuclear fission creates nuclear waste problems, and many nuclear fusion projects are a long way from breakeven.

2) Developing countries feel that they can’t afford to pay more for renewable energy because they’re trying to get themselves out of poverty. Yet, China’s CO2 emissions already equals that of the US. If they continue on their current path, the world will never stop emitting greenhouse gasses.

3) Thus FF could be a way of reducing emissions dramatically by undercutting coal-fired power plants, as an insurance policy against the possibility of future damages wrought by a changing climate.

[JShell]

Here are some interesting links. The Breakthrough Institute (among many others) think that investment in clean-energy research is what is needed to get the world off of fossil fuels. FFS and LPP both fall into this category, if we can convince the world that focus fusion is indeed commercializable in a 5-10 year time frame, and doesn’t create radiation or lead to more nuclear bombs in the world (both of which are major “liberal” concerns these days)

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Case Studies in American Innovation.pdf

Also, might there be support among Republicans for clean-energy research?
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/08/does_new_republican_bill_signa.shtml

[JShell]

Hmm, this is a conundrum. I would say that the current “open” format benefits from open-source-type benefits and it fits with Eric’s overall vision of altruism for the project, but it also means that potential investors might take the project less seriously at this point . . . I agree that people (wealthy people especially?) like to see a well-presented idea, even if the physics behind it isn’t so solid . . regardless of the situation now, at some point, even if the project is successful in proving break-even or net energy generation, it will probably still need to do some serious engineering and production logistics to come up with a marketable final product. If LPP goes to market scale, it might be hard for it to remain open in the way it has been in the research stages. But others would know more about this than I do now.

Although caution is wise regarding Big Oil’s (strong) desire to see this fail, I think the fear-based concern should be pretty minor. As long as LPP doesn’t sign away its decisionmaking power to anyone, and it has good coverage of all relevant patents, idea burying shouldn’t be an issue. Who knows, maybe one of the Big Oil companies would want to hedge its bets by investing once the theory is proven? They do have tons of cash on hand, without tons more wells to drill, aside from the tar sands in Canada.

Also, a related question might be what LPP would look like if it was trying to do sales of the focus fusion as an energy generation device . . . or to do sales of licenses for other companies to build and sell the devices-

[JShell]

nemmart wrote: Why not just power the airplane with FF’s? Just checked some numbers. A 747 burns on average a gallon a second during flight. Jet A has roughly the same energy per weight as gasoline which has 121 MJ per gallon. Therefore a 747 uses 121 MW/hr, which means 20 FFs to produce the juice.

My second thought is that so many of these posts read like FF is an all but done deal. But we should all be a bit more realistic — it isn’t a done deal. So many things could go wrong – from the fusion physics, to the engineering to the economics.

Another aspect that particularly troubles to me: if FF was as close as it sometimes appears, I’d think funding would be pouring in. Think of it this way — what would be more beneficial, FF working or say a malaria vaccine? Organizations like the Gates foundation throw tons of money at long shot, big payoff efforts, like a malaria vaccine. So why hasn’t someone or some organization with deep pockets decided to fund this?

If you ask me, Focus Fusion is so far outside the norm of power generation that most people think its decades away from proving its feasibility, instead of years away . . . if rich folks act in a herd, they haven’t fully heard about Focus Fusion, or if they have, they don’t believe it’ll work. there have been too many cries of wolf regarding fusion in the past. My guess is that Google and other venture capitalists also stayed away because they got their “expert opinions” from pro-Tokamak physicists, who don’t think that FF is viable. Eric Lerner already made plenty of enemies in the academic establishment by publishing challenging the Big Bang theory, which is regarded to be almost unquestionable among many physics Ph.Ds . . . .if I’m not mistaken, one reason why the Hadron Collider was built was to try to detect certain kinds of “dark matter” that “haven’t been observed yet” because they are a mathematical necessity for the Big Bang theory to hold together in terms of universe expansion rates and redshift (ie, they need more gravity to slow the expansion of the universe if the universe expanded from a single point a certain amount of time ago) . . . yet Eric’s theory makes them unnecessary.

