[Rezwan]

Is there any reason not to put it in the technology section under Plasma Focus? I’ve renamed it DPF-Plasma Focus, if that makes it any better. And moving it now.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: Actually, I think the “post-green” meme is a very positive contribution! There’s a large constituency who want to be constructive but are repelled by the Green Noise.

There is nothing to prevent someone from being constructive if they want. “I was repelled by Green Noise” is a flimsy excuse. And it’s destructive because it says that some people will only be constructive once the thing they find repellant disappears.

In this manner, they give themselves permission to be repellant.

Then again, you have an interesting point.

Applying this to the present case, I think a large constituency would be more constructive on this site were it not for your many repellant remarks and put downs. It would thus be a good idea to ban you, which requires that I click one button, and then check off whether I just want to suspend you and keep all your previous remarks, or delete them all.

I’m not sure it’s the most constructive thing to do. It would certainly clear up the “Brian Noise” on this site and help us produce a clearer, more constructive Focus Fusion signal.

Consider yourself warned.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: So co-opting one or more sub-sets of the Greenies may be useful in the short term, but fails as a primary strategy or goal. IMO.

No one said anything about coopting greenies, or that this was a primary goal. Only that these folks are well organized and we are not.

If you don’t have anything constructive to say, please refrain from posting.

[Rezwan]

Patientman wrote:
And, the mission of Focus Fusion maybe stated in a much different light. We are not directly conducting the research and development and therefore, limited in that outcome.

The Focus Fusion Society, as I see it, is dedicated to a final outcome of cheap, clean, safe, abundant energy with aneutronic fusion. That puts it in an interesting position relative to LPP.

LPP is one approach to aneutronic fusion. It is the one with the most promise, with the best concept. It is not, however, guaranteed to succeed. This is a proof of concept experiment, which means by definition, the concept is unproven.

The Focus Fusion Society thus fully supports LPP through networking, documentation, building awareness, and reframing the fusion issue for the public and policy makers. It also has to manage expectations. In the event it takes LPP longer than expected to produce results, or in the event that it doesn’t (but at least inspires other aneutronic approaches out there), people have a way of turning nasty on those who’ve made public attempts at fusion. This is where fusion gets its “oversold” rap and turns people off. We don’t want people turned off because of setbacks or failures. No matter what the outcome, the quest for aneutronic fusion must continue.

I would say in this light, our goal is to stress the due diligence, discipline and duty required in pursuing fusion. In this light, we are objective, unemotional scientists and science lovers. At this phase, LPP’s job is not “to make fusion happen”, but “to duly carry out their experiment to show whether fusion is feasible under these conditions or not.”

I’m almost done with the basic structure of FFS’ general fusion plan. It’s got 3 basic plans within it. Plan A is the LPPX plan – making sure we’ve done due diligence with the LPP experiment. If the outcome of LPPX phase 1 is proof of feasibility – hurray! We’re on to phase II and switch to “Plan AF” – “after fusion”. This plan kicks off with “celebrate achievement!” and then “convince world and fearmongers fusion isn’t a bad thing and try not to get killed by oil interests etc.” And many other things.

If, however, the result of phase I is no go, or need more work, or we need to try something more advanced to boost the possibility – then we are at “Plan BF” – “Before Fusion”. Again, we stress due diligence, with LPP and with other fusion contenders.

For purposes of planning, a lot of reframing the issue, policy support, economic support issues and the like are the same for LPPX and other fusion contenders, so it’s a good idea to work together now to build a broader fusion coalition.

I’m touched by the faith a lot of people have on this site that the LPP experiments are simply pro forma. It’s not the preferred “objective scientist” approach, but enthusiasm is always nice. Then again, I’m concerned this attitutde creates unsupportive conditions for the scientists, both at present, and if things stretch out. I also find it trivializes the potential accomplishment. I get a sense from people posting on the website that they’re saying “What’s taking you so long” rather than, “Goodness! That sounds incredibly difficult, if not impossible! How can we better support you?”

