[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: Again it seems to me that pursuing government support is a treadmill to nowhere, and a mighty distraction from important matters and workable private alternatives.

The “fusion in 100 to 1000 years” analysis came from someone who is often asked to evaluate fusion project ideas for VCs and Angels (private alternatives). He says they are looking for something with a return in 2-3 years, ten years max for the angels. And so he has to say – no, this isn’t going to work in that time frame (if at all). And for THAT reason – fusion is far off. Pure economic argument. Government is under-funding it, and the private sector wants quick returns. The delay comes from inaction due to market and government under-supply of research, because to be honest, most research will turn out to be a “boondoggle”.

So there it sits, under-researched and under-boondoggled.

I think the answer is to change people’s attitudes on research. If you already knew the answers, it would be engineering. When you’re exploring the unknown – it’s research. “Boondoggle” stigma is irrelevant, but that’s how people seem to look at it. That’s a mighty distraction from problem solving.

Ah – one other thing – the energy sector seems far more squeamish about research boondoggles. In the pharmaceutical sector, 15% of revenue goes to research, and they routinely expect failure at the end of most drug trials. It would be nice if the energy sector applied the same generosity. After all, energy affects EVERYONE, not just a portion of the population with that disease. An amazing lack of perspective.

But try to raise the tax on gasoline, and see what happens : )

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: What this boils down to imo is that their motivations are to protect a wide range of existing cash cows and jobs in the status quo. Think how many smart grid, clean coal, and other research boondoggles will go down the drain (along with the stock prices and carefully cultivated leadership images) if a straight-forward solution, with a definite time frame and budget, should come along.

Are you saying that research projects are cash cows and boondoggles? That may turn out to be the case with Focus Fusion and any other alternatives we’re co-promoting. So Ed could turn to you and say he’s preventing a waste of these extra cash cows and boondoggles that we’re trying to saddle the country with. And you’re back at square one having to prove something without enough resources.

That’s the problem with research – a lot of times your results are not what you wished for, or you’ve spent tons of money pursuing an idea only to have another idea elsewhere be more useful/competitive than yours. So, you can just kill yourself because you wasted your life. Or you can realize that your work was honorable and find a new outlet for your research compulsions. To argue that research is a waste is counter productive. At this point, with no clear fusion solution, it makes a lot of sense to pursue smart grids, clean coal, etc.

I suspect that people will be relieved when a straight-forward solution comes along and eager to switch to more interesting work. I think they don’t believe it’s possible.

That’s the uncomfortable feeling I’m getting from the fusion community. A few optimists tell me we could have fusion in as little as 15 years (if we pursue some alternatives) – but the rest say 50 to 100 to even 1000 years. That’s because what they’ll develop in the next 50-100 years won’t be nearly as competitive as fission – they’re factoring in economic necessity.

To me, it seems they do fear losing the cash cow – or to be more accurate – they fear that people will figure out fusion is really too far away and impractical, and will thus get rid of the program all together. They fear that by drawing attention to the shortcomings of tokamaks and lasers, we won’t get any more money for alternatives, rather we’ll kill the program. That’s the fear I see in them, and want to address. Hence the win/win pitches.

“Rock the boat, don’t knock the boat over.”

Of course, quick results with LPPX would go a long way to making all of this moot, but now we have the persistent “inconsistent firing/switch/sparkplug” problem to solve, and that in itself could require a lot more R&D. Nothing compared to tokamak research, but as a proportion of initial estimates for this project it could be cast as boondoggle-ish.

In sum, I don’t want to antagonize or threaten other researchers, rather I want to find common ground and get everybody back to work solving the problem – the many problems. The sooner the problems get solved, the less money we waste in the long run as we close those other projects down. May the best team win, may all the teams have adequate resources to run.

I’m leaning toward using farce as the vehicle to make the message and branding instantly memorable…

Do elaborate…

[Rezwan]

JShell wrote: But even if clean energy R and D did get a boost, it isn’t necessarily that FF would get any of that money, if Ed Synakowski simply gave more $$ to the ITER/Tokamak project . . .isn’t Stephen Chu still sitting on some millions from the stimulus that he hasn’t spent yet?

As it is, you’re right. Extra money now would just get soaked up by Tokamaks and lasers. This is why a key step is to ask for a budget that shows/includes ICCs and advanced fuels (LPPX!) as a protected line item on the budget. And also why you need the ReNeW type docs to help them justify to their bosses that these other approaches are well thought out and deserving of $.

What if we just did a letter-writing campaign for Chu (or someone else) to allocate some extra millions that would go to *alternative* fusion research, outside of the current tokamak and lasers funding already being conducted?

I’m all for a letter writing campaign. Perhaps asking for it to be explicitly targeted to fusion alternatives might help. If you recall, the original ARPA-E grants were supposed to be for advanced, out of the box ideas – they fit the description of fusion alternatives and many ICC folk as well as LPPX applied – but ultimately nothing came of that and grants were awarded to more conservative ideas.

In any case, I’m heading up to DC tomorrow for the Fusion Power Associates meeting. Ed should be there as well as many others. This is a more focused gathering than the Chicago thing and hopefully I’ll get a better idea of why things are at this impasse. And also, a better idea of who would be the most useful people to target in a letter writing campaign. Who knows, maybe Ed will say, “well my hands are tied, but if you got x to feel the heat, then…”

[Rezwan]

Hello Breakable – I shall issue a public invitation in the upcoming newsletter. In the meantime, I have updated the job description of an FFS board member.

