[Rezwan]

tcg wrote: Perhaps we are trying to resonate with the wrong industry. Reporters of news must necessarily be concerned primarliy with results which can be whipped up into eye catching headlines. They have already been burned reporting on fusion “breakthroughs” and are understandably reserved. Perhaps we should be trying to catch the eye of an industry which is primarily concerned with story, with the drama of the struggle — the entertainment industry. I am not talking about Hollywood, more like PBS. Imagine being able to follow the Wright Brothers around for a year while they were developing the machine which eventually flew. No one had that chance. There might be some producers who would see documenting the work at LPP as an opportunity to be in front of the wave as it is breaking, to document history as it is happening. It would be a question of whispering into the right ear.

Absolutely. Great strategy – and we shall move it into its own post as a project. I’ve been gathering the names of people who make said documentaries, and have yet to pitch them (so much to do, so little time).

But remember, even these folks tend to spin the “results” frame, as seen in this sonofusion doc.

[Rezwan]

tcg wrote: From what I can see, LPP HAS done it yet. The FF-1 fairly routinely fuses duterium, something the high priced competition has a bit of trouble with yet. Of course, the goal is to fuse pB11 and generate useful amounts of electricity from it cheaply, but the mileposts along the way are significant and don’t seem to be heralded as they might.

The mileposts are interesting to scientists who find this stuff intrinsically fascinating. The general public and policy makers only want the results. Wait! I feel another post topic coming on.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
Oops, crossed postings!

I think you might (in the short term) need to smash the “results frame”.

Yes, that’s the goal. Smashing the results frame.

Point out to him that no multi-billion dollar research project anywhere in the world has yet reached unity, or even fused pB11.

The sad thing about “no multi-billion dollar research project has reached unity” underscores our larger credibility problem. The field of fusion itself suffers major incredulity. All of fusion is in the dog house and suffering the same results issue.

Saying we’re better than them doesn’t really win many points.

BUT – this gives all fusion projects some common ground – the media story for all of us is the same. The world is more interested in results than in truly supporting science and scientists and the work they are trying to accomplish. That’s the hidden story here. It’s an important message.

And, if we spearhead the campaign to change this frame in the media and with the public, we may get a lot of support from our other fusion competitors out there.

Tell him that staying tuned till the end of Sept. (per Aaron’s projection) will likely see pB11 fusion, with only a few months to go for possible unity — a much better prospect than anyone else.

He will, indeed, stay tuned, checking back in a while, or waiting for our announcement. He won’t, on the other hand, do anything constructive in the mean time. And if the date gets pushed back, the story, and the project, will just fade away. Again, this strategy relies on rapid results and has no room for delays and contingencies.

Assuming you want NYT’s attention and endorsement! In my personal opinion, it’s useful only secondarily: if it helps with funding.

I just raised them as an example. Any media source fits here. They all tend to take the “results” approach. They are all missing the real story of the fusion struggle.

My new tag line: “The world needs fusion, and fusion needs…the world” That would be the frame. If you want results, you need to take some action.

[Rezwan]

Your quantitative analysis (copied below), from the perspective of that worthy reporter, is speculation based on a yet-to-be-proven concept.

This puts it under the heading of “overselling” and reduces your credibility. Even if you’ve put a “might” of “if” earlier in the discussion of the science. All of your calculations rest on something that hasn’t happened yet, and you’re selling the results as if they are a done deal. The reporter will hang back and wait for more concrete results.

Put yourself in the reporters shoes. If it’s about results – he certainly doesn’t want to be caught prematurely selling some idea.

Our issue is, how do you keep interest in the story before you have the results? And how do you make results the icing of the cake? The heroic effort of scientists in the face of uncertainty is, a more inspiring story and, more to the point, the only one we can factually assert at this time, pending those pesky results.

Brian H wrote:
_____
Now, the economics.
A complete prefab generator and maintenance housing, about the size of a home garage, is expected to cost around $250,000 in mass production. This is about 1/20 the cost of best current plant construction costs for generating installations. ….

Imagine yourself as a government or investor with $XXX,000,000 to put down on new power generation capacity OR operation/upgrade of existing plant. Which are you going to put your money into: (1)technology which has suddenly been rendered obsolete by a 20+:1 cost disadvantage?

[Rezwan]

Yes, Kenneth is the reporter I talked to as well. I also talked about the results as you did. He’s looking for more impressive results. We can call him after a couple more orders of magnitude.

Do you see how this is still playing into the “results” frame?

The story is about getting results, selling a finished fusion research project, rather than about what humanity is doing to find answers for fusion – or how to better support and appreciate scientists who do this work.

That’s the distinction I want to make. Any ideas about how to do that?

The “results frame” puts the burden on a few people (the scientists who manage to scrape together sub-adequate funding) to produce results, while the rest of the world (fusion free riders) sit around yawning, waiting for them to have results.

My point is that part of FFS mission is to change that frame, and get everyone to take a more active role in getting fusion to happen by creating a pro-fusion culture and funding environment.