To sum up – I think FFS needs to take a comprehensive approach, a broad perspective so that it can both support and be a safety net for the people involved in the work of fusion – and to keep the quest going until fusion is achieved. And then we switch our operations to making sure everyone has access to the energy.

LPP needs money. FFS needs money. (Send some to FFS now! It’s tax deductible! Oh, that’s another thing FFS will try to do once we become a world class nonprofit – lobby for exemptions to the SEC investor laws so that people can send money directly to LPP and be investors. Micro/longtail investing. Gov. 2.0. Of course, there’s the uncertainty thing again. LPP could succeed right away and there will be no need to change investment laws for it – although on principle, I think those laws should be changed.)

It’s a lot to think about and do, and to really make it work, we need to go to the next level as a nonprofit organization. You nail it here:

Patientman wrote: I only wish to help the focus of this non-profit business in raising more funds and rise above the “Green” noise which keeps the FFS story buried.

Those green organizations are incredibly well organized. And there are so many of them. Lots of $, very well connected.

Patientman wrote: It is up to Rezwan and the board to determine the mission statement.

The board. We need to develop one. Our organization is totally anemic without it. Right now the board consists of 3 people with very little board experience. FFS is a membership organization. Changing the bylaws to allow for a more effective board has been on my to do list for ages. Of course, the board should really be doing that, not me.

As to mission statements, From “The Board Member’s Guide to Fund Raising” by Fisher Howe:

A structured strategic or long-range planning exercise is often the best approach to the preparation of a mission statement. The mission statement will be what comes out of a planning exercise, not what goes into it; it will be the core understanding around which can be built a clear, unambiguous articulation of purposes, programs, and priorities – clearly of great value to board and management. It also affords a firm basis for arriving at an estimate of the resources needed to support the organization on which a fundraising program depends.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: Has the timeline been set back a couple of months?

Yes.

Plus I thought we made it clear the dates were put in to set up a grid. It’s about the stages. Progress is not measured in time, but in action. And action hinges on factors.

[Rezwan]

Wakarimashita!

Anyway, back to the movie. Great production values. Although I don’t know why schools of the future have no budget for chairs. I can’t imagine standing through long lectures. Maybe they could give lectures while students do tai chi. A mind-body connection thing.

The ending of the movie is wide open. He tells the students to finish the story. That ending could be the massive ITER being trumped by a tiny DPF; or any number of other ways to innovate to smaller, more elegant advanced fuels reactors.

I love how clearly this presents ITER, but they need to talk about advanced fuels beyond the ITER horizon.

I posted this movie on the website proper.

[Rezwan]

Here’s a tortoise checking out our website.

Also, FYI, I posted this story idea on hitrecord.org – that seems to be a superb collaboration space. At some point we will have the $ to configure our website for similar collaboration, ’til then, that might be a good site to play around in.

Attached files

[Rezwan]

Also, note new decaborane handling posts and links.

Website posts:
Decaborane handling issues

Decaborane and the vacuum system

Forum posts:
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/585/
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/584/

[Rezwan]

jamesr wrote:
Separating Boron into B-10 & B-11 is done on an industrial scale already for conventional nuclear plants. I’m not sure what the cost is but it shouldn’t be significant in the whole scheme of things.

Do you have any links on this? The process, cost and safety concerns?

[Rezwan]

I don’t know how vested their interest in fusion is – if they succeed, they erode their excuse to pursue fission. If they are pursuing fission because they really want arms, the fusion project is a conflict of interest. It may succumb to internal conflicts. Iranian nuclear scientists do tend to be “accident prone.”

I have to confess that when I was in Iran, I proposed the DPF to the folks at the university there, and wrote something up about it. I pitched a “fusion prize” that they should fund, like the Xprize.

Policy Proposal:

For the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to establish a new Global science and technology prize:
The IRI Alternative Fusion Challenge

IRI = Islamic Republic of Iran.

Eric, if you recall, I cc’d you on the proposal. This was back in Sept. 2007. The professor I gave it to (because he had connections in the energy ministry) said he handed it along to his connections.

