[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: Brian, all of the tech goodies you asked about and more are all filed under the LPPX tab in the black nav bar across the FFS home page. That links to this sub-index page: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C30/

Thanks Aeronaut. Yes, that’s where they are. I haven’t changed those links.

Aaron, Eric if you want me to add any other links there, let me know. I have, for example, the powerpoint of the ICOPS presentation.

[Rezwan]

OK. Posted it. Here’s the link – this post on Gov 2.0.

[Rezwan]

I’d like to schedule our first meeting for Monday the 16th – a test run meeting, just to iron the bugs out. I’ve scheduled a podcast for 6 pm Eastern time. Note that 7-11 is prime time and we have to be premium members for that. Premium membership also gives us the ability to screen calls and a few other features. May be worth it.

It will be a members meeting. We’ll do it as a podcast so it’s transparent and can be archived. Anyone can listen, but we will restrict it to members to talk. After all, paid membership has its privileges.

Note that Derek mentioned something about another type of meeting technology (meetup?). We could use that instead, although I like the open “town hall” feel of podcasting the meeting, so this may be adequate to our purposes.

What do you think?

[Rezwan]

Patientman wrote: Also, consideration should be taken in staffing booths when funds become available and it is desirable.

I love that line! Yes, the funds will not become available if we don’t take an active role in procuring them. Staffing booths is even more expensive than just showing up and wandering around. Now you’re talking about the need for us to become a very solid nonprofit organization with a dedicated event staffing budget.

Fundraising is traditionally the job of a Board. Our board is nominal, more than anything. We need to develop a solid, effective board, and also see if we can foster a more active membership.

Very worthwhile. We need to take our mission seriously.

I’m working on the general plan and trying to come up with a budget number for such things as events. That’s an important part of the program – one of many.

Again, a podcasted meeting about mission, programs and budget is in order. Podcasted for transparency. We should be an open society. I shall set this up as another topic – scheduling a weekly Focus Fusion Society Members meeting podcast.

[Rezwan]

Great post, Patientman!

See also my post on the upcoming Gov 2.0 Summit.

As I note there, these events are great! But attending them will cost you. The Gov 2.0 event is in DC – the event itself is $995, not to mention transport and lodging. I will be sending the organizers an email about getting fusion innovation on the agenda and to try and get the fee waived. Failing that, I still think it’s a great idea to attend and get the Focus Fusion agenda out there in that environment, but it would require donations from our membership to be able to attend. Nobody shmoozes for free : )

Alas, attending these events costs money, but has great value as a source of networking. It may not appear to pay off immediately, but over time, connections are made and strengthened, and Focus Fusion can have a real presence and policy impact for fusion generally, and also create awareness about LPP.

This is the sort of thing that requires a budget, and that often is not funded by grants.

Many of you may attend these events on your own dime. If you do and promote Focus Fusion, let us know, because that is actually an “in kind donation” – you’ve taken the time and expense to do something for the cause of the organization you are a member of.

We could also start a fund for these events, some people pay so that others can attend. We need to build in a bit on the website to support this kind of thing so that people can attend conferences in their area and perhaps link in to HQ or to each other…upload feeds of what’s going on at the conference.

Also, I have yet to make the post I keep talking about with Membership and the bylaws. When you attend an event and talk about FFS, that’s great, but at the same time you do have a responsibility as a representative to be cool. How does the Sierra Club put it in their bylaws:

(a) No Club member, present or former leader, or member of the staff shall make
a statement or take a public position in the name of the Club that is contrary to, or
creates a misimpression of a policy or position established by the Board, the duly
authorized chapter, group, committee or other Club entity, or the Club
membership through referendum. When speaking or taking a public position on
their own behalf, or on the behalf of organizations other than the Club, members
shall avoid giving the impression that they are representing the Club and endeavor
to correct any misimpression in this regard.
Adopted 03/01-02/97; amended 11/14-15/98, 05/19-20/06, 02/24/07

Yes, as members take on these responsibilities, we do need to work out a bit of protocol. Just to let you know, I continue to wade through alternative bylaws in trying to generate a better draft of ours. OK, this requires a meeting with the members. It’s really a Board’s job to do that sort of thing. I’m just supposed to execute stuff : ) Separation of powers.

