[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: Emotion sells. Logic justifies. When logic can’t back up the impulse buy, the sale is lost. The ivory castle of proof before funding collapses in a heap of overly self-aware introspection.

OK, where is this going? Looks like the start of a new thread. Are you making an argument for pre/overselling fusion? That’s a slippery slope.

[Rezwan]

tcg wrote:
Education of the masses about the DPF will be necessary, but no simple task. Most Americans are not well educated and are resentful of having this pointed out. To attempt to acquaint them with something new implies that they are ignorant, and they often have a characteristicly negative response. Since I work with a lot of these people, I have found that presentation is everything. If you want to express something, you have to use the language of the target audience, not your own. The message has to be simple, sugar coated, and have no words or images which could cause brain lockup. It won’t be enough to explain the nuances of the DPF to physicists because there are very few of them. You have to appeal to a much broader and more humble audience.

That was harsh!

I think most Americans are decently educated. Perhaps they’re more action oriented than intellectual, but intellectuals can be pretty annoying. And condescending. Perhaps the “resentful” reaction comes from a sense of being condescended to.

The reactions I get are either curiosity or boredom and disbelief.

Any education endeavor is no simple task. Try to teach someone how to play the guitar. Or cook. Or learn a new language. It takes time.

And it’s about “cracking the code”. The brain is locked up because it just can’t see something, since it’s been conditioned to see it some other way (e.g., “nuclear = bad”). The need here is to look at the lock up and find the key to unlocking it. It could end up being something simple.

I don’t know if it could be simple enough to become the logo.

As to the nuclear peace sign – it does a lot to go straight to the jugular of this lock. Nuclear = ultimately peaceful, and here’s the reaction. Lots of info packed into that. It does need to be explained in order to transcend the perceptions in place, but once you go through that explanation, it becomes unforgettable.

In other words, this isn’t your grandpa’s evil nuclear energy, and this isn’t your grandpa’s soft, weak peace symbol.

Both these concepts get transformed in one blow. Powerful, awesome peace.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote:

TCG hit the nail square on the head for west Michigan, as well. Show them something like the specter of winter heating bills being divided by 20, followed by trimming that much fat off of next summer’s A/C bills (and perhaps all the vices which they could “afford” as a result), and you just might net them by the shipload.

How is that a logo?

And also, where is the awe for fusion science? For taming the plasma dragon?

That’s just a mundane need to trim some energy bills.

Also, that’s a while off. A working fusion reactor is at the end of phase II. LPPX is in the middle of phase I, it’s not proven yet, and many uncertainties lie ahead. So if you show the bills and savings, you’re promising and overselling. And none of the other fusion approaches would suggest at this point that they will be cheaper.

[Rezwan]

OK, I’m hearing what you don’t like, but until we come up with something else, we’ll go with this.

So – some ideas. For fusion in general, we could incorporate DT’s equation and intertwine it? 2 planes of equations?

Or something completely different and abstract? Or apparently abstract until you think about it deeply – which will be even more confusing for we humble masses?

It’s fine with me to use the “nuclear peace” symbol in specific contexts.

Show me some designs, I’m standing by : )

And I think some previous submissions are out there. I will round them up and put them in this forum.

[Rezwan]

How about:

Rezwan wrote: The specific objectives and purposes of FFS shall be to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion, preferrably aneutronic fusion, into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind.

[Rezwan]

Here’s an attempt to make “aneutronic” explicit:

The specific objectives and purposes of FFS shall be to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind. In particular, we embrace the idea of aneutronic fusion and promote its active pursuit.

Or…we encourage the pursuit of aneutronic fusion despite its advanced status…No…

Ugh.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: It seems to me that aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches are in far greater need of champions, especially as they are often dismissed by Big Fusion supporters.

Per the draft above:

“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”

Can you suggest wording that could make this more explicit? I DO want to convey that we are championing aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches – that priority is given to these. We don’t have to say this in the bylaws, by the way. On the website, we just have a link to diverse, and that opens the whole case file on diversity.

