[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: Does LPP want an outside group not under their direct control approaching potential investors? I really do understand both the tremendous enthusiasm and the anxiety about funding (both of which I share), but I think that if FFS is not actually a legally authorized agent of LPP, trolling for potential investors may do far more harm than good, and simply serve to, at best, confuse things terribly.

I would suggest that if the goal is to get investors for LPP, the FFS should be at most researching potential leads, and then passing on those leads (without contacting them) to the folks at LPP. If the issue is that LPP isn’t currently set up to actively pursue investors, then I would strongly suggest getting them to take individuals with the appropriate expertise (perhaps even volunteers) into LPP as official staff. I’m afraid that using FFS as the marketing arm of LPP will scare off potential funders who are confused about the relationship between the organizations, and put off by what may seem a lack of professionalism and serious business orientation on the part of LPP. (I say this as someone who was involved in a minor capacity with a few startups that had those exact problems — needless to say, things did not turn out well.)

I agree with this. Thank you for the eloquent distinctions!

So, the 2 issues here are:
* what is FFS function (we’ve been needing to rewrite the bylaws for some time now as the purpose seems to be too closely welded with LPP marketing and research for comfort); and
* LPP needs a stronger official marketing arm and advisors.

Will set up a separate FFS bylaws post.

Back to this topic – identifying green investors – as you say here, there’s no conflict to crowd-source researching potential leads, which we can pass on to LPP.

Also keep in mind, a lot of these leads would be good for FFS fundraising for itself. A green org might want to fund LPP’s research project, it might also want to fund FFS’s educational projects on aneutronic fusion or the panel discussions and other activities we want to host, or the policy and lobbying activities we want to pursue, or the pro-fusion cultural activities we want to develop. There’s a lot of room for growth for FFS which requires funding.

As to LPP’s board of advisors. For a for profit company like LPP, boards expect to be paid. That might be an issue that has kept things from moving forward. One supposes they could be paid in stock options?

In any case, it’s not our place to set that up. For the purposes of this post we could say if you have expertise, and you’re interested in officially advising or actively pursuing investors on behalf of LPP, you need to contact them directly.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote:
Once the device is demonstrably showing over-unity, Dr. Lerner, the issue won’t be one of science, but technology, and you won’t have to convince the physics establishment, but possible licensees of your design. I think that will be a much easier process…

What will the process be? That is the question. Phase I of LPPX is designed to show feasibility. Assuming they show that, it will be – not so much disputed – but there will be a lag time for peer review and validation overlapping with phase II, and there are some powerful interests who might like to see the venture fail. It’s not that they can do much – but there’s some potential turbulence the shape of which we can’t know at this time. In the face of uncertainty, it’s best to be prepared for any eventuality.

For FFS, being prepared means having a strong network of diverse supporters from many walks of society in place and a strong web platform to coordinate activities. It means having a pro-fusion culture globally, paying attention.

For LPP, being prepared means having a strong and committed network of investors, advisors, and resources to weather any storm.

What will or won’t happen is speculation. What we can do to be prepared for anything is proactivity.

[Rezwan]

Again, “Once the device is demonstrably showing…” – I think we need to focus more on the disputability THIS side of the experiment. That the device will demonstrably show…. is the question now, and the only way to address that is to do the experiment. However, with focus on the speculation of what will happen AFTER, it makes it seem like a done deal and sells the current effort short. It gets people into fantasy mode rather than responsibility mode.

Brian H wrote:
No, Eric. I think there will be waves of fear and exaltation that sweep through various sub-sets of scientists and administrators and others. One such sub-group is the large and largely MSM-excluded community of AGW skeptics, who above all do not want the world to buy a carbon-control pig-in-a-poke on the basis of extremely dodgy science and grotesquely incompetent computer modelling. Having a prospect like FF which renders the entire issue moot, and does so by means of a back door opened by human genius, will make them (us) very, very happy.

To me, the issue isn’t who is going to be thrilled AFTER it’s figured out – it’s who can we find to materially support it BEFORE, while proof of concept is ongoing.