And also, the afore-mentioned board needs to establish official policies and positions.

We still need to develop our organization and website both to be better platforms for action and awareness so that when people engage with us, it’s clearer what they can do.

Before attending, we also need to figure out what we expect to get out of these events.

[Rezwan]

A side note, I would love to attend the above event, but it’s pricey. It’s in DC and the event itself is $995, not to mention transport and lodging. I will be sending the organizers an email about getting fusion innovation on the agenda and to try and get the fee waived. Failing that, I still think it’s a great idea to attend and get the Focus Fusion agenda out there in that environment, but it would require donations from our membership for us to be able to attend. And it’s probably a good idea to send more than one person. And lots of fliers.

Think about this and also Patientman’s post on attending energy fairs and conferences where I will discuss this issue further.

As for this thread, use it to discuss the issues to be raised at Gov 2.0.

Thanks!

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut, “multipliers” looks like an interesting read.

Breakable wrote: I think the government thinks it is easier to transfer wealth in large quantities, so instead of millions of transactions a few thousand each (supporting the entrepreneurs) it likes to do a few transactions in thousands of millions (support the banks) and the banks that receive this low interest government guaranteed loans just re-loan it at much-higher rates to stupid projects that they don’t care about pocketing the difference. So it is a very lucrative middle man position. I think in this age of technology we should have the means to eliminate it, but the question is how hard it is. My computer should explode any second now….

This is the “transaction cost” problem. Per Webster and Lai (“Property Rights, Planning and Markets”):

Order emerges in cities as individuals seek to avoid the costs of private transaction, or more generally, the costs of voluntarily co-operating over production and consumption activities (transaction costs). Transaction costs explain the patterns that arise in market-driven cities. In particular, they explain organizational order; institutional order; proprietary (ownership) order,; spatial order; and public domain order.

Also

Institutions emerge to reduce transaction costs and more generally, the costs of voluntary co-operation. Markets are institutions that reduce the costs of organizing a multitude of individual transactions. Government edicts, policy and regulations are institutions that reduce the costs of collective transactions.

And then;

Resource values, transaction cost, exclusion costs, institutions, property rights and public domain-private domain boundaries constantly shift within cities. They are all interrelated and spontaneously co-evolve. They do so with local interactions (for example, a plot of land changes use because a neighboring plot has changed use); and global interactinos (for example, government or an entire industry adapts its behavior and rules). Interactions happen in space and in time, thus making cities complex systems in which the outcome of any planned action is largely unpredictable.

Actually, I will pursue this theme in a new post on Gov 2.0.

[Rezwan]

Thanks!

We have a lot more video already shot that needs to be edited a bit. Although it’s easier to just reshoot it in smaller segments and consider those previous videos as rehearsals.

I have a cool one that I tried to upload a few times on Thursday but it kept crashing. It was longer than the others. Will try to convert it and upload it again on Monday. It shows the preparations for and sequence of firing a shot. Very illuminating.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: I personally don’t see the purpose of doing a lot of advocacy, which at best can have a long-term effect, prior to the demonstration that the technology actually works, and once that is demonstrated, I would think it would sell itself without the need for a lot of other promotion.

Just my two cents, of course.

Oh, I don’t know. It could sell itself, and it could also be crushed by nefarious forces of anticompetition. Eric has said quite often that he anticipates a fight for recognition even if it works. There will be skepticism and need for several rounds of verification. And there could be other attempts to suppress the technology. Broad based awareness of the process now, as it unfolds gives people a vested interest in what happens. Attracts allies.

And it has to be handled with thought because of the whole expectations/oversold/wishful factor of fusion research.

Better organization and awareness now will be important in the long run. Can’t hurt.

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: While I’m all for people participating however they choose, it seems to me that a simple announcement of breakeven from LPP will do far more for the issue than any amount of advertising and advocacy by FFS.

Yes, of course. If they could simply get to that breakeven already. If everything goes without a hitch from this moment forward.