Thats my read at least. I’m sure Eric or others can do a better job of telling the story.

[JShell]

Looking at ways to get venture capital funding is an interesting exercise because to get funders you have to convince them that investing in focus fusion and LPP is a worthwhile “bet” to make with some of their money (just like the people thought that owning 1% or 6% of a person’s future earnings was a good “bet”). Basically, regardless of the gains for society as a whole from cheap clean energy (ie, stopping global warming, reducing the damage of coal mining and nuclear fission waste, facilitating cheaper desalination, etc), you have to convince people with money that despite the risky nature of what LPP is trying to do, the possible monetary rewards are worth the risks– ie, if LPP is successful, investors could stand to make a lot of money within five or ten years. Eric Lerner’s strategy of selling “licenses” to build Focus Fusion devices sounds like a good one because that would enable LPP to take a substantial cut of the profits anyone makes from building focus fusion devices without having to deal with the production and servicing issues themselves.

Its also interesting because in the Google presentation, Eric discussed how Focus Fusion could produce clean energy cheaply, but he didn’t discuss the ways in which the cheap energy that Focus Fusion might produce would be cheaper than the market rate, so that for the first ten years or so, whoever was selling electricity onto the grid from the focus fusion devices could be walking away from those transactions with a lot of money, because their costs of production would be so much lower than the sale price. If this were the case, (and if LPP drives some hard bargains along the way) LPP could end up as the next Ford Motor Co. for renewable energy, because Focus Fusion devices could be gradually replacing coal power plants and gas power plants . . . of course, LPP could be beat out by a competitor, but they have their technology patented, and LPP already has a jump on the competition in terms of research and background knowledge. . . Personally I feel that if LPP is successful, it would be cool if some of its profits could be used to fund other environmental and anti-poverty efforts, similar to what the Gates foundation is trying to do right now.

Of course, this is all counting chickens before they hatch, and we don’t even know if LPP can achieve net energy generation with pB11 fusion in a focus fusion device, but its really interesting to imagine what LPP might face if they are successful in achieving net energy generation.

[JShell]

I like the idea of asking people if they’ve heard of aneutronic fusion before, because then if they don’t know about focus fusion, it provides a window to explain the process. It also gets LPP and focus Fusion on various candidates radars– and some of them might want to research the technology more on their own so that they can answer the question with more knowledge the next time it comes up.

Although the Oppenheimer analogy is a vivid one, since the shares Eric is selling are *nonvoting*, I don’t think the shareholders have that much leverage to apply extra pressure. I also feel like Eric and the LPP team are already working as hard and fast as they can, and would benefit from support more than any kind of additional pressure.

As far as investments go, I feel like lots of people are investing some of their portfolios in Focus Fusion because even if its risky, if LPP is successful, the technology could be worth a lot. But success (and any kind of commercial viability) is still probably ~5 years off (if not 10). So its a long-term investment with a lot of uncontrollable factors. And LPP would still benefit from additional government involvement.

The more people we ask though, the more chances that other will find out about it and want to learn more and get involved in spreading the word themselves. . .

[JShell]

As far as I can tell, in the next year or two, LPP will be in the process of finding the optimal magnetic field strength, and the optimal plasmoid diameter for energy generation. Determining the reliability of shots in terms of spark-gaps all firing at the same time is a preliminary challenge before focus fusion optimization for energy generation can be fully explored. LPP might also be having some in-depth conversations with the manufacturer to verify whether the spark-gap components are actually up to the necessary timing precision (if this was the case, then it wouldn’t be a theoretical challenge as much as an technical/engineering one).

[JShell]

Rezwan wrote:
Somehow we have to make fusion – and for now the very impossibility of it – sexy.

This is exactly it. I think that fusion power, poverty reduction, and mitigating climate change are all very sexy. Its just a matter of figuring out how likely Focus Fusion is to succeed (and how expensive it might be for focus fusion to achieve that success).

[JShell]

“Viral Spreading” is totally a great way to go. However, as a total novice (and a younger person), there are seven things I think would need to be clarified before Focus Fusion could really take off.

