[Rezwan]

Ah. Some cynicism appears. This Mother Jones Article says the BBC suggests that:

Branson’s move to invest $3bn in renewable energy technologies is “more than green philanthropy.” Could he also be “making a canny attempt to get in on the ground floor of a fast growing and innovative global industry” and “fulfill his mission to turn Virgin Fuels into a power giant in the same class as Shell or Exxon Mobil”? (Where have all the saints gone?)

There’s big money to be made in renewable fuels–at least that’s the general assumption–and many US biofuel firms are small-scale oufits. An unsentimental venture capitalist (not that there’s any other kind) tells the BBC, “Sir Richard wants to make money in a field where returns are being made right now.” Should we care that there’s a commercial logic to Branson’s decision? Of course not–the guy’s a businessman.

This gives me pause, as focus fusion is a direct competitor to all the renewable fuels. Will the Virgin Fuel folks embrace our fusion pitch or are they strict hydro-solar-wind-biogas types? Big money can be made with focus fusion as the renewable fuel of choice. Wish I could express this in clear economic terms.

[Rezwan]

Our site, https://focusfusion.org/ is dedicated to developing an unlimited, safe, clean, cheap electricity supply from nuclear fusion, ASAP, by advocating a systematic approach to exploring fusion alternatives, and supporting that research ourselves for one particular approach.

I think I need to make this paragraph stronger. I should add:

Our approach is promising and could result in working fusion power plants within 7 years.

Or something. There’s just nothing in the email that says we’re on to something.

[Rezwan]

You’re absolutely right. I see this on the logical level. I think I was reacting more to the way the guy dismissed physical skill as compared to mental skill. It just seemed like a put down and I got defensive even though I don’t build houses myself for a living.

The way you put it, is much more reassuring. There is a lot of work to be done.

I’m sure he will get/has gotten his funding. He’s tenacious and it’s a great innovation.

[Rezwan]

This is a great idea! A while back I think Derek tried something with google and click through ads, but I don’t believe it was “google grants”.

There are 2 main issues here:

1) How to summarize our message to be concise and effective. My kingdom for a good summary. If we can do this, it will be great! Focus Fusion is so far off the beaten path. Few people out there are thinking of fusion alternatives, and explaining it to people takes a surprising amount of work, at least for me. I think it’s because I don’t have the magic words yet. The few, the clear. We’re fresh and different, but the downside is we’re too different, hence often quickly dismissed without people fully understanding what we’re about.

2) Keywords – something that has also not been dealt with adequately. What keywords would a person looking for our unique approach use?

OK, starting with our intro paragraph on the home page:

Fusion: It’s closer than you think:
Help us to turn the dream of safe, cheap, clean, unlimited energy from nuclear fusion into a practical reality, to do it NOW, and to ensure that this technology is made available to all mankind. (No, it’s NOT cold fusion, conventional fusion, or fission.) https://focusfusion.org/

How would we modify that to really grab someone?

As to keywords, here are a few, but I’m not an expert on keyword tailoring:

Energy Crisis
No War for Oil
Focus Fusion
Nuclear Fusion
Alternative Energy

[Rezwan]

Not very clear on your question here:

Demeter Design, Cara wrote: if countries aren’t allowed to do nuclear research (and I am NOT in support of weapons manufacturing) than how would nuclear energy be universally available

Are you referring to the political problems with Iran and its pursuit of fission?

In case you are, indeed, referring to fission, I want to make it clear that this site has to do with fusion. The difference is discussed here: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/its_not_fission/

Also note that focus fusion won’t be useful for the making of bombs/weapons/etc.: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/can_focus_fusion_be_used_to_make_a_fusion_bomb/

Finally, I understand focus fusion franchises would be available for any country that wants it. So the energy would be available, even if the country was not researching it.

As to limited resources:

There is no unlimited energy source as the maintenance of such a system requires man hours, materials, etc. all of which is finite.

The fuel supply is a billion years. Yes, if people manage to self-destruct before then, they won’t be around to make and run fusion plants, but the materials will all be here, sitting around, waiting.