I’d like to think that this had some influence on the process, because that would mean they have some far sighted people there. In the proposal I said:

Arguments supporting the proposal
Political Benefits
• Announcing the Fusion Prize will show Iran to be a truly visionary nation that is taking a leadership role in pursuing energy alternatives for the good of all mankind.
• It lends credibility to Iran’s “we need more energy” argument.
• It shows that Iran is more progressive in its pursuit of nuclear alternatives than western nations.
• It creates a compelling condition that western nations need to meet before criticizing Iran’s fission program – they have to materially address the concept of nuclear fusion alternatives. Currently, their spending on such alternatives is infinitesimal compared to any other energy alternatives. Most officials aren’t even familiar with the concepts.

Scientific Benefits:
• Ideally, this challenge will kick off an “alternative fusion race.”
• It may result in the development of a commercially viable nuclear fusion reactor.
• At the least, it will draw attention to fusion alternatives, raising expectations and improving the investment climate for research.
• Even if a viable reactor is not feasible, advancements in science will be made.
• This prize addresses the “brain drain” factor, both internally and externally.
– Internally: Researchers in Iran will be directly encouraged.
– Externally: Iran will stimulate and leverage brainpower worldwide.

Social, Economic, Environmental Benefits
• If a winner for the challenge is found, the world will enter a golden age of fusion.

Arguments opposing the proposal
• Administration cost and complexity, and funding the prize money. In the event a winner is found, $25 Million is owed. There are ways to fund this prize which may end up costing considerably less.
• Furnishing the prize doesn’t give Iran any intellectual property rights in the inventions. For that, Iran needs to directly fund specific research projects in advance.
• The Downside of Success – The world may enter a golden age of fusion. This is great news! Except it requires a complex transition phase that needs to be managed. It also means nuclear fission will be phased out worldwide.

Of course, back then, I didn’t realize Iran had DPFs. But after giving him the proposal, the prof said to me:

Salam
I had a discussion on same item with some of my colleques in dept.
It seems that some research is in progress in some of these fields in iran so we should clarify exactly the technical scop of prize first.
it will take some time from me to finalize it.
Unfortunately, I am goin to Mecca (Haj tamato ) next month
So I am not sure till wich level I can push the subject. But be sure that I will do my Best (inshalla !!
yours

When he came back he said no go on the proposal. And there that rested.

Afterwards, I spoke to a few Iranians researching the DPF. They weren’t using it for fusion at the time. But they have been following our project. And now…

Looks like they skipped past the whole “prize” idea and went straight to “directly funding specific research projects.” Mashallah!

Again, don’t know if my “fusion prize” proposal had anything to do with this current pursuit, but I’d love to rub my hands together in nefarious glee at the thought that FFS/LPP had some influence in kicking off a fusion race. Very handy thing to kick off. Nothing like a nemesis to engage that fabulous competitive drive.

Bonus: It opens up some interesting transformative possibilities. Political fusion as well as particle fusion. Light instead of fire. Other ways of being. Alternative outcomes.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: Interesting word for confinement. Sounds like ministry of information copy rather than ministry of science writing.

Well, “mahsur” is an all purpose word. That’s the primary translation. Beseige seems apt for laser ignition fusion. “surround (a place) with armed forces in order to capture it or force its surrender;” That’s what the lasers are doing.

“confinement” isn’t so great. Synonyms include “imprisonment, internment, incarceration, custody, captivity, detention, restraint; house arrest.”

By the way, one of my favorite Bible verses is: Deuteronomy 20:19

Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?

Earth Firsters should have this verse somewhere in their slogans. PEOPLE are for beseiging. Not trees. The Lord knows how to ask a rhetorical question! If you answer “yes”, that grants trees and people equal status, and if you answer “no”, those trees get protected status. Amen.

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: But much as I would love to reach a full consensus, I’m not fool enough to believe that I will ever see one, or that in practice it’s really a good thing.

Oh, I don’t like the idea of consensus either. To some extent, the word gives me the heebie jeebies. I guess that’s what Brian has about other words. Although he seems to go from heebie jeebies into full anaphylactic (sp?) shock.

