[Warwick]

I quite like the spiral logo in its more developed format. I guess the ideal would be if looked more unique – there are loads of similar looking logos out there, that are basically meaningless. As it stands there’s danger of confusion with that.

The Big Idea that forms the focus fusion USP is, in my view, that it’s not just another new invention but the dawn of a new era. People will find that a lot more exciting and be more motivated to buy into it. You need to frame it on an epic scale.

A good logo should attempt to hint at that USP.

[Warwick]

oh, and yes about the robots. For the future we need to re-envision a society where competing to work makes no sense. Not a society where people are idle and pampered, but where human effort is spent in more beneficial directions than at present. We were promised robots, yet we live in a world where parents of pre-school children frequently both put their time into earning. This shouldn’t be happening now. I daresay the main reason is the stagnation/decrease of the living standards available on a typical one person 35-hour-week income in ‘the west’. Somehow capital finds ways to maintain the constant picture that there is a massive ‘reserve army’ of labour all waiting for jobs, which keeps conditions from improving even at the high point of the cycle.

The presence of trade unions in Detroit led to the transition ‘from rustbelt to sunbelt’, since at that time labour in California was cheap. A homogeneous labour force at the behest of a monopsonistic employer will be paid their marginal value product, so a firm can afford to pay more, so the classical theory goes, but they’ll avoid it if they can. A similar thing has subsequently happened on a global scale with all industrial manufacturing. And resistance was emphatically not as transnational as capital. More like, if you live in many of the workshop countries of the world then resistance to poor labour conditions and long hours is met with a water cannon. Empire by proxy? That said there have also been improvements of standards, in certain places at certain times – and even in China things are supposedly changing. Maybe in the near future, the lowest common denominator will not be quite so low.

The latin word for work was ‘negotium’. The absence of otium. Otium doesn’t mean idleness, it means studious leisure, the kind of thing you’d have if you were a patrician, not a low-down plebeian that has negotium. We should build a society not where people glory in the dignity of hard labour, like in some kind of 1920s communist poster (though some might) but where there is more otium, more civilisation, a more edified existence than was possible in the past.

[Warwick]

OK several different things

– about jobs

Changes like the use of a particular technology should not in the long run decrease or increase the amount of labour employed. However, they may change the geographical distribution of jobs. In the short run, supply shocks have an impact on the relationship between unemployment and inflation: a positive supply shock would have the opposite effect to the negative shocks seen (for example) in the OPEC crisis of the 1970s. Fiscal and monetary policies are the main determinant of employment, but supply-side changes characterise the environment in which policy can operate. The reflationary capacity of an economy is also related to a permanent supply-side issue, the prevalence of competition vs market power: in the absence of powerful trade unions, monopoly in the product markets is the main force that can drive inflation. Today’s economies contain a much larger amount of large price-setting firms than in the past, and this is generally considered to make it hard to maintain full employment. Perhaps the potential impact of focus fusion power on this should be considered.

– the logo upside-down

As Ivy Matt points out, the only case of “upside-down logo” that will spring to mind for most people is the Nazi swastika. In other words, inverted peace symbol means war – you can’t expect most to know the backstory about the CND logo creator. Everyone knows the Nazi / peace swastika thing.

Saying it’s CUD doesn’t hang together – why would having fusion power make someone stop using guns or bombs? In any case, an unfamiliar idea to most people.

– mass appeal

From a marketing perspective, a putative supplier of power units would not need or want the item to appeal to everyone or not be at all controversial. It has to have a sufficiently strong appeal to a sufficient number of people and firms for them to be prepared to invest in owning one. I think in the USA you’re used to, let’s say, a vocal section of the population decrying all kinds of wicked newfangled things, something which on this side of the Atlantic we do not really have so much – and this maybe breeds a ‘try not to offend’ way of thinking, but you’re in business, not in government, and it’s not your job to universally change behaviour. Society is an intellectual pyramid and the bottom layer follow _after_. The fusion market will eventually eclipse fossil fuels on its own, absent interventions to prevent it; there’s no need for marketing to look that far ahead.

