[Rezwan]

Oh, how about a date on it? Well, a copyright notice would have the date. The point is, this may be a historical T-shirt, it would be best to have the date on it somewhere.

[Rezwan]

Yes, try it. So it looks like everything is exploding out from the center.

[Rezwan]

OK, here is a crude sketch of what I tried to describe w/ all those words above. Don’t laugh at the art! This is just about rough placement. Back of the envelope. The big purple donut is just the stunt double for your spiffy radiating entity.

Attached files

[Rezwan]

Perhaps, on the front, don’t put the letters, e.g., you have the letter H and a little round ball that signifies H. Just have the balls on front, and the equation will be in the back. And keep the plus sign on the H + B11, because we don’t want two arrows leading from them to the intermediate stage, we only want the one arrow going straight down, hitting the intermediate stage, and 3 arrows flying off from that.

[Rezwan]

Glen! This is great! I love the burst of energy. Really cool. I can’t wait to wear this shirt!

Oh, but first the pesky details. Don’t worry about giving too much technical info to people. Having the whole equation is fine. Like e=mc2, we want to make this equation a standard that everyone knows by heart.

The positioning is key to making it work.

Have the h+b11 combining in the upper 1/3 of the design. An arrow comes down from that to the unstable-fused inbetween molecule in the middle. Then arrows of helium radiate out from the center along the lines of the purple energy.

Where

Attached files

[Rezwan]

As for Ice Ages, one could call them a calamity, but a geologist would say they were necessary for the rich soils of Europe, Asia, and North America. The key in deciding whether a phenomena is positive or negative is to define what nature is, what role the phenomena plays in nature, and define our place in nature along side the phenomena.

A million years of ice age seems like a really inefficient way to build rich soils. (Not even sure how that works). But speaking of working with nature and the way to make soils rich, have you heard of Allan Savory and the Holistic Resource Management (“HRM”) folks: http://www.holisticmanagement.org/

Among other things, these folks introduced me to the concept of the herd effect on soils. Here is a simplified version: herbivores are out there grazing. Chewing away at the grass. They all hang out in a tightly clustered group because of predators. So they’re eating, and dropping dung as well. But that’s gross, they don’t want to eat where they drop, so, en masse, they move on. And they don’t come back to that place until the dung is good and decomposed. This is great for the plants, because they get fertilizer and they don’t get bothered until they’ve had a chance to grow back. Now, the herbivores return, and eat again. The herbivores act like a nice, uniform lawn-mower and fertilizer with built in regeneration waiting period. Allegedly, the plains of America had thundering herds of over a million buffalo doing this sort of thing.

Now, add mankind. We kill the predators, and leave the herbivores to graze without fear. So the animals disperse, no longer in their huddle. And they eat a plant, walk away. the plant starts to regrow – nice green fresh stuff. The creature comes back and eats it again – because they’d rather eat the newest growth than the older, tougher growth. So, eventually, the landscape gets irregular. Patches of overgrazing and tufts of overgrown undergrazed vegetation. There’s a lot of runoff, water not being absorbed in the ground, wind erosion, etc.

The HRM folks say this is why human and modern range management is a major cause of desertification. Overgrazing is not so much about HOW MANY animals are grazing, but HOW they are grazing.

Some books they sell: http://holisticmanagement.org/store//page1.html – Hey, there’s one called “Gardener’s of Eden” – must check that one out!

[Rezwan]

Glenn Millam wrote: What I find interesting is that, if Global Warming triggers the stoppage of the NAC, thus cooling the Earth, then the Earth sounds like its pretty good at regulating itself. While little creatures such as we may be pretty frightened with all this, it does show that the Earth can put up with quite a bit.

The only problem is that ice ages are an alleged disaster. Earth-cooling overkill. I don’t have any specifics on this, but this website argues that anthropogenic climate change

…has saved us from what would have been the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the twenty-first century, namely dealing with a climate rapidly deteriorating into an ice age. After all, no matter what scary scenarios the global warming enthusiasts can dream up, they all pale in comparison to the actual conditions that ice ages have served up in the past

[Rezwan]

Like with the B11 + Proton picture, you make the “Fusion” in the star much bigger, and the molecules smaller on the outside.

And right now the problem with this graphic is that it looks like the boron and hydrogen are hitting the “fusion”, and not hitting each other. So maybe there is some better way to convey this with arrows and placement…

Wow. Graphical display of information is quite an art form.