If ITER ultimately produces something that can be turned into practical fusion power, it won’t need a non-profit society to help. So I don’t think advocacy for “fusion in general” in needed, so much as assistance to those approaches that aren’t supported by massive research funds.

The folks getting massive research funds don’t see it that way. They think they’re underfunded, too.

[Rezwan]

We need the word “aneutronic” in there, too. Not as a limitation, but maybe something like – “reaching to the promise of” or “with preference to…”

[Rezwan]

Breakable wrote:
All fusion supporters are divided by their favorite concept:
tokamak, polywell, frc, ff which makes us even weaker.

Hey Breakable, I quoted this on twitter.

[Rezwan]

Breakable wrote: 1)Is probably a good addition as “CHEAP” can be relative. What is cheap in USA can be expensive in Uganda.

Perhaps we can say “proportionately cheap”?

“We will pursue this purpose by supporting any nuclear fusion development, by applying a priority to the cheapest, cleanest and most rapid approach”.
This could probably win more people over from other camps as well as bring independent (amateurs) to brag about their developments here.

I like this. The word “priority”.

Yes, we do want to build a coalition from all fusion camps. Diversity of fusion approaches.

[Rezwan]

Note that I have dropped this sentence:

To finance the research needed, we will raise funds from the general public and publicize the need for funding of research aimed at developing this ideal energy source.

I think “finance the research needed” is covered by “developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”;

“we’ll raise funds from the general public” is limiting – we’ll be raising it from foundations and government as well.

“…this ideal energy source” is a promise on unproven technology. It’s not ideal until proven – so at this point we’re in a catch 22. Need to prove it first before you can get the $ to prove it.

The goal is to get the money and resources to explore this option, and other fusion options beyond that, in the event this doesn’t work.

Does that cover all our bases? Can we make it vaguer, yet clear?

[Rezwan]

OK, I’ve reworked it.

I. PURPOSE: The Focus Fusion Society (“FFS”) is organized exclusively for charitable, educational and scientific purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal code.

The specific objectives and purposes of FFS shall be to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it as soon as possible, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind.

We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research; developing education, affiliation and outreach programs; fostering a pro-fusion culture globally; and developing a platform for open source research support, beginning with, but not limited to, support of research involving the Plasma Focus device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion.

Note, the first sentence about the purposes is written with reference to 501c3 federal requirements.

The second sentence is for state requirements.

The third is an attempt to cover all the bases, leave things open…and kind of takes a leap.

Suggestions?

[Rezwan]

Thanks, Breakable. Well put. Aeronaut as well for summing up the triage strategy.

The issue is putting our understanding into more formal language, and making sure this is clear throughout our organization’s documentation, e.g., in the website and the bylaws. See this post for discussion of the bylaws.

[Rezwan]

tcg wrote: The DPF is a wholly new concept, and it will require new images and descriptions to frame it.

Yes, this post is about aneutronic fusion, not just the dpf. Which makes me realize, other than the dpf, how do proposed pB11 machines plan to generate energy? Do they all purport to produce electricity directly? Yikes, we need some aneutronic approach differentiation. That’s the topic of another post.

For this post, let’s stick to the graphic novel (not going to say “comic” anymore) depiction of how aneutronic fusion is the fairest of them all.

[Rezwan]

I think by downplaying it, it makes you look like you’re covering something up. And in this day and age, nothing can be covered up for long. It’s simply a matter of education – getting the facts out. The facts aren’t out there. Nobody even knows the difference. It’s all one thing. And, as noted, any opponents of the DPF will play it up and point out the “coverup” as proof that this is not a good thing.

Differentiation on the nuclear issue is important. Can’t skip this step. And I don’t think it hurts the cause as much as you think. People can handle it. My point is just that it takes a while to explain. But once explained – it’s pretty simple. Like learning a few phrases in a new language. It takes a bit of repetition, but then – voila! You sound like a native.

Also, we’ll be using these materials to educate about fusion in general, and to open up the aneutronic avenue of inquiry in particular. In the event the DPF doesn’t work – we’d still want people to pursue aneutronic fusion with other interesting ideas that emerge out there. So everything we do has to work for both the DPF, and for longer term contingency plans.

[Author]

Posts