– First, whatever is said needs to be very short, and relevant to what people already know about fusion power (ie, its different from fission, not radioactive, not going to explode, its a series of bursts instead of a miniature sun, its a different approach to an old problem, etc . . .)

– Second, any marketing campaign needs to be realistic about the challenges ahead. Simply promising the sky and asking people to pass the message on doesn’t make people feel as smart as if they are given a detailed account of the challenges ahead that need to be overcome, and how they can help with them. If someone emails/tweets/messages out about how this technology is going to bring utopia, then in some ways that could make it less believable, if people think that its “too good to be true”. They could also be more disappointed and feel stupid if it doesn’t work. So under-promising and over-delivering might be a good strategy.

– Third, clarity in what you’re asking people to do, and what you’re hoping to accomplish could help the message go a long way. What are the goals of the campaign? General awareness? Government money? Individual investors? Donations to Focus Fusion? What about non-US governments? Overall, its a question of: what do you hope that spreading this message will accomplish? What are the challenges and how can “non-scientists” contribute to the solution?

– Fourth, you would need to quickly “tell the story” of why fusion scientists haven’t talked about focus fusion/aneutronic fusion before now. Why does it seem like the majority opinion is against Focus Fusion? Why haven’t many established professors been enthusiastic about the technology if “its their job” to know about fusion technology? What biases are out there? Who is supporting them, and why? Who makes the grantmaking decisions that have been supporting Tokamuk fusion over Focus Fusion?

– Fifth, what is the overall agenda behind the message being spread? Will anyone benefit monetarily from Focus Fusion or LPP’s promotion? If so, who? And what will they do with the money? Eric Lerner mentioned global poverty at the beginning of his Google video. Is “poverty-reduction” one of LPP’s overarching goals? How does that integrate into LPP’s market strategy? Is this simply an attempt to be a (carbon-free) Exxon Mobil, or is this something more? Eric Lerner’s video talks about how the cost of Focus Fusion could be much less than the current market price for energy, but he doesn’t go into what he thinks his fusion corporation might do with all the excess profit it could stand to gain from producing electricity at low cost and selling it at the market rate . . .

-Sixth, in a major marketing campaign sometimes I feel like less information is better, so that people are interested and can be left a little bit in suspense. I hate to say it but there is also a risk that a large number of rich people who own a coal power plants or own major stakes in oil companies could lose a lot of money if this is successful . . . thus a major marketing campaign would put LPP and Focus Fusion at a greater risk of ideological retaliation, from people either actively dismissing the technology through mainstream media, or trying to bias those in with government power against it. So I don’t know what the best strategy is here, but being honest about the power dynamics at hand seems like a good idea.

-Seventh, people might be more engaged if they had a short term goal, *with a deadline* in addition to the overarching hope of implementing clean, cheap, environmentally-friendly renewable energy ten years from now. What are the short-term steps that will get Focus Fusion to where we want it to be?

[JShell]

Also, separating Eric Lerner’s plasma physics and focus fusion research from his cosmology is a good distinction– thanks for correcting me on that one. The world doesn’t have to have a firm answer for the beginnings of the universe as long as LPP can get a good working hypothesis for what is really happening in the plasma focus fusion device.

[JShell]

“Fusion Perceptions” is a good point. I think that is the real key here. Hearing about how other earlier books have shaped people’s perspectives on fusion power is interesting. I think that people hold onto oil because it has been what has worked (and made money) in the past. People have to start to believe that fusion power could be profitable before they’ll think that a breakthrough could be self-sustaining, and that it could eventually fund more of its own research (in addition to other challenges). As far as the military-industrial complex goes, stopping that is pretty hard, but I have to hope that as the world becomes more globalized, that people will find less need for war (and war materials). I feel like developing countries can’t invest in fusion power for the same reasons why they can’t invest in public health programs–they’re costly and lots of developing countries are just barely scraping by.