But supposing more hitches arise? And supposing they run out of funding before breakeven? You can’t simply announce what you don’t have the resources to accomplish. Suppose the switch delays go from 8 months to…let’s take it a month at a time. Suppose the decaborane handling raises all kinds of new and interesting issues. There’s not a lot of precedent here. Supposing things stretch out…a bit. How much tolerance is there for complications? How much margin for error? How much committed support to due diligence of seeing the research through?

Supposing this isn’t all as “simple” as we’d like it to be?

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: What is the purpose of “advertising” at this point? It seems to me of questionable value to promote aneutronic fusion at this stage of the game, as I’m not clear what the “ask” is, what action you want people to take. I would think that what is needed far more is hard dollars invested in the research, but that isn’t going to come from the general public (and presumably is better handled by LPP than the FFS).

LPP is limited in personnel. They are all tied up doing the experiment. And they mostly appeal to investors who want ROI. They are under a lot of pressure.

What FFS can do is promote aneutronic fusion to policy makers and philanthropists, who are more interested in the pursuit of science and not as put off by the risk of sub-financial return. There’s a huge role for FFS. Unfortunately, we’re also hampered by lack of personnel. And the excellent work and desire to do things of our members and volunteers doesn’t get channeled constructively. There is a lot of energy out there that’s not being tapped because our organization isn’t what it could be.

What we really need is to get off the ground and turn into a credible, recognizable, effective nonprofit organization. This requires a well stated mission and plan, committed membership, and a strong board. The strong board is particularly important for fundraising and has crossover value for LPP. people who are likely to be on a board are also likely to, or know people who are likely to, be accredited investors. Relationships need to be forged. This takes time and the backing of a credible organization.

An appealing, high profile nonprofit can make something a better bet for policy makers.

In short, there are a lot of things a nonprofit can do that create a better investment climate for certain types of research. It’s the pressure and inspiration of numerous nonprofit green organizations that creates subsidies for renewable research, for example.

It’s a tried and true method. Chatting on these forums is fun, but doesn’t get the job done. We need to roll up our sleeves and do the official nonprofit dance. Many social media efforts out there get help and structure from an organized nonprofit. (See, again, “dosomething.org”)

We need an adequate, paid staff to carry something as ambitious as promoting aneutronic fusion out. And a board and dedicated membership to ensure that it’s funded. And, of course, a really good plan of action for fusion. I’m working on it! It will be ready for first round feedback soon. Really, there is so much FFS can do.

[Rezwan]

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t want to sell a dream to wishful thinkers. I want to appeal to the problem solvers, the curious, the people who like a challenge and who would like to cross the technological threshold/barrier/filter to a fusion future. I want people who are positive and optimistic, but nothing that even suggests “delusional”.

I would pitch it as mankind’s finest hour sort of thing. Overcoming this challenge with due diligence and a sense of fun and adventure. The gold on the other side of achievement – well is it really about the gold? That’s funny. It probably is. An investor is looking at this and thinking, “what is my ROI?” and trying to calculate kw/h prices.

Transforming civilization: priceless.

But that’s just me. You can craft different messages for different people.

[Rezwan]

vansig wrote: what are the winning messages? here’s what i’ve been using as teasers:

“winning” and “accurate” can be two different things. Fusion has historically suffered from being “oversold” and “fraudulent” and run by “wishful thinkers.” Whatever message we put out can’t fall into any of those traps. One day, the experiment may prove that all your statements are true, but that day is not today. Until it’s proven, check your wording.

1. the public is convinced that energy production must be massive, expensive, polluting, and dangerous. but it doesn’t have to be any of these.

True enough, although some of the public just want everyone to turn out the lights and live incredibly simple lives.

2. this approach to fusion was invented in 1963 and is still in the lead.

In the lead of what? I think what you’re trying to say is that the DPF, invented in 1963, routinely accomplishes fusion. The idea that it could actually achieve net energy from fusion has proponents, and is currently being tested. If the results of this test are positive, then we are in for a wonderful new world.

3. because only charged particles are produced, you can extract energy directly, at high efficiency

Try to qualify things a bit more. This statement refers to the use of advanced fuels. LPPX is in phase I right now. If phase I proves feasibility, then we will likely be able to figure out a way to extract the energy directly during phase II. And the amount of efficiency is TBD.

In other words, it’s not a done deal yet. This sentence makes it sound like it’s already done.