Striving for consensus is what we suffer in Iran under theocracy. I am happy with disagreement. Hence my humoring of Brian for longer than most.

For some reason Brian conflates consensus with cooperation. And I don’t think he understands spontaneous organization. After all my eloquence here, I suspect it won’t happen any time soon.

If you want to make sense, like you often did last year, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, I move that we cap this thread.

Good call, Aeronaut. Duly capped.

Last words:

Food for thought:
“Wikinomics, how mass collaboration changes everything”;
“Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations”.

Something to be more afraid of, threats to internet as collaborative tool, see:

“The future of the Internet” – Jonathan Zittrain

Brian: The world has moved on from the cold war days you’re stuck in. Collaboration isn’t the dirty word you think it is. It’s just a very ordinary and voluntary mechanism.

Once you add force, it ceases to be “collaboration” or “cooperation” or, indeed, “spontaneous” by definition and becomes “coercion”. I thought that was self evident, but apparently it needs a hundred years to explain.

And about Iraqi death toll, if America were invading Canada and some Canadians chose to resist by blowing things up and killing other Canadians in the process, your accounting would be different. You wouldn’t be able to get over the initial cause – the American invasion. But go ahead, find ways to discount those deaths and move them over to another column. It will take quite a bit of truth and reconciliation to work it all out, and your biases are already clear. It goes back to the initial political cartoon that kicked off this thread. You downplay the deaths of people in this conflict, and scream bloody murder about having to make any substitutions in the energy sector. Great values.

Also, feel free to start another website to compete with this one, and go rant there. I trust most people are OK cooperating and collaborating here, but if that’s a fearsome burden for you, you can leave. Any time. Don’t feel trapped. You have free will. This is just one of many competing websites. Many more out there for weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: People will co-operate when they actually believe that supporting other(s)’ goal(s) is also the best way to achieve their own.

…

Calling Americans primarily self-interested and greedy is not only inaccurate, it is the most outrageous falsehood, 180° opposed to the facts.

Isn’t “cooperating when you believe supporting others goals is the best way to achieve your own” the same as acting out of self-interest?

And yet, you’re saying Americans are not acting out of their self interest? Were they coerced? So, should we NOT act out of self-interest? You’re confusing me.

I’m sure you will shrilly assert that something is implicit here, but I’m just not sure what.

So, what are Americans primarily? I like to think of us as a cantankerous collection of misfit immigrants who have developed a fabulous way of coordinating their collaboration through a great set of laws and due process and rewards for individual achievement, but who unfortunately have a double standard and tend to support despots overseas, falling short of their own ideals.

Also, did anyone say self interest was a bad thing? That’s what “assertion” as a social skill is about. People need to be able to assert their own interests. It’s extra work for me to try to anticipate what your needs are, much easier for you to assert them. The more people develop that skill, the more the world will reflect the proper allocation of resources. Again, that’s what the whole invisible hand of the market is about. It depends on people being able to assert their self interests.

I’m all about figuring out what people’s “true preference” is. Can’t do that if they aren’t expressing it.

And finally, “altruism” is also a form of self-interest, in which the self now identifies with the whole. Not for everyone. Takes a certain type of person to pull that off.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
Attempting to enforce maximized co-operation is merely to reward manipulators. People will co-operate when they actually believe that supporting other(s)’ goal(s) is also the best way to achieve their own. Demanding altruism is merely sanctimonious twaddle.

Highly manipulative phrasing. Would you like your reward in redeemable credit card points?

No one is demanding altruism. Someone suggested that it was the ideal social skill. Plus, demanding altruism is a paradox. The whole point of altruism is that it’s voluntary.

If you read what I wrote, you’ll recall I held up assertion and problem-solving as ideal social skills.

I don’t see how “assertion” and “problem-solving” become an attempt to enforce maximized co-operation. Rather, they will lead to the natural cooperation you describe above – because each person is standing up for themselves, and they are also systematically addressing individual and joint problems in a constructive – dare I say, collaborative – way.