[Rezwan]

I like your image for a T-shirt design, now just add the text with a more mod-type font. And try a few with different phrases, what was it:

Fusion: It’s closer than you think.
www . focusfusion . org

And:

Fusion: Why are we waiting?
www . focusfusion . org

e.g., same image, different phrase. We can upload as many T-shirts on cafe press as we want. We don’t have to come up with the one perfect shirt. We’ll try a few and see what sticks. All you have to do is supply the image in the right format.

Also, perhaps you could try a stylized version of our website logo. Your rosette image is from the top, which is great. If you just do the same style of image from the side like our logo, that would be cool, too. Don’t worry about the ropes vs. points of your other post or an accurate physics representation.

Also, perhaps a stylized representation of the fusion reaction we are promoting would look nice on a shirt. Check out the image below. In the middle, you could have the phrases above (fusion: it’s closer than you think) continued below the “fusion-reaction-pow” graphic. E.g., integrate the phrase with the graphic.

Again, the good thing with cafe press is that we can upload multiple shirt designs, so if you have time, the more the merrier.

What do you think?

Attached files

[Rezwan]

As you know, I had left several messages with the X PRIZE Foundation to see where they stood on a Fusion Prize. Their response is copied below. As you can see, they “take measured steps in approaching such an important and volatile subject as this” such that fusion alternatives are not a priority for them – yet.

The good news is that they are aware of us and appreciate the work we do to promote alternative solutions.

I think the best strategy here is to simply lobby in several other directions (State of California, Al Gore, Branson/Virgin, etc.) and check back again from time to time to see how or if the X PRIZE priorities are changing. Eventually, we’ll hit the tipping point.

Also, as you can see they are concerned with correct trademark usage. Thus, rather than talking about the X PRIZE it will be better to speak in general terms about technology prizes hereinafter, with a link to the X PRIZE article as an example of the effectiveness of such prizes with other technologies. There are many other organizations that can provide technology prizes. This is not the exclusive domain of one foundation. (This means I have to also revise my e-mail posting pitch, which keeps referring to the X PRIZE.) No shortcuts.

Here’s the text of the email, received 9/24/06:

It has come to our attention that mention of the “X” PRIZE Foundation figures prominently on the homepage of the Focus Fusion Society website and links to an article suggesting that there be an X PRIZE award for fusion.

The “X” PRIZE Foundation appreciates the work you do to promote alternative solutions to the energy situation that presently confronts us all.

As you will appreciate, we are engaged in our own process for evaluating potential X PRIZE awards in the vast area of emerging energy technologies. We take measured steps in approaching such an important and volatile subject as this and rely on the work and input of many expert individuals in many disciplines. Therefore, please do not be offended if our process dictates that our next priorities are in fields other than fusion.

However, we would like to take this opportunity to express some concerns we have about the use of our trademark. Our trademark is “X PRIZE,” which is always used as two words, in all capital letters, with no hyphen. Also, our trademark is federally registered and should be used with an “R” in a circle, at least once prominently, in the format “X PRIZE(R) award.” In addition, the following statement should appear somewhere in your article or in a footnote: “‘X PRIZE’ is a trademark of the “X” PRIZE Foundation, Inc.”

Finally, we are concerned that your use of our trademark and material appearing on our website not go beyond the limits of fair use that generally apply to journalism and commentary. We note that this article was posted on August 4, 2006, and therefore expect that it will be replaced soon (we would anticipate by October 4, 2006) with new material. Otherwise, we are concerned that the length of time you have exhibited our trademark and posted material from our website may constitute an effort to trade on the goodwill of our Foundation for your organization’s benefit. Please inform us in writing as to when you will be archiving this article and removing the reference to X PRIZE from your homepage.

Good luck with your exploration in this area. We appreciate your prompt attention to these requests.

Paul Cusack
Vice President of Operations
X PRIZE Foundation

Note that I have updated the article in question with the correct trademark language and also it has been bumped from the home page (A matter of simply writing a new article – the homepage displays the last 3 articles written in each category).

And so the quest for fusion continues with measured steps….

[Rezwan]

Great post, Andy! We’ll have to put this in the news section. The ITER pitch. Dr. Green acknowledged the many different kinds of fusion possible, and his basic objection to Boron/Hydrogen was the high temperatures required. Then they brushed it off with “this is too detailed a discussion – let’s have the next question.”