[Rezwan]

Board Size & Composition

From the same book:

Corporate boards tend to be small and efficient, with members selected for what they can contribute to the profit-making potential.

Boards of trustees of charitable organizations, on the other hand, are generally large in order to enlist the many skills a board needs, to reach a wide spectrum of the community, and to get widespread personal involvement in the fundraising effort.

With this in mind, where do we want to draw our board from? What kind of people do we want, what communities do we want to tap into?

We need people who are passionate about focus fusion, but can also reach for people interested in aneutronic fusion, and fusion in general.

We could have people who are passionate about the future – space, science, physics, the environment. We need to uncover different crossover interests.

[Rezwan]

Responsibilities of the nonprofit board:

The board of a nonprofit organization is responsible for governing the organization and ensuring that it succeeds in its mission.

That means seeing that the organization has the resources required to carry out the mission. E.g., the board is the key place for fundraising. Strong boards mean strong finances, weak boards mean weak finances.

Per “The Board Member’s Guide to Fund Raising, this responsibility is 3fold, fiduciary, programmatic and financial:

Fiduciary involves protecting the public interest. In this respect, the board must fulfill the legal requirements, such as incorporation and framing of bylaws; maintaining the integrity of the institution through audits and avoidance of conflicts of interest; select, pay, evaluate and if necessary dismiss the chief executive; and ensure its own leadership effectiveness by responsibly selecting members and officers and by establishing constructive board procedures.

Programmatic means to satisfy the needs and expectations of the constituent community in fulfilling its mission. That is, the board must define the organization’s mission and purposes; what it is to do and (often neglected) what it is not to do; see to the plans – for the short and long run – and the setting of priorities; approve policies and major commitments through involvement in the budget process; and ensure periodic evaluation of program performance.

Financial means to assure the viability of the organization. Here, the board must see that adequate funding resources are obtained to sustain the organization and its program and oversee the financial operations through appropriate budgetary, investment, and accounting procedures.

Faith, hope and charity – the greatest of these is charity:

Board members may take particular interest in, and make their greatest contribution to, one or another of these responsibilities. But every member must recognize all of them and realize that fund raising is often the most vital and inescapable. The buck starts and stops with the board. Members must be fully involved.

[Rezwan]

Before we advertise for a board, it might be a good idea to develop our criteria for a board member.

And also keep in mind that this is the board for FFS. LPP would also be well advised to develop a stronger board – and it seems like you’re drawn in that direction, Aeronaut. Just keep in mind a board for a for profit company and a nonprofit are different.

This raises issues about LPP – because LPP would rather be a nonprofit and develop and give fusion away. Unfortunately, it was unable to raise money as a nonprofit, and has gone the for-profit route:

Nonprofit organizations exist for public service; they live by donations and they answer to the general public they serve. Companies, on the other hand, are in business to make money; they live by sales and profits; they answer to their stockholders.

Budgets of nonprofit organizations are designed to assure satisfactory services and to keep institutions alive; budgets for companies assure profits.

corporations have boards of directors who are paid handsomely for their efforts; nonprofit organizations have boards of trustees who are unpaid volunteers.

It would be great if FFS grew big enough to underwrite the research entirely. We tried this before and it didn’t work, but we didn’t have a strong board then. We were going off member donations, and those were less than $5000 a year, which pays for a week or two of research. What happened instead is that investors came on board, a very interesting class of investor, because they are to some extent philanthropic pioneers interested in the bigger picture and not just a possible profit. LPP then made a charitable donation to support FFS continued work – so it does feel a bit too much like the marketing department of LPP. And for legal reasons, it really can’t be. It must be a broader organization with a nonprofit goal.

All this leads back to the need for an effective, world class board.

[Rezwan]

I love the thunderbolts site, but at the same time, they get a bit weird with the idea that the planets were flying around in a very different way a few thousand years ago and this led to all the mythological imagery that we have today. What’s up with the need to explain myths? I think it tarnishes their credibility.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: Why promote/describe/sell aneutronic fusion, rather than Focus Fusion (or DPF) specifically? Why confuse folks with more details, especially if those aren’t directly relevant?

Credibility, differentiation, context.

Fusion doesn’t have a good reputation to begin with. But people who think about it, assume that the government and scientists must have done their due diligence and are working on what they need to be working on. The concept of aneutronic fusion isn’t even on the radar.

To come out of the blue and talk about focus fusion and the DPF and that it’s aneutronic is bewildering and raises a ton of questions. Whoever I talk to needs a full half our of explanation, and then they ask the same questions again an hour later, and a day later. It will take a lot of repetition and clarification to get the idea across.

If the goal is to promote FF,

Is that the goal? That would make us the marketing department of LPP, and not an independent nonprofit organization with a broader pro-fusion mission. What if FF doesn’t work? Does the Focus Fusion Society close shop? This is a strategy question – I am in the process of setting up a new forum to discuss this.

FFS is a unique nonprofit organization that seeks clean, cheap energy from nuclear fusion whatever form that ultimately takes. We are currently following the LPP experiment because it’s the most elegant concept imaginable. Also, it’s our namesake, it’s how we got started. And we’re hoping this is the winner.