If you can get your AGW folk to fully fund the project up front, carte blanche, beforehand, now – that’d be splendid. (Heck, we can then merge this back with the thread on documentaries from whence it came. AGW’s funding an obscure fusion project that ends up working and saving the world? Decades of gloating ahead! Classic Doc!)

Otherwise it’s all a bunch of speculators, sitting there, waiting to be made happy – loquacious, yet ultimately passive. Spectators in the unfolding drama with no greater claim to its realization than any other spectator.

[Rezwan]

Rezwan wrote: So the first project of FFS is to figure out ways to ensure that the LPP experiment takes place and is conducted with rigorous care and produces results that are peer reviewed.

This, by the way, is where the reframing from results to responsibility takes place. Our job is to make sure the research happens. “Success” in that sense means getting the machine to go through the paces, doing all the tests correctly and collecting the data, double checking that data, and making sure whatever answer is obtained is accurate.

The answer obtained – that’s what most people think about when they think about results. Is the answer “yea, there is feasibility” or is the answer “nay – try again some other way?”

If you’re focused on the second part – the outccome, that’s results orientation. We’d love positive results, but we are committed to doing the hard work. We are approaching fusion responsibly, and not wishfully.

It’s about making sure the work is done, that there are adequate resources for our people to get that work done, that they won’t be crucified if they don’t get the results we all hope for, that they and other fusion scientists can keep on working toward feasibility.

I think the best attitude is that responsibility will lead to results, hopefully really quickly, but if not now, then eventually. But certainly not if it continues to be under-resourced. That’s not “investor seeking” but just a general wake up call.

We have a responsibility to model good fusion-seeking behavior.

[Rezwan]

Excellent question. That was moved here from the thread on accredited investors. That thread was about what it would take for FFS to invest directly in LPP.

This one is about the parameters of what we can do as far as drawing investors to LPP. I’ve been told we can’t solicit funds directly. Indirectly is OK, talking about LPP, which allows investors to become better informed. [Need concrete guidelines. Is there a nonprofit lawyer in the house?]

So, what IS the goal?
I think the goal of FFS is broader than LPP. LPP’s experiment is a means to the ends that FFS seeks (cheap, clean, safe, abundant fusion energy for everyone), but due to uncertainties, FFS can’t rely completely on the success of LPP. So we need to have a plan B standing by, and we need to be networking with other organizations for the broader fusion push. This is why context is so important.

LPP has the most elegant fusion idea – aneutronic, small scale, elegant, using natures instabilities instead of trying to control nature. If it works, it perfectly meets our goals. So the first project of FFS is to figure out ways to ensure that the LPP experiment takes place and is conducted with rigorous care and produces results that are peer reviewed.

This process may take longer than anticipated, and the outcome is uncertain – both in the positive and negative sense. E.g., if the outcome is that fusion works as theorized with the DPF – there may be all kinds of unanticipated consequences – challenges, chaos – who knows? – for which we need a robust organization that is well networked and has strong friends in many places.

Likewise, if the project is run with all good faith but doesn’t demonstrate feasibility, or suggests further work is needed, a further missing theoretical piece – we’d like to have people primed and prepared to continue with that work. Again, networking and allies are important. A broad base of support. Something to continue building on.

And no grounds for accusations of “oversold”.

That’s how I see the goals of FFS shaping up.

But right now, for the most part, LPP could use more money. A lot more, to take it up from the current “shoestring” level. So, if we can’t “solicit investors” – we don’t want to be scaring them off with talk of “backup plans”. Or does having a backup plan increase credibility and make us all appear well rounded and rational?

[Rezwan]

I like Rachel Ray, too. The question is: Does Rachel Ray like physics?

Plasma pasta.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
Which brings up a possibility: there are a number of investment firms and initiatives which concentrate on “Green” and “ethical” investment. They are certainly “qualified”, both in terms of assets and sophistication. Selling investment in LPP as a small, marginal, but potentially game-changing slice of one of their pies would probably do the trick.

Great project idea. Let’s break that down into action steps, a pipeline, procedure.

“identify investment firms”
“find a warm contact” (email is the most useless approach)
“find out how they feel about fusion”
“develop ways to pitch fusion to them”
“pitch”

But there must be other steps.