Perhaps we should say the effective limitation is removed. The relative limitation. Especially compared to the other energy types you list, including solar, wind, hydro. The amount of materials, people, resources (especially space – a lot of land area for solar and wind), noise pollution generated, and so forth for the alternatives you suggest (solar, wind, hydro) – per unit of energy output – are much more than what you would have with focus fusion. We will have to draw up a chart to get some quantification on this, but people often underestimate the environmental impact of the current alternative energy favorites. They may be better than oil, but they’re much worse than focus fusion, if it works.

It might be empowering to realize that all solar energy is originally fusion energy. The sun is powered by fusion reactions. We’re just trying to figure out a way to get a piece of the sun right here on earth to produce the energy directly. Clean solar-esque energy.

And again, when you say that there is too much risk associated with the fusion compared to solar, wind and hydro, it seems you are confusing Focus Fusion with fission and the associated nuclear weapons production capacity. But focus fusion is not that kind of energy, as mentioned in the links above.

Although nuclear energy has some uses such as space travel, it just seems that there are much easier ways to obtain energy, especially when you make buildings and machines more efficient.

I think hands down, focus fusion would be the easiest, lowest impact, most sustainable, environmental way to produce energy. Again, we should draw up a chart that spells it out in detail. How do you recycle solar panels? How much interference does microhydro pose for watersheds and riparian circulation? (and you’re a good person to ask! Looks like you do a lot of watershed work. Say, take a look at this link and give us your comments! https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/water/ – thanks!)

I think an underlying issue here is that you’d like people to focus on conserving energy and making more efficient things. I think this will ultimately happen, not out of necessity, but out of taste and values and rising affluence. But I am not sure how that will play out.

[Rezwan]

Hi Sigma! Thanks for your enthusiasm. Spurred on by your action, I just left a message at the X-prize foundation to find out who specifically we could petition there and what kind of procedure they have for considering new prizes. I’ll keep bugging them this week ’til I get an answer. When I do, it may help with strengthening the language on the petition.

Right now what you’ve got looks like a petition to petition the X-prize foundation:

To: X PRIZE Foundation

Energy is one of the most fundamental resources a developing world needs to survive, unfortunately standard alternatives to the current oil paradigm may take years to develop fully and with projected dates of 2050 for conventional hot fusion, it is too long a wait. The crisis in the middle east is one concern, as is the increasing temperature change another, we need alternative ideas that aren’t mainstream to address them as soon as possible. Therefore I propose that we create an opportunity to change that by petitioning the X-prize foundation to create a Fusion X-prize and give non-mainstream scientists and corporations a chance to get into the spotlight and make a difference!

I think ideally it should be more like a letter asking for a fusion x-prize to the foundation that is signed by all and sundry. Also, I think if we throw in a few facts, like how many fusion alternatives out there are ready to compete for the prize, how an x-prize is the perfect means of stimulating fusion, how it fits with the objectives of the x-prize and so forth, it further strengthens the petition.

Also, calling the ITER guys “conventional hot fusion” suggests that we are cold fusion. 🙂

I hope you don’t mind if we take this as a first draft and play around with it a bit before settling on a final petition.

[Rezwan]

Hi Gang:

I just sent an email to the United Nations Institute on Disarmament Research – http://www.unidir.org/ – asking them to look into fusion alternatives and directing them to this site. Looking forward to their response!

[Rezwan]

Great post! Thanks!

I would not have a volunteer contact anybody unless they are 100% committed to your program and have a solid fundraising and/or scientific background.

The Focus Fusion Society is still evolving as an organization. My understanding is that Lerner et al do most of their fundraising via LPP – https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/lpp/ – and that a dedicated fundraising strategy and materials for the Focus Fusion Society as an entity have yet to be developed/deployed. Partly this is waiting on the processing of our 501(c)(3) status. And partly, we need a person with the afore-mentioned solid fundraising experience for this kind of organization. Could this be you? Send Eric an email – “Lerner” in the member list.