As I pointed out, in the iterative, evolving process of living on this planet, collaboration tends to spontaneously dominate. The ol’ invisible hand.

You’re the one who keeps talking about enforcers. You’re the one that wants to call in the cops and army and have all the rules.

I have continually pointed out that most of that is unnecessary – the war, the rules, the enforcement. People can negotiate and mend their own fences without your interference.

I’m the minimalist here.

This is probably what’s infuriating you. So you keep trying to assert that I’m the one trying to enforce something. You’ve been exposed, dude. Own it. You’re the manipulator.

[Rezwan]

emmetb wrote: This thread is at risk of going up in flame(war)s. That would be a pity because there is also an interesting underlying debate going on.

Acceptable rules are the ones which provide just the minimum restraint on action necessary to keep agreed-on goals accessible to all. Those which favor some at the expense of others break the game or society in the end.

What should be our more fundamental premisse: to minimize restraints, or to maximize cooperation?

I agree. Although I’d note that the word “wars” here is not to be confused with actual war, and runs the risk of again inflation of concepts, which is what got me started in the first place. Call it “posturing that jumps the shark”. Or preening as Phils Dad aptly put it.

There are 3 underlying debates going on.

1) One is the most recent you point out here, about the best way to make rules. Proscriptive, prescriptive, what have you.

2) Two is about how best to coordinate collaboration: via spontaneous (like markets) organization, or central planning (like corporations and governments and families). Many people see a polarized dichotomy between “markets” and “marxists”, but the continuum is more fluid and simultaneous. I.e., people coordinate with a continually changing mix of all of these methods, forming and dissolving groups around which they organize to get some venture taken care of, spontaneously making decisions in a marketplace setting. It’s always evolving.

3) The third, which was the first, really, is about the nature of war and conflict. What made me bristle were 2 comments, one about needing to pound the tar out of extremists, and the other about war being “the natural state”. What these triggered in me was the sense that I’m on a forum with a bunch of westerners who see themselves as civilized, and see the natives over there getting restless and breeding extremists that the civilized need to pound. This is the standard way of overlooking ones own role in a conflict and not taking any responsibility. And I’m thinking, it was the British who backed the Wahabis and the house of Saud – the most repressive, fundamentalist group they could have chosen. And the Americans continue to support them. The hijackers were Saudis, your allies, and then you go in and bomb Iraq, killing over 100,000 civilians, etc. etc.

From “Divide or Conquer: How Great Teams Turn Conflict into Strength”

Once a relationship gets into trouble, it can be awfully hard to get out. We’re so rivetedon the other person – on divining his motives or on avoiding his impact – that we on’t take a close look at what we ourselves are doing to create a relationship neither of us wants. …For the most part, all we see are the constraints others are imposing on us, while remaining blind to the constraints we’re imposing on them. Unaware, we wait for others to make life easier for us while we make it harder for them to make it easier for us. In the end…we’re left with little choice: either end the relationship or settle for one that doesn’t work.

Or unilaterally bomb the heck out of them. It’s the natural state.

These twin assumptions – “you alone are the cause of the problem” and “you are eiher mad or bad” – make it natural for people to place blame and make accusations.

These accusations, which focused on one side of the problem, had no influence on either one of them, making them feel as if they had no choice. They had to prepare airtight cases that would place institutional blame where they thought it belonged: on the other person’s shoulders.

In addition to turning their relationship into a toxic-waste site, this either/or perspective made it impossible for _____ and ____ to resolve their substantive differences well or quickly. Each of them assumed that only one (or the other) of them could be right. They thus figured: if I’m right, then the other must be wrong. It didn’t occur to them that they each might see things the other missed or that together they might see things in a more complex and useful light. Nor did it occur to them to ask the other what led him to see things the way he did. They already knew: the other guy was either mad or bad! The best they could do at this point – in fact, all they could do at this point – was make the same assertions and counterassertions over and over again in the desperate, if deluded, hope that they could get the other guy to see things his way.

And…scene.

[Author]

Posts