I’m at step 3 with a few groups. I’ll let you know what I learn from the process.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: Google this: contact any celebrity . Maybe I should become an affiliate. I’ll third the vote for Morgan Freeman, especially after seeing Bruce Almighty again last night.

No worries. I have an imdbpro membership. Agent and publicist addresses are right there. I’m told it’s best to go through the publicist. The Agent is interested in making money for the celeb. The publicist in attaching that celeb to good causes and otherwise raising their profile.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: What would the goal of such show be?

There are several goals, and some goals vary depending on the outcome.

* In the immediate term, it’s a way to get awareness of this experiment and ideally more funds flowing to make sure there are enough resources to complete the experiment.
* It is also designed to raise awareness of fusion alternatives, and to differentiate DT fusion from aneutronic.
* By also showing other fusion experiments, it puts the struggles of this experiment in context, builds credibility and a movement of support & interest behind fusion alternatives in general.
* It may be capturing an epic moment in history as mankind achieves fusion. We should all be witnesses to that.
* If the outcome of the experiments are not as stellar as we had hoped, the process must not hinder fusion in general. It can’t turn into another “oversold” story. It must, rather, be the inspiration of the committed quest for the fusion solution.
* No matter what, we must gain something out of this effort.

That is what this documentary has the responsibility to convey.

It’s great to shoot a story when you don’t know the outcome. As they shot the movie “Fever Pitch” about a woman in love with a Red Sox fan – the team suddenly won the series. After years of losing. So they had to change the script in the middle.

It seems to me that what the LPP folks really need is time to get their research done, and some money to fund it.

Indeed they do.

Once they get a indisputable demonstration of reproducible over-unity generation of electricity, these kind of stunts won’t be necessary.

Indeed. “Once.” “Indisputable.” ’til then what do we do? Sit back and wait for them to do that? I’d like to be more proactive and anticipate an array of possible outcomes. It could be an “October surprise.” It could also take longer (“once” stretching out over time) and be heavily disputed. And it might not clear the full hurdle. I’m committed to fusion. And this is the most elegant first shot over the bow. I’d prefer not to take more shots than this. But as the zombies approach, you have to set up that first shot so that if it misses, or if you need to reload – you’re prepared.

It’s the girl scout motto.

[Rezwan]

And, of course, our fundraising galas would tend to feature these beverages : )

[Rezwan]

And now, to collect interesting ideas that can make their way onto labels of fusion bubbly:

Per Jerry:

the last words of John Maynard Keynes, widely considered the father of modern economics, were “I wish I’d drunk more Champagne

Per an anonymous physicist:

Interesting you should think of this . One of my favorite books is the 1970 Bubble Chamber Data Book. Their Logo is a glass of champagne.

And…

There is more to bubbles. Think of the exhaust from a p-B11 reactor. A bit of unburnt fuel ( hydrogen and boron) and helium ash. Add a little oxygen and you get soapy water with helium bubbles.

This is the kind of thing they would chatter about on the cooking show, while paring the fusion bubbly with some fine entree…to be determined.

[Rezwan]

Breakable wrote: I don’t believe one can invest in charity directly, unless using some loophole to retrieve the profits.

Not sure what you mean here. The question I had was how can the tax deductible charity FFS become an investor?

Many charities invest. Universities have huge endowments that they invest all over the world, they only use a fraction of their assets for operations and programs. This is to ensure sustainability of the charity. The university wants to exist in perpetuity.

Small nonprofits live from donation check to donation check, all try to grow with endowments so that they can eventually run their programs off of membership fees and the interest of their investments.

When you say “invest in charity…retrieve profits” – you’re talking about FFS NOT becoming an accredited investor, but simply giving money to LPP. Some have argued that you can certainly do this. But then, you will NOT qualify to get a return. What you say here isn’t possible:

Maybe it could become possible by first donating to FFS until fusion becomes viable and giving some sort promise to benefactors that they will benefit from fusion breakthrough.

