[Rezwan]

In any case, whatever the jargon, “by the ballot or the bullet, by the bible or the gun,” this endeavor needs more than patience. It needs steady, committed cash flow. Less overselling. More underselling and over-funding. A nice thick margin of error. Logistics. Supply line. Tommy Lee Jones coordinating an investor hunt.

[Rezwan]

Hilarious. I didn’t know “white knight” was business jargon. I thought it was a metaphor. And “angel” as well, I see.

From a metaphoric perspective, “white knight” is better – it’s down to earth, some person with skills and pure intentions. “Angel” on the other hand, connotes that we need a miracle and gets into the realm of the supernatural.

Odd business terms.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
Well, the approximate timeline we’ve been hearing about is around New Year’s for “scientific break even”. Is a w.h. needed before then? I’m unaware of any suggestion that’s true.

Is this the timeline you’re referring to?

It’s got disclaimers in it. And suggestions of delays. The earlier timeline has dates on it, but is accompanied by the text, “If we can continue at the rate of progress of the spring, we should reach our goal by year-end.” If. Should. The rate in Spring was faster because the machine didn’t need to be as fine tuned. For the advanced stuff, the switch problems are a serious drag.

Perhaps we need to make the disclaimers stronger to get people to pay attention to resource issues.

I’m just not very good at talking about money or delays. Some people are great at this, and can walk into a meeting with Vulcan and get their boys 90 million dollars on dubious theoretical grounds. And the ITER guys are great at walking in and getting 400 million, or is it billions now – on dubious theoretical grounds while happily pushing back the deadline.

And here we are apologizing for not pulling off advanced fuel fusion on a shoestring budget within a strict time frame.

We need to shift gears here.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
Well, the approximate timeline we’ve been hearing about is around New Year’s for “scientific break even”. Is a w.h. needed before then? I’m unaware of any suggestion that’s true.

You’re unaware of any delays and slowdowns? Interesting perception you have.

True, that’s the timeline, but the timeline comes with disclaimers – it’s a best case approximation. Haven’t you also been hearing about switch delays? And other assorted bits of friction and slow downs? And calls for patience? How many switch delays do you have to hear about before you think – hey maybe these guys are under-resourced and this’ll take more time?

Yes, it is possible that the current refurbishment of switches will fix the problem and the guys can keep to the timeline. We’ll know that in a couple of weeks.

But it’s also possible that yet more refurbishment is required, or that that will be fine, but then after that other issues will come up – stretching out the experiment phase. What happens if funding runs out before the bugs are worked out and they’ve gone through all the paces of the experiment? Game over? Project abandoned? Another mothballed fusion project? Mind the gap!

I would start lining up the white knights – people with resources and patience who feel this project would move more effectively if it was better resourced. People with a deep level of commitment. And lots of them.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
No, it’s your ‘hidden assumption’ that FF needs a white knight, ……

Once unity is demonstrated and the basic design looks plausible, any number of firms will NECESSARILY be eager to move the ball down the field as fast as possible.

It’s your assumption LPP doesn’t need a knight. There’s a gap between now and “once unity is demonstrated.”

That would be where we need to insert the knight. Know any?

[Rezwan]

Can anyone draw up a schematic design of this? It’s easier to keep track with pictures.

[Rezwan]

JShell wrote: 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-

Aeronaut has been taking this approach, but I’m uncomfortable with it. One thing at a time. Proof of concept first. Should Phase I proof-of-concept deliver a verdict of feasibility, there will be plenty of time in phase II (developing a working reactor prototype) to come up with licensing models.

[Rezwan]

Not at all. Glad it’s working for you.

[Rezwan]

Thanks for bringing up this topic, Derek.

Our organization is idealistic in its emphasis on openness. This is good, but I’m not sure it’s practical.

A “pros and cons” chart would be good here.

OPENNESS
Pros: 1) awareness among the public – leading to eventual public support and then better public policy – a pro-aneutronic fusion climate;
2) awareness among investors – it informs and attracts investors who might not have been aware before.;
3) awareness among other knowledge people (“open source science”). Open-source boosts come from
a) awareness of other scientists and technicians about this project so they can add their knowledge to the effort;
b) awareness among people who wouldn’t have thought of it, but have something to offer (e.g., “I don’t know fusion, but I do know switches”);
c) information support boosts – if we figure out how to improve the websites, turning them into a platform for scientific exchange. A thoughtful investment in information support could speed up the development of the science. Get the collective brain thinking about these ideas.
4) there’s always the fear based reason – keeping an idea in the open keeps it alive in the event that someone tries to bury it.
5) Inspiration – if the project works, it will be a thrilling tale the human spirit. And if it this particular approach to fusion doesn’t work out, and we handle it well, it will still inspire people to boldly go forth and find other things that do. We can set a great example of how to handle these complex, uncertain and bold knowledge seeking ventures.