The next question turns out to be:

Does the potential of fusion mean we give up on fast breeder reactors?

To which he says:

Absolutely not. …I think you will do everything. the energy problem is so big, so severe that you will just do everything. … fission is here. Fission works. Fission works well. If you want to start making an impact in the energy production game you use what you have. We’re [fusion is] a gleam in the eyes as it were. But as I keep pointing out, if you don’t continue with this work, one thing is absolutely certain, you won’t produce anything.

The irony being, they’ll do everything but try out the Boron Hydrogen fusion and other non Tokamak approaches :blank:

Still, very inspiring. We have a better product, we just need better marketing – to polish our act and take it on the road so to speak. And we’re doing that now, with, among other things, random unnamed people in Australia raising the issue in a clear and eloquent way. He explained it well in that short time.

[Rezwan]

Seriously. This is going to take some time to penetrate the consciousness out there. It reminds me of that bit in Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life” where there are these executives sitting around the board room:

[Large corporate boardroom filled with suited executives]

Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: “The Meaning of Life” Now uh, Harry, you’ve had some thoughts on this.

Exec #2: Yeah, I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren’t wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this “soul” does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

The execs pause for a moment of apparent contemplation. One leans forward:

Exec #3: What was that about hats again?

Exec #2: Oh, Uh… people aren’t wearing enough.

Exec #1: Is this true?

Exec #4: Certainly. Hat sales have increased but not pari passu, as our research…

Exec #3: [Interrupting] “Not wearing enough”? enough for what purpose?

Exec #5: Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don’t develop because people become distracted…[looking out window]

Exec #5: Has anyone noticed that building there before?

Fusion is also energy, and in a conceptual form that most people are simply not perceiving today!

[Rezwan]

Thanks. Check out the latest draft of the pitch here. Took out nuclear and poverty (TMI). Did refer to politics because I was tying it in to the weblog post I was responding to.

Too late for Virgin, I sent off an email that was closer to the longer version. Also suggested that they do a “Virgin prize” in lieu of the X-Prize. Was told my email had been forwarded to the Virgin Fuels dept. (Sent my email to Virgin Unite – current charity arm).

[Rezwan]

OK. I’ve been riding the global warming wave, and over the course of posting to various weblogs that remark on it, my message has been streamlined a bit to this:

What strikes me as ironic is that both left and right overlook viable fusion alternatives in their discussion of global warming/energy/oil. [or other lead in sentence related to the blog I am posting to. This one was remarking on the irony of George Bush’s compound being vulnerable to sea level changes with global warming]

Fusion is closer than most people think.

The Focus Fusion Society is dedicated to developing fusion energy, ASAP, by advocating a systematic approach to exploring fusion alternatives, and supporting that research itself for the focus fusion approach.

We’re not talking about cold fusion or fission. We’re not talking about conventional tokamak fusion (the ITER project) – which isn’t expected to work for another 50 years. (Please read up on Conventional vs. Focus Fusion – the differences are substantial) Yet all US research money in fusion, limited as it is, goes into the one ITER project only. A grossly ineffective strategy, like funding one lone hospital program to find a cure for cancer.

Fusion alternatives need to become a big deal with the general public, politicians, etc. We want to change the current apathy. We want people to demand their fusion. We want to see a “fusion race”. We’ve been lobbying the X-prize foundation to put up a “Fusion X-Prize“.

Help us advocate for this issue.

Fusion. Why are we waiting?

Still needs work. The goal is to find the key message, and to stay on message and then use repetition to drill it into the public consciousness. Any suggestions?

[Rezwan]

Glenn Millam wrote:
That basic equation is what is driving globalization. It is the basis for Six Sigma. It underlies all economic thinking today, and businesses have no choice but to follow it, even if it makes people work like crazy. And we do it to ourselves, each time we go shopping.

Had to look up six sigma. Intense.

The statistical representation of Six Sigma describes quantitatively how a process is performing. To achieve Six Sigma, a process must not produce more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. A Six Sigma defect is defined as anything outside of customer specifications.

Free, Perfect and Now was the title of a book on business I once scanned through at Borders. Gave me greater respect for the conundrum we find ourselves in.

Attached files

[Author]

Posts