Any sort of promise is the very definition of promising a return on an investment. If you’ve donated because of the promise, that wasn’t charity. As to promises, the venture can’t promise results – we don’t know if the research will solve fusion. But we can say that if it works out, we will all most likely be benefactors of a world of clean energy. However, you will be one of the people that paid for it that gets the same “the world’s a better place” return as people who didn’t invest. They’ll be free riders. You will go down in history as a generous human being : )

This very day, as a human being, you can write a check to Eric Lerner and give it to him as a gift. He’ll keep doing the research. But there is no promise to you for a return if you’re not a formal, accredited investor. Likewise there will be no promise of return or a shareholder voice as FFS if we don’t invest with formal accredited investor status.

Informal relationships differ. But we can’t promise anything about that. We don’t have legal standing.

And this paragraph below is clearly directed at LPP and not FFS. We really have to clarify the difference.:

Still I believe the best and most legal thing for now would be to find either an accredited charitable investor or try to raise venture capital as a startup until you get better results and funding becomes available for any king of further fundraising (IPO?).

We really need to clarify the difference between LPP and FFS. Per the paragraph avobe, as a charitable organization, we would be striving to BE the charitable investor – so that means our goal would be to raise $5million in assets, and a bit more for the actual research investment and our own operational expenses.

LPP has some investors for its shoestring level of operations. It would need more, with greater investment power, to raise the level of the game, (to move to a better level of research effectiveness, by, for example, getting a higher level of switches and a few more physicists and technicians on staff and more time to conduct the research).

And you’re right on with the below. This is something the guys are thinking about:

If you really need to release a product to make an IPO, then probably you should release one, even if it is just an excuse. For example you have build spark plugs yourself, while the market might not be big for this type of product, it is still a product

They do, indeed have some cool spark plugs in development : ) Murali won’t let me post pictures yet for this very “product” issue.

[Rezwan]

Yes, that would bring the aneutronic fusion/advanced fuels idea to the fore.

The coup would be to get Morgan Freeman to agree to do the narration.

[Rezwan]

I Sent the following to Oprah show via online form – and I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears (how irrelevant) – but with persistence, we may get through. Persistence, and perhaps some visuals – those posters mentioned in other posts. And perhaps I need to reframe this email and send it again. Suggestions?

And finally, if you know anyone connected with the show, that’s a better way of getting in. I’m sure millions of people use that online form. A personal connection is worth much more. Here’s my first pitch to Oprah:

Dear Oprah,

Would you like to be a force for the advancement of fusion energy? Fusion faces huge technical barriers. More importantly, it faces social and psychological barriers.

A frank national conversation hosted by you would go a long way toward shedding light on these barriers, and lead to a more constructive, creative, collaborative climate for fusion exploration.

Of all the energy sources in the world, nuclear fusion holds the greatest long term promise. Solving fusion would put an end to energy and environmental problems. It is also an awesome technological filter. Figuring out fusion will make us truly cosmic – bringing the stars down to earth.

The promise is great, but fusion is difficult. Decades passed, expectations were frustrated, fraudulent debacles occurred. Fusion is seen as “oversold,” a joke (always 20 years away). The fusion community is humbled. Most funding goes to a few conservatively selected approaches while many diverse, potentially faster routes to fusion are not adequately explored.

Some psychological issues are: expectation management, delayed gratification, and for the scientists, social validation. N. Taleb says of scientists:

“They need a capacity for continuously adjourned gratification to survive a steady diet of peer cruelty without becoming demoralized….Believe me, it is tough to deal with the social consequences of the appearance of continuous failure. We are social animals; hell is other people. – http://tinyurl.com/299jvww”

I’m the director of the Focus Fusion Society. We want to see people get involved in unlocking the secrets of fusion and supporting scientists in the trenches. We want to foster a pro-fusion culture.

Fusion needs your help to reframe the quest, to celebrate the journey, to make fusion energy happen. Fusion is a big problem, and you have a key role to play in bringing us closer to the solution.

I hope you consider this topic. Thank you!

[Rezwan]

Great idea, TC. Now to find the ears to whisper in. Also, it could help if we approach them with a compelling framework. We don’t want this to be another “will he win the nobel?” frame per sonofusion vid.

If they target just one fusion guy, that makes it seem like one guy has to do it. If they put it in context of the larger struggle of fusion, and the public perceptions thereof, it could becomes a more interesting story.

[Author]

Posts