Rather than worrying about appealing to both hippies and rednecks, the focus should be only on appealing to that section of the population that is most open to change and sees themselves as taking an active role in embracing positive new technologies. They’re not rednecks or the paranoid rich, and they’re not the same group as hippies.

That said, I think the downwards logo is sufficiently dissimilar from the CND logo that it’s not a bad choice.

I say “absent interventions” because of course, globally, fossil firms get big bucks of subsidies from the public purse, and when threatened they will screech loudly about jobs and risks and the need to give them much bigger handouts. Too big to fail! Broadly their appeal will be to traditionalists and small-c conservatives; another reason you want to get clearer thinkers on side, whatever their political complexion, and forget the necks and the socialites. You want the Telegraph and the Guardian, not Sarah Palin or Hello!.

— religion

Well if someone can see an inverted crucifix in a CND sign then they can probably imagine anything, let’s face it.
But I’d steer clear of stars. You may recall that Chernobyl means Wormwood, and the passage in Revelation that says something like “And there was a star on earth, and its name was Wormwood, and it poisoned 1/3 of the waters, and 1/3 of the creatures died” (I haven’t looked it up but it’s along those lines.) To an over-the-top religious person anything involving stars and nuclear power would be fertile territory.

— Taylor Swift

I guess my own view of things is summed up by the fact that whenever I have a good day in contributing to Focus Fusion, I play this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1jYllE0T-k
Maybe you should use that song. 😉

[Warwick]

Given that that whole page is about their shrewd handling of assets and the most prominent detail is their ticker name, we’re confronted with two possibilities.
1. Their research, including research into teleportation, is completely genuine.
2. They know that noise investors looking to spread their portfolio will put some money on their stock or its derivatives, and are planning to bet against it themselves.

[Warwick]

Do read the link, I think it’s interesting information, whether you agree with the political inferences at the end or not. It’s not about preventing the explosion (though it does mention that) but about how BP were supposed to have a containment team ready, and did not.

[Warwick]

“Fortunately FF will render all of that irrelevant. “

Hopefully it will be rendered irrelevant, but if it is, it will be by a popular social recognition of responsibility so that explicit rules and inspections are not longer needed. It’s going to be many years before anything of any description replaces all the already-built fossil plant in the world.
You know it’s the Washington Post when they assume that absent an electric pencil sharpener you would have to just go back to the jungle and start carving with a knife, that was the funny bit for me… it’s like they go out of their way to be lame.

Would that be the same demented self-righteous bureaucracy that would be involved in preventing oil slicks?
http://www.gregpalast.com/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well/
If not having 1000 miles of devastation is crazy, perhaps we should sometimes be more keen to talk crazy.

[Warwick]

By the way, I didn’t assert that the Enlightenment (freedom/capitalism) would bring about the end of poverty.
But I happened to see this the other day
http://fora.tv/2007/06/21/Judea_Pearl_Science_and_Human_Freedom
… a fellow Bayesian claiming that it is what led to the industrial/technological revolution, which I think is very plausible.

[Warwick]

I still don’t understand why someone would want to invest a partial amount if they could finance the whole development process.
Is there any prospect of further investment from that source?

[Warwick]

Rezwan wrote:

My understanding was that LPP didn’t need any more cash to finance proof of concept but now it’s not clear for me? Rezwan?

What gave you this understanding? Let me know so I can clarify it elsewhere on the web.

LPP has partial funding. They will need more funding to complete the proof of concept.

It was around the time of the Economist article, something just before that. In fact it was the impression I got from this site I think.

I’m a bit mystified. How could it make sense for a large-scale private investor (was it an investment fund?), that could afford to back the whole thing, to pay for half the development work, with no guarantee the other half will ever take place?
Surely that’s a much worse risk for them than just the risk of the design not being successful?
Or do they invest some and then wait and see whether the results look any good before investing more?
Hard for me to understand their course of action.

Rezwan wrote:

Is the primary problem with the above solution just the lack of expertise and the money for office supplies and shipping?

Money isn’t just for office supplies and shipping. It’s mostly for expertise. The major budget of a nonprofit organization is staff salaries. The staff raises money to cover their own salaries, and the programs. Programs also usually involve salaries. Like, if you want to give healthcare to people, you pay the people delivering the health care. If you want science to happen, you pay scientists to work.