[JShell]

I know I’m replying to my own post here, but what Lawrenceville Plasma Physics needs to debunk now is the misconception that the Google green energy Czar was propagating at the end of his interview . . . that Focus Fusion will involve increasing and uncontrollable costs. If LPP can show that the costs will be under control, and that the technology can start generating revenue (and net profit) within a decade, then the whole concept will be much more viable.

[JShell]

Wow! Those screen grabs look really good! That would be a huge (and impressive) change to get the focusfusion.org webpage looking like that–

I like the two-tiered design, especially with the way you divided up the categories in the screen shots. Very simple and effective.

With the screen grabs, I like how the horizontal bars are very clear and involve separate categories. I think that having the homepage with the basics is nice– I feel like the Focus Fusion site does a good job of introducing the technology, and FFS too.

You probably know much more than I do in terms of the overall structure of the site. There is a lot of content, and being able to navigate easily is important. I can see what you mean about “focus fusion” fitting within “aneutronic fusion”, which fits within the wider fusion umbrella– I guess the only other thing I would say is that as far as “permanent” content goes, sometimes more isn’t always better– once people are hooked with the basics, then in some ways they can get the latest up-to-date information from the “Recent Posts” or “Recent Forum Posts”– the main permanent site doesn’t have to be an all-inclusive source of information. For me as a newcomer this past fall, I really appreciated being able to watch Dr. Lerner’s video, to get more in-depth information that way.

I liked the pB11 animation if that fits back in somewhere, but loading times are a concern, of course. And splitting off the plasma network as a separate site seems like a good idea.

Focus groups are helpful, but in some ways, you’re getting a mini-focus group right here, with so many people giving feedback and contributing. . .

Making the “Avatar characters” real to get the site redesigned and fully functional is exciting!

all this snow in the northeast has been pretty wild,
JShell

[JShell]

First, I wanted to say that I think the redesign looks great!! But if you’re still editing things, I would put a plug in for simplification. Focus Fusion is a really good idea. People who are coming to the site will want to explore it– right now I get the impression that I’m being told all the exciting things about focus fusion before I even have a chance to hunt around the site and find out what its about. I tend to like having a cleaner homepage, with more links and lots of information that I can explore when I begin to go into sub-categories. Then, if there’s lots of material to explore within the site it feels more like an adventure while I’m learning more about LPP and FFS.

Call me a simpleton, but I like how streamlined LPP’s homepage is– it looks really professional.

I think anything you can do to “streamline” the home page would only make things easier.

Perhaps you could have a few lines explaining FFS on the homepage, in the center white area? That could be a “teaser” to help any passerby know what FFS is about and why it could be a really transformative technology. Then, as they become more interested in Focus Fusion, they can follow the links to learn more.

The grey bar at the top, for example, could be a lot more simpler if there were fewer headings across the top. Especially having it all fit on one horizontal line could make a huge aesthetic difference. What if you combined a lot of the “informational” links all under a heading titled something like “Learn about Focus Fusion”? Then you could have the following headings in the grey horizontal box:

Home
About FFS
LPP Experiment
Forums
Gallery
Events
“Learn More about Focus Fusion”

Then, under “Learn More about Focus Fusion”, you could include the following (with or without their own links)
What is Focus Fusion?
Aneutronic Fusion
How Hard Is It?
How Green Is It?
Fusion Race
Future Shock
Plasma Network
Learning Center
Fun

Also, it seems that there is some repitition with the information and links in the grey boxes and the information and links in the central white area– perhaps one link to the information from the home page would be enough?

One other thing I noticed is the “popups” when I scroll my cursor over the pictures on the right– maybe its just me, but I found the larger pictures a little surprising/disconcerting, especially given where they’re located. Perhaps the pB11 animation could go in the central white box?

Thanks for reading all this! I think FFS is doing some really interesting and awesome work already– most of my comments are just a matter of aesthetics.
John

[JShell]

Could LFTRs burn the spent fuel from all the nuclear fission reactors still in operation? Burning radioactive waste in newer reactors instead of trying to keep storing it next to the nuclear facilities is definitely an intriguing (and environmentally friendly) idea that companies making profits off of nuclear fission should help fund.

[Author]

Posts