However, it is not a proven concept, so we need to keep that in mind, and build a broader coalition that takes a clear-eyed approach to the pursuit of fusion. In a way, we need to model appropriate fusion-questing behavior. One of the historical problems with fusion is that people have fallen into the trap of wishful thinking and it has hurt fusion overall. If we put our support of LPP in context of a broader strategy for fusion, and emphasize our rational approach to it, we increase credibility and interest.

frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

That’s deceptive. Also, that will come up when people try to discredit the movement, it will look like we’ve been trying to cover something up.

The points you make in the rest of the paragraph are precisely those we want to educate people about – so they get how important this is in the nuclear context. Not all fusion is the same. And fusion isn’t fission. This should be common knowledge for everyone.

Anyway, don’t underestimate the public. It’s not their flaw here, it’s our flawed ways of communicating these ideas that we need to question. (Don’t blame the listener – look at how you’re conveying your message).

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: You have to remember that I sold, designed, and painted signs for 14 years, Rezwan. I had at most 3 seconds- usually 1 to 2 seconds for a driver to see, read, and decide to respond to a sign. The standard format was 6 words on 3 lines. The owner filled in the details and closed sales either in person or over the phone. What is our Unique Value Proposition in 6 words or less?

I see the poster’s environment as a room full of people mingling amidst a smorgasbord of ideas hoping to be the best. Therefore our poster must stand out from the same-o visual competition from across the room as people walk past it.

I wish aneutronic fusion was a quickly grasped idea. Unfortunately, it stumbles on a lot of cognitive barriers. Our poster needs to be a deeper think piece. We have a bit of work ahead of us for this concept – it’s a bit layered and technically sophisticated. I don’t think 6 words is adequate.

Also, it’s designed to be discussed and to tell a whole story. Something like this. Compares two complex ideas in a short, easily grasped space, and holds your attention.

I see the poster’s environment as virally being replicated throughout cyberspace. And also, as a thing you hand people and talk to them about it, and each question they have (and they have many as they start getting into the subject) you can refer back to the poster. Yes, we’ve covered that point.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: Rezwan, who is the audience for these posters? It may be pessimistic of me, but I don’t believe the general public has enough background knowledge to grasp the issues at hand in the space of a poster (or, quite frankly, the interest). Is this material intended for a more specific audience, like potential investors or regulators?

That’s the point of the poster: to give the general public the basic framework to grasp the issues. And also to engage their interest.

And potential investors and regulators are likewise not aware of these concepts. It’s a general awareness tool.

We probably need more than one approach/poster, since different messages work for different people.

We already have the very simplest message – in the handy nuclear peace design. This poster with several panels is intended to get the whole story – as simple as possible.

[Rezwan]

Several concepts in one, but I despair because this is over-simplifying things. And the more you think about it, the more concepts you seem to need to add. Let’s try to come up with the bullet points first, then figure out the simplest illustration. We want to crystallize these interrelated issues into one easy poster.

1) Fusion Fission: Need to mention that fusion is not fission – fission breaks things apart, has a bunch of neutrons and risks a chain reaction. That’s “The bad”. Grandpa’s Fusion (mainstream) is “the good.” And aneutronic is “the best.” (well, we can’t call it ugly).

2) Differentiating fusion – there are many ways to fuse nuclei. To simplify, 2 main approaches
a) with neutrons means you are going for heat production – good, but still a bit radioactive. the holy grail.
b) without means you can go for electricity directly – and not radioactive. The holiest grail.

3) Nuclear is not evil if it’s aneutronic. Drive home the “Truly clean nuclear energy” here. N-word attack. The peace sign is the best approach here. But this will stumble on disbelief. We need a separate poster to really reassure people it’s not useful in nuclear weaponry.

4) aneutronic means not having to use a steam engine anymore – truly futuristic (all energy ideas so far are antiquated in comparison).

5) Aneutronic needs much greater energy to pull off, so people have historically shied away from it. Except today when there are several aneutronic experiments going forward (the coolest being LPPX, of course) (Show images of a few machines?)

5a) Yes, it’s difficult. Perhaps impossible. But what does it say about our character that we don’t try to solve it? (a dig to character is important. This poster isn’t just about aneutronic fusion – some vague science concept, it’s a mirror into the soul of the person looking at the poster. Will they fuse with the problem and release a greater energy? Or will they walk away untouched?)

6) These experiments need your support. Get involved.

[Rezwan]

jamesr wrote: I’ve had a quick skim through the list of devices given, most are little more than historical curiosities now, on the road of how magnetic, and inertial confinement machines have developed over the years.

Here’s where the “evolution” poster could draw from.

The more up to date stuff is here – http://www.iccworkshops.org/icc2010/ – are these contained in the JFE article?

[Rezwan]

What’s up with the badinage (cussing), and why is this under social marketing?

It should be under “contenders” or “weird science.” I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and put it under contenders for now.

[Author]

Posts