As for application procedure, anyone interested in taking on the awesome responsibility of a board member should send me a note of interest. I’ll call a meeting of those interested – via webinar, and we’ll discuss it as a group and see how to proceed. I’d like at least 7 board members, and we have to have some sort of membership vote for the final selection since this is a group decision.

[Rezwan]

MTd2 wrote:
This is a pun on Back to the Future, but that is also the magnetic field, in gauss, necessary to suppress the Bremsstrahlung radiation of a pinch of Boron so that positive net energy can be achieved.

Can you find an article about that? I’d like to link to such a thing, but am unable to find anything. Thanks!

[Rezwan]

Perhaps argument was the wrong word. The idea is we’re trying to figure out what’s the best way to get high risk research done.

Energy sector should fund more R&D, but for some reason, they aren’t. Corporations turn around and say Gov’t should be funding energy – it’s not their risk to take, they want to socialize the risk, privatize gain. And Govt – as Synakowski policy suggests, claims it is limited by funding and has to make the “hard choices” to cut off the “riskier” programs. This impasse is only going to get worse, with Republican majority in house vowing further cuts across the board, and angel investors desperate to find sure things to get their ROI. With current institutions and instruments in place, energy research is undersupplied by both market and govt. And everyone quick to screech about “waste”.

A really cool animation would be to show the energy economy as a machine, with money (currency) as the sheathes of filaments that move around the circuitry. Just like with any energy extraction system, you’re going to have waste. The point is to get more out than you put in. More, in this case would be bona fide energy innovation.

So you’d show different players and their strategy and their tendency to try not to spend on R&D (hoarding the money, aka, storing the current in their capacitors). Also, you’d show that a lot of this “wasteful” expenditure on R&D does get back into the economy. Money, like currency, never disappears, it flows back in or does some work. Just a redistribution…

[Rezwan]

zapkitty wrote:

We need to start compiling this kind of discussion into a “ReNeW” document for the DPF, if there isn’t one out there already.

… “ReNeW” document?

“Research Needs Workshop” More at this post.

[Rezwan]

I do think the first step is to see if Ed can commit to developing (or, if it already exists, publicizing) a budget that includes alternatives. I’m sure he’s thought about it, and such a thing exists in a drawer somewhere.

Actually, a pre-cursor for this (if they haven’t got a budget already hidden away) is ReNeW type documents. (“ReNeW” stands for “Research Needs Workshop” – so they have a workshop where they assemble experts to study the needs of each thing they’re thinking of doing. This kind of doc is a pre-requisite to give them validation for funding something.) So you’d need some respected/admired plasma physicists to draft said ReNeW docs which can then be used as the basis of a budget estimate and mandate for funding towards alternatives.

This is a big bureaucracy you’re working with.

Then, you’d have to get everyone on board that this doesn’t undermine the fusion effort, but makes a case for increased funding. If you try to take away from one group to give to another, you’ll have a protracted, wasteful battle. If you’re upset by the tokamak spending, fear not. Funding other projects might yield results that allow for a shut down of the project because of success elsewhere. It seems probable that a lot of fusion scientists would think advanced fuels and ICC’s are a waste of time and we need to keep the tokamak online as it’s the only hope of fusion success.

Now, once you get someone to commit to doing the ReNeW docs and devising a new budget, that’s when you need the letter-writing campaign, to urge budget committees to approve the budget, urge your representatives to pass it, to allow for government spending in our imminent “cuts across the board” climate. I think energy has a strong direct case for funding from increased oil and gas taxes, as the energy industry spends one tenth of the industry average on R&D.

Others would disagree, and so you see our argument isn’t with the government officials, but with a lot of our fellow citizens.

[Rezwan]

Unfortunately, you’d need more people who are doing aneutronic research and icc’s to be committed to such an effort. Right now this is a pretty marginal group. Also, they’d have to be comfortable with whatever strategy we’re pursuing. We still have a few key steps before we get to a letter-writing campaign phase.

[Rezwan]

And once you get comfortable with this, what would also be great is animation that shows how the various instruments gather their data. If you can build those on…what a nightmare for the animator! But how illuminating for the viewer. That’s where collaboration might be useful. Divide the load. Do a core build and send that out, and each collaborator adds an “instrument” segment…

[Rezwan]

Collaboration is fine if you can coordinate it. Otherwise, finding your own style and vision is very important. The spirit of experiment is exemplified here : )

[Rezwan]

We need to start compiling this kind of discussion into a “ReNeW” document for the DPF, if there isn’t one out there already.

[Rezwan]

Blank check era is still here, it just goes for things like war (x00Bil) and executive bonuses ($144Bil this year).

[Rezwan]

Timo wrote:

Timo, is that you? Same Timo who infests and informs over at TeslaMotors forums? Welcome, buddy!

Yes it is me. I finally decided to join after lurking quite a while. Actually I got my “membership” due a donation, I didn’t know it would lead to that, but here I am.

That’s odd. It doesn’t work that way. You must’ve registered to post here. The donation route is separate, via paypal. You can be registered on the forums but not pay dues, and you can be a dues-paying member who never registered on the forums.

Thanks for being both! Our favorite kind.

[Rezwan]

MTd2 wrote: I must admit that the thread title is a bit misleading. I just wanted to know what possibly made it harder to achieve higher yields. I am not really asking if people are “lazy”.

In the first post that you put, if you go in to edit it, does it give you the chance to change the title? If so, feel free to change it. To something like, “what is the correlation of experimental advances to recent shots?” Or something.

[Author]

Posts