So, your intention is raise $1m in donations. Maybe that could happen, you know better than I.
But if that proves difficult, and the main problem is LPP salaries, LPP could always just offer to make their staff junior partners. Offer a share in the profits and a low salary in the meantime, rather than paying out at the market rate upfront.

It also seems more likely that LPP could raise more backing if it were possible for micro-investors to invest through an investment fund rather than through donations to FFS. Though who can say for certain.

[Warwick]

Breakable wrote: FFS is non-profit. So basically no profit can be happening there.
Maybe some mutual fund could be started to do that, but its a lot of work, and requires a lot of knowledge. Any bankers around here?
What about starting fusion (and not necessary only Focus) mutual fund?

Rezwan wrote:

Now, the only problem with this that I see is that “micro-investors” or, non-accredited investors who want to chip in funds to the experiment, will get nothing back from their investment. They can only donate. So, this tends to discourage people from donating. Let the big fish be a free rider on my dime! Hah! Let them come up with the whole thing. This issue has always bugged me.

Can something be done about this? I don’t know what the law is or how this can be handled but here is a hypothetical. Could FFS collect micro-investments from registered users, and hence keep information about 1) the Micro-Investor and 2) the amount invested. FFS Could then group this money together into amounts large enough such that shares of LPP could be bought @ $50 per share. Finally FFS could have a broker whom is an “accredited investor” and can purchase the shares from LPP.

That would be illegal, because we’d be promising something that we aren’t allowed to promise. I’ve spoken with lawyers at the SEC about this. It’s just not possible. Micro investors can donate, but you can only invest if you have a lot of money. The rich get rich, the poor are patronized. Much can be done about this, unfortunately, it’s all long term stuff that won’t really affect current needs. If LPP were to go public, anyone could invest. It’s at proof-of-concept stage, though, so can’t really be taken public. But it’s now that it needs the investment money.

Quality discussion folks.
I know that there are unit trusts that allow the investor to indicate what they want the money put towards – out of public shares that is. Therefore I wonder if it is inconceivable that such a fund would be willing to invest in a private company if enough members suggested it. Here in the UK the one I was looking about was I think called the CIS Sustainable Leaders Growth Trust (and you don’t have to be rich to become a member, you can invest with just an ISA). (I also have the impression that a firm called Hendersons Global Investors that have a hefty ethical funding arm.)

[Warwick]

3. Anyway, so given how easy it would be for such non-profit customers to come up with the funds if the markup were small, the question becomes this: how much faster can manufacture be performed if retained earnings are initially greater, and could it be rushed if costs (and prices) were then to be higher?

Well it’s all speculation on my part.

*awesome book used in Warwick business school

[Warwick]

Kyle wrote: Greetings FFS! 🙂 I have been following the dpf approach, and in particular the LPP project, for several months and have appreciated this community and the quality of thought and effort that so many of you have put into advancing and clarifying our understanding of the physics and engineering for this solution. Anyway, it is my pleasure to be here and I look forward to meeting you.

<>

What finally prompted me to register and comment was the thread in this forum entitled “List of Billionaires and informational packet.” I had some thoughts and two questions.

It seems that the conversation did not consider using the not-for-profit approach to the project fundraising: only the for-profit micro-fundraising and “anchor” investor approaches. Is there a reason that the non-profit approach is not considered?

Part of what I find so very attractive to the DPF project is the relatively small monies required for the proof of concept (not to mention the eventual production environment). I am confident that a non-profit micro-contributor approach could, through several low-to-no cost marketing approaches, raise these monies for the non-profit and the non-profit could, through a grant process, help fund the LPP proof of concept.

Greetings Kyle, you are very welcome.

I’ll be honest and say that I did not fully understand what it is you are suggesting.
My understanding was that LPP didn’t need any more cash to finance proof of concept but now it’s not clear for me? Rezwan?
I’m a bit confused as to whether what you have in mind, Kyle, is literally non-profit (as in, zero profit) or actually altruistic (net donations)??
My immediate reaction is, yes, 6 or 7 figures is the most anyone could probably raise on a “free loan for the good of humanity” basis. But if it’s for proof-of-concept, they might never see the money again, so I think it would run into the same problems as trying to issue for-profit debt.