[Rezwan]

Fusion: Why are we waiting?

[Rezwan]

This picture, right? https://focusfusion.org/assets/sheath2.jpg

So, more like ropes of filament frosting over an invisible donut – the frosting is the thing, not the donut, and the greatest density is in the “donut hole” where the laces of frosting twist around each other.

[Rezwan]

I think that the main problem we have isn�t convincing people that focus fusion is the best way to fusion power. Its convincing people that fusion power is the best way to secure our energy future, and focus fusion is our best bet in achieving it in the near future.

I agree. These are intertwined concepts. The “Energy Crisis” article is a starting point for an animation that makes a case for fusion as the solution to the energy crisis.

The Conventional Fusion vs. Focus Fusion article, if made visual with pictures or better yet, in an animation, would go a long way to getting the message across. There are many visuals in there, such as a visual comparison of the tokamak vs. a focus fusion reactor – the sheer scale of it.

I haven’t turned these into a storyboard yet, but that’s the general direction of the case to be made.

[Rezwan]

Thanks! OK, so my cousin Bahram came up with this one:

Fusion: It’s not just in restaurants.

🙂

Then the picture would be a plate with knife and fork, and on the plate some boron and hydrogen or the dpf.

[Rezwan]

Lovely! It’s up now on the “what” page and the dpf page: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/toc/what/ and https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/24/ (where it seems redundant w/ image in sidebar as well. Maybe I’ll replace that with a thumbnail or the microfocus). Other images also back up.

Enjoy!

[Rezwan]

I looked into it a while back but didn’t pursue anything as we don’t seem like a good fit with their criteria:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awards the majority of its grants to U.S. 501 (c) (3) organizations and other tax-exempt organizations identified by foundation staff. We award most grants through four primary program areas: Global Health, Education, Global Libraries, and Pacific Northwest.

The first is we’re still waiting for our 501(c)(3) status to be processed – we submitted the paperwork back in mid October, 2005 (Derek, what’s the timeline here). The second is that we’re not global health, education, libraries or pacific northwest. They may make an exception for us. But on their website, they say:

If your project falls outside our program areas, click on the link below for a list of other resources and organizations that may be able to help. Read more »

So I never contacted them, but I suppose it’s worth a shot. Just not sure what to say. They say for more info, send an email to: info@gatesfoundation.org or call: (206) 709-3140 I’m somewhat shy about contacting granting organizations, so, do we have any volunteers who want to call and get info? See if there is a possibility that they would be open to considering primary energy research grants for fusion. Maybe just like lobbying the X-prize, we could convince them this is a key sector to provide grants in.

[Rezwan]

Glenn Millam wrote: My use of purple came from the image used as the icon of the site. I’m fine with it, but it is an issue that I think can be discussed and agreed upon by everybody.

The purple icon on the banner is arbitrarily purple. The original image is black and white. Purple is preferred by key people but perhaps they can be tempted by different color schemes 🙂

Oh, LOVE the periodic chart site! Especially with the photographs. And it looks like Beryllium is silvery and sometimes green.

Another thing that can be looked at is a common color scheme. … What would be cool is if you could give me a list of RGB colors that you use on the site for your color scheme, and maybe we’ll play around with them to help unify art to that scheme.

Sorry, not RGB, rather hexadecimal (?) – #6666cc; #ccccff; #000066; #6666ff – that’s pretty much it. And the colors of the forum are what comes with the forum program. It’s going to be a few upgrades before they provide us with customizable color here. Back to the website, it’s all done with a few templates and some css, so if you propose a different color scheme, it won’t be hard to change it sitewide pretty easily. And temporarily, so we can take a look at it and consider the effect. Just translate the RGB into hexadecimal.

I think people coming to this site will really respond to it with the added touches of science-art to go along with everything else.

Absolutely! Thanks so much for doing this!

And finally, the site background image (pictured) is blue, also arbitrarily. Made from the same original, saturated.

Attached files

[Author]

Posts