5. this thing generates the strongest magnetic fields ever produced, equaling those on a neutron star, without huge external magnets

Where’s this from?

6. the top three fusion research programmes are all funded, and racing toward break-even. it will happen sooner than you think.

Funding is always precarious, for all fusion programs. And LPPX could use more funding.

Try: it “could” happen sooner than you think. Or perhaps: it “could be made to happen” sooner than you think … “if funding was more reliable” (hit ’em in the wallet, this is no joke. Funding is not flowing).

And how much sooner? LPPX has pushed back their proof date because of switches and other contingencies, and if funding disappears for some reason, suddenly we’re still at stage x, and not at the end. So the end could remain a year away, unless acted on by experimental action and consistent funding.

In other words, as you know, the running joke is “Fusion is always 20 years away”, with LPPX the joke might become, “Fusion is always 1 year away”. Again, until proven, it is still on the horizon. And could remain there even while provable, if necessary, adequate resources are not brought to bear and all the stages of the experiment are not followed.

Wait, I see an opportunity here. With LPPX, “fusion is 1-20 years away” – LPPX changes the range of that elusive projection. This makes fusion as a whole a more interesting field to watch and might bring people off the benches. This is a reframing opportunity.

7. no, it’s hot fusion. it reaches temperatures in the billions of degrees, all in a tiny micron-size volume

8. it cant explode, it produces no radioactive waste, and the fuel itself isn’t radioactive, either.

Basically true! It may still .000x (?) neutrons. Which would get absorbed in the shielding, and is no more than background, really.

[Rezwan]

vansig wrote: Let’s not bother with that, and instead look to winning messages: those ways of thinking, and arguments that will make mainstream fusion researchers stop dismissing DPF as a side show

In my experience, there is an increase in awareness of mainstream fusion researchers regarding the DPF. Many are naturally skeptical, but most are interested to see how things work out. They don’t outright dismiss it. They say it’s plausible, wish there was more peer reviewed literature about it, commiserate with the funding shortages, overall supportive. But as scientists, they can’t upgrade it from “side show” until it proves itself. Many say they are following the progress, and when pressed about its chances of success, they say, “I don’t have enough information to evaluate that.”

That is a true statement, and so we must continue with the due diligence of getting the experiments done so that there will, indeed, be more information to evalutate these statements.

[Rezwan]

The thing is, we’re trying to send positive messages about fusion on this site, but people who visit it are faced with an abundance of postings by Brian. He posts more than anyone, and many of them are repellant, as repellant as he finds whoever it was he was alluding to.

Brian, it’s your style, not the content. I find a lot to annoy me about “greenies”, too, but would never try to talk to them the way you do. And can’t discuss the issues with you without your shrilly demanding that I think exactly like you or be crucified. You have a repellant way of pushing your ideas down everyone’s throats as if they are the god given truth. Only on the technical areas do you throw in a qualifying AFAIK or IMO. Otherwise, you shrilly assert things, and cut off options for dissent, equating dissent to your opinions with whatever. You really mirror those you criticize. I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.

So, just as with Brians own example about people not getting involved because they are repelled, people may not be getting involved with FFS because Brian seems to be its voice.

Henning, I hear your vote of confidence. A good point. He does have constructive remarks – although due to his certainty in expressing things that are in doubt, and his utter BELIEF in fusion working with no reserve of objectivity, I tend to wonder about any other information he has.

In any case, I think it would be good for the site to let other voices emerge (Brian’s had quite a bit of time to express himself, and it may be driving other people off)

We could confine Brian to the Technical posts about DPF where his comments are useful and just revoke his noise elsewhere.

The goal is to ensure the forums are an open, respectful, enjoyable environment for constructively networking about fusion. I honestly think a lot of Brian’s posts are detrimental to this. They create a hostile forum environment. If he wasn’t so prolific, we would let it pass. But he is relentlessly over-represented and it drowns out and intimidates other voices.

At this point in the forum posts, I feel like the judge who sentenced the guy to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza. But it was the third strike. You hit my last nerve, buddy. People aren’t being constructive because they’re repelled by greenies? Wow. Look in the mirror.

[Author]

Posts