Cons: 1) it makes it hard to control expectations – people churn or amplify every up and down tick on the progress charts or start selling shares in something before it’s proven – it turns into a free for all, and quite literally free.
2) Appearance of “overselling” – fusion has long suffered from being “oversold and underfunded” – and an open website approach doesn’t make things easier. If you start off publicly, with a cool idea in our infosecond world, people expect immediate results as if they’re watching a movie. A closed approach would take the pressure off. We need a conversation about this – how not to oversell, while not scaring off investors.
3) Scaring investors – most folks on the website are just checking things out for entertainment but not offering real material support. Since investors are the only ones materially supporting the research – it should be their decision. But openness can scare off investors, leaving the project even more vulnerable. Investors like control, clearer ownership mechanisms.

STEALTH MODE
Pros: Doing things behind closed doors has a long and glorious tradition. Some of the reasons are bad, but the good reasons are, if you want to incubate an idea, it’s best to let it go through its ups and downs, fits and starts, in private. People like to look good, so they just don’t want you looking while they sort through the ugly times. If you saw them at the ugly times, it would spoil the mood, so to speak. You don’t go on dates looking like a slob. Everyone wants people to love them for themselves – but they all hedge the opening gambits.

Ownership…a sense of ownership and control is a lot easier to organize around.

Etc.

[Rezwan]

Also, just tested it. Maybe you need to refresh?

[Rezwan]

What browser/OS are you using?

[Rezwan]

Allan Brewer wrote: Whilst the current experimental setup definitely needs switches, might it be possible for the final production version to run without switches i.e. continuously and contiguously cycling, so that as one plasmoid detaches, a new discharge starts the axial phase of the following plasmoid??

What a cool visual.

[Rezwan]

That’s fascinating! This will go a long way toward miniaturization of a dpf. And it also shows that research into renewable energy and electric vehicles has synergy with fusion research.

[Rezwan]

Breakable wrote: Ok, I subscribed to the FFS membership, because I saw the cost was pretty low (I think it was much higher before). I hope this will help with funding a little.
I would donate, but i am pretty poor and need to take care of a lot of people in my extended family and soon I will have my own 3’rd kid – so I am looking more for investment opportunities, than just donations.

Thanks! And Congratulations on Kid 3.0!

I hear you on the investment thing. There needs to be a sea change in micro-investing for us little guys. That would take a whole lot of lobbying and law changes.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: I like the fusion fund and bond ideas- much like savings bonds, iiuc.

I’d like to propose a strategy of investing in risk/reward based scenarios, where aneutronic outranks D-T on just about any data point. Drilling down within the aneutronic community, FF is again the logical first to fund choice since its the cheapest, most transparent, most accountable, and the only known full scale proof of concept model operating. In short, I recommend leveraging our transparency and results to the hilt. When scaled through university research programs, the savings of cloning FF-1 could easily become billions per year. The academic recruiting and training payoffs of LPP’s success would also scale accordingly.

The rest of the aneutronic community can be pitched as magnet and cryogenic research with direct payoffs in MRIs and large-scale powerplants which don’t use or make radioactive fuels and materials. I know the polywell forum has a verry lonnng thread keeping track of Freedom of Information Act requests and useful information. A transparency-based presentation format could do much to overcome this secrecy.

But you can’t pitch it like that UNTIL it’s successful. It’s a proof of concept, so until the proof comes through you can’t sell clones and payoffs and such. That’ll bring the SEC knocking on your door.

I was thinking the SEC would make an exception for fusion microfinanciers precisely because conventional wisdom holds it to be so unlikely. The big boys wouldn’t mind people “throwing their money away” on something so in the future. This would get it through the radar. All portals for investment would have massive disclaimers all over it about how unlikely the payoff is and how long term it is. The people who would invest in something like that would be people who want to go down in history as having played a part, however small when mankind was working on fusion. They’re the people who want to see the job done, think it’s worth a bit of their disposable income, are OK losing that money, but do hope that in the long run, something good will come out of the pool, and their kids or grandkids might get the dividend.

Think long term, think duty and diligence, but don’t go into it with quick gain as the main motive.

If LPP, in the fusion pool, turns out to be quickly successful and throws conventional wisdom on its ear – participants would get a return that much sooner. It’s nice to have that as a possibility, but best not to play it up. Because then it looks like a promise, and we can’t promise anything. Nor should we. That kind of behavior will, again, bring the SEC down on you because you’re persuading people by appealing to their wishful tendencies.

It’s always better to under promise and over deliver.

And if the fusion fund and market is handled right, other things may come out of the work in the short term to provide funds for the long term. I mean the scientists, better networked, might come up with all kinds of interesting ancillary products and applications on the road to fusion. This could make the funds sustainable, and not such a money pit.

[Author]

Posts