How much investment (in total) would be needed for manufacture of FF units to replace the world’s current energy consumption (however this would be used)? Well, back of an envelope …. World consumption rate is 1.5 x 10^13 Watts (according to wikipedia).
At 5 x 10^6 W per unit, that means 3 x 10^6 units and at a cost (we’ll ignore any markup that would represent an extra need of credit to the consumer) of $200000 per unit, that makes $6 x 10^11 (unless I made a mistake, I’m not very good at arithmetic). Or, in American trillions, about $0.6 trillion or $600 billion. In context, world GDP is $60+ trillion.
Fortunately it’s possible for people to borrow against future income (if they have any) to buy their shiny FF units sooner … as long as all that credit is available.

So I think 3 things.

1. A lot comes down to a question I have wondered for a while – of the predicted $200k cost per unit, what is marginal cost and what is the overhead of setting up a facility (whoever it is that does it, whether LPP or a third-party)?How can funds for building facilities be raised?
LPP itself going public, in the traditional sense, would be madness for sure. The big boys will snap it up in an instant. I guess it could be good for the developers – they’ll be sailing private yachts for the rest of their lives, as opposed to being found in a field, which is what always might happen if you successfully rock the big boys’ boat. But in 10 years some filmmaker will make a documentary called “Who killed Focus Fusion?” and that will be all that ever happened.
I understand that preference shares are not a great solution in that the financial situation is there the same as with bonds, according to wikipedia. Never knew that before.
Brealey and Myers “Principles of Corporate Finance” book* gives a list (p.934) of defenses against hostile takeover. The most well-known is the “poison pill”. For this it says “Existing shareholders are issued rights which, if there is a significant purchase of shares by a bidder, can be used to purchase additional stock in the company at a bargain price”. It’s not immediately clear whether that might work. Imagine a big utility comes along intent on paying whatever it takes to snuff you out. Will the existing shareholders really be able to beat it even at bargain rates? Probably not. Maybe if a big purchase of shares triggered automatic free distribution of shares to existing shareholders it might work. “Cyanide pill”.

2. Who will the customers be? It seems fairly obvious from the above simple arithmetic that it wouldn’t be that sensible for LPP, or the manufacturer, to own the units themselves and sell electricity. (Am I right? What say?)
So as customers for the units, I think non-profit firms is a likely answer. Sure there will be some industrial consumers that are one big for-profit entity – no problem there. But residentially?
I can certainly imagine a network of cooperatives, each owning and operating one or two units, each independent and owned by the consumer-members. I guess there would be between 1,000 and 2,000 members per co-op and this means a joining fee of $200 – not inconceivable at all that someone would pay that in exchange for no electric bills.
This would be amongst the most democratic forms of power plant ownership.
By contrast, big capital has other avenues. Plant that already exists will not be rendered worthless, not unless and until the price of electricity were to crash. Marginal costs at most large power plants are very small; you could say that due to government subsidies (in the UK anyway), marginal costs at fission plants are in effect negative.

[Warwick]

about jellies / jellyfish predators

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.10.018
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/invasion-of-the-jellyfish-the-secret-life-of-stingers-411502.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/10/plastic_bags/
http://www.marineconnection.org/archives/marine_impacts/plasticbag.htm
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/jellyfish_environmental_indicator.php

We don’t know whether the jelly increase is more due to climate change or predator decrease, but it seems inevitable that the latter should have had an impact. We know that their predators have declined. This could be due to pollution, overfishing impacts or plastic bags. Autopsies implicate plastic bags as one significant cause of death.

[Warwick]

I should add, re WMM … the version I tried was XP and doesn’t do higher resolutions so that could become a problem … also, someone told me Power Director can be better than SVS, further to what I put before.

[Warwick]

I liked it. One comment (which probably you can’t change anyway even if you wanted to) I only ever use blue for negative, red for positive… so that bit looked kind of strange … the things we get from electronics sets when we’re 5…
I think the repeated bit of video at the end doesn’t match the words so indeed you might want to change that and put something else cool.

[Author]

Posts