[Tulse]

Dr_Barnowl wrote: I think this is a useful topic, because people are devoting thought to how to raise a country out of poverty using energy.

NK’s problem isn’t really lack of energy, or any sort of resources per se, but complete mismanagement of what is laughingly called its “economy”. Any reasonable government would be able to do fine with what NK has in terms of resources, and I’m not convinced that NK having cheap energy would necessarily help the situation of the common people there.

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote: the core planets in Firefly. Xenon? Did they actually name the city Xenon.

“Sihnon” (one of the two major core planets, and settled primarily by Chinese colonists, in contrast with “Londinium”, the other major core planet, which was settled primarily by by Western colonists). Of course, the Big Damn Heroes in Firefly are fighting against (or, more accurately, pulling crimes against) the core planets and their government, which is somewhat oppressive, however pretty the cities are. So again, it may not be a great example.

(And yes, I know way too much about the Firefly ‘verse.)

[Tulse]

Don’t forget Starbucks. “I’ll have a double skinny caramel macchiato and a pB11 pinch, please!”

[Tulse]

I don’t see hydrogen vehicles as ever being competitive with pure electric or electric-hybrid, largely because the distribution network for hydrogen would have to be created from scratch. It is much cheaper and simpler to use existing powerlines to “fuel” a car rather than have to put in a totally new infrastructure. Hydrogen may have a future as a storage technology for installed intermittent renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar), where it would be produced on-site and then used in a fuel cell, but I can’t see it as a widely distributed fuel itself.

[Tulse]

(Controlled) fusion has very little immediate military applications, and even if NK were able to meet all their energy needs tomorrow with fusion, it still wouldn’t fix their disastrous economy and collapsed agricultural industry. So even if it is true I doubt that anything would materially change with NK.

[Tulse]

Research takes as long as it takes — these things cannot always be planned out in advance.

[Tulse]

MTd2 wrote: Well, with a short funding, shouldn’t all steps be followed closely?

I’m just guessing here, but I imagine the experts in this area know what they’re doing and are doing it as quickly as possible.

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote: You know what I’m talking about though, right?

Focus fusion jet packs? 🙂

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote: That’s one of the main selling points of aneutronic fusion. Truly clean nuclear energy.

Speaking personally, the main selling point for me is the “clean” part (along with “cheap” and “unlimited”). Who cares what the form or source of the energy is, as long as it meets those criteria? Nuclear fission is undergoing somewhat of a renaissance with experts, but the public is still deeply sceptical of it, and I think it is a mistake to believe that the term “nuclear” is a selling point, however it is framed.

[Tulse]

I agree there will be some lag time between Phases I and II, but I think the emphasis on “peer-review”, at least in the traditional sense, is misplaced. As far as I know, a great many technological innovations didn’t have a peer-review as traditionally defined (i.e., a formal paper submitted to a scientific journal, with the journal editor appointing reviewers to examine the paper, and potentially several cycles of revision and re-submission). Intel doesn’t typically “peer-review” its new chip designs, and auto makers don’t “peer-review” new engine technologies (at least as far as I know). And pharmaceutical manufacturers wouldn’t bother with publishing peer-reviewed studies if that were not a requirement for licensing their products for sale.

As I see it, LPP’s research is ultimately more in the model of this kind of technology development than pure scientific research — the end goal is to produce a practical energy source very quickly after showing over-unity, certainly far more quickly than any research tokamak or other Big Fusion technology can. It’s really much more on the model of “garage inventor” than “huge bloated multi-year physics experiment”. And inventions get adopted when someone is convinced of their utility enough to purchase/license them. One way to do such convincing is indeed through peer-reviewed publications, but frankly, given the funding that often goes to clearly crackpot energy ideas, such rigorous formal proof is certainly not necessary for initial success.

As always, this is just my two cents, and someone with more experience in science-heavy technology startups might be able to shed more light on how this kind of thing works in practice. I would strongly suggest that the FFS or LPP seek out such folks (perhaps from the biotech and/or biofuels arenas, since those are both very hot currently, and involve similar issues of investing in unconventional technology).

[Tulse]

I know I’ve been offering a lot of critical comments of late, and I really don’t want to come off negative, as I have enormous hopes for LPP and focus fusion. All of my comments are solely intended to be helpful and advance the likelihood of success of the project. That said:

Does LPP want an outside group not under their direct control approaching potential investors? I really do understand both the tremendous enthusiasm and the anxiety about funding (both of which I share), but I think that if FFS is not actually a legally authorized agent of LPP, trolling for potential investors may do far more harm than good, and simply serve to, at best, confuse things terribly.

I would suggest that if the goal is to get investors for LPP, the FFS should be at most researching potential leads, and then passing on those leads (without contacting them) to the folks at LPP. If the issue is that LPP isn’t currently set up to actively pursue investors, then I would strongly suggest getting them to take individuals with the appropriate expertise (perhaps even volunteers) into LPP as official staff. I’m afraid that using FFS as the marketing arm of LPP will scare off potential funders who are confused about the relationship between the organizations, and put off by what may seem a lack of professionalism and serious business orientation on the part of LPP. (I say this as someone who was involved in a minor capacity with a few startups that had those exact problems — needless to say, things did not turn out well.)

[Tulse]

Lerner wrote: Think about it. Some tiny group operating on a shoestring says they have done something that billions of dollars could not. Do you really think everyone will roll over and shout hosannahs? Is that how science works today?

Once the device is demonstrably showing over-unity, Dr. Lerner, the issue won’t be one of science, but technology, and you won’t have to convince the physics establishment, but possible licensees of your design. I think that will be a much easier process, as there will always be companies eager to get in on this kind of groundbreaking “product” with such obvious benefits, companies without the kind of entrenched bias against the underlying process that may exist in the scientific world.

Heck, the jokers at Blacklight Power already have actual commercial licensees for a completely undemonstrated “product” that defies basic physical laws! (And if I recall correctly, even the cold fusion folks had money given to them by power companies.) Surely if scam artists like that can convince people to give them money without any sort of prototype, a genuine, proven technology with solid data behind it will have people lining up. The world is hungry for clean cheap power. Successful aneutronic fusion will simply be too valuable to ignore or suppress.

[Tulse]

What would the goal of such show be? It seems to me that what the LPP folks really need is time to get their research done, and some money to fund it. Once they get a indisputable demonstration of reproducible over-unity generation of electricity, these kind of stunts won’t be necessary.

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote:

frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

That’s deceptive. Also, that will come up when people try to discredit the movement, it will look like we’ve been trying to cover something up.

Then ITER is also “deceptive”, since you would be hard-pressed to find the term “nuclear” anywhere on the non-technical parts of their website. The FFS may choose not to go that route, but I think it is incorrect to call it “deceptive”. And note that I said the term “nuclear” should not be used “in headings and taglines”. I didn’t mean to imply that the term should never be applied to aneutronic fusion, just that that term should not be used in the main marketing message, since that’s really not the main characteristic you want to emphasize.

[Tulse]

Aeronaut wrote: every country on the planet is going to be producing FFs, effectively eliminating international markets within the first year of mass production.

Exactly — once it’s demonstrated, it will spread like wildfire. Of course Dr. Lerner and crew’s research is not at all easy to do, and working out the specific details of making FF function is difficult. But it looks like, with the appropriate specifications, the actual final device will be something one could make in a well-equipped machine shop. There is no way this tech isn’t going to find its way into every corner of the globe.

[Author]

Posts