[benf]

DennisP raises a good point about tailoring our message to different audience needs. It’s important for us to be going to different events and spreading the word even though it may be challenging as there are so many different perspectives. Most people don’t know about the possibility of aneutronic fusion, it really hasn’t yet reached the mainstream media buzz yet. But there are people in surprisingly different areas who are in a quest to solve energy supply problems. This newsletter is an example (read the continuation p. 9 for reference to LPPX). The information presented could use some more clarity about how Focus Fusion could tie into existing infrastructure, I think. A good reason to have more discussion!

[benf]

A follow up Daily Kos article with an interesting presentation.

[benf]

Good points James. Headphones that enclose the ears let you evaluate the sound with a lot more precision.

[benf]

andrewmdodson wrote:

Could the dense plasma focus be a contender? Deployment by 2022… eh?

The DOE just released the 2014 proposed budget and there are some interesting entries on pg. 36-37. Maybe it’s a response to the critique of the NIF and Tokamak research prospects? The administration seems to be taking the “all of the above” approach seriously and applying it to nuclear energy. Let’s hope that’s going to play out in our favor. I watched some of the Ernest Moniz hearing and it’s interesting how much support he has from all sides as he deftly promoted the view. He’s appealing to just about every interest that was there.

The Fusion Energy Science budget is up, unless the sequester takes a bite out of it.

If they truly want transformation, I’d say aneutronic Focus Fusion would be a good way to go for the entire planet.

[benf]

Thanks Zap, good catch! 🙂

[benf]

Here’s another option if you decide to use a DSLR for video.

[benf]

Consumer camcorders produce very acceptable video these days but don’t give you much if any audio control. Prosumer camcorders run around a thousand dollars or more (new) and even they don’t have all the audio controls or features of a dedicated portable digital recorder (PDR). Professional video cams cost thousands and do have a lot of the options. Trust me, if you have video editing software on a computer like Adobe Premiere (which I believe you have), it’s easy to sync the files up. You have the ability to line up visually the audio waveform of the portable file with the audio from the video camera and once it’s lined up you turn off the video camera audio clip. I think Ivana knows how to do this.

Alternatively, you can always look into renting higher end equipment and then hopefully you’ll get advice on equipment features…Those cameras can be daunting to use especially if you don’t film all day every day….I’d say to buy or continue borrowing the consumer camcorder and sync the audio from the recorder. Maybe borrow the camera again and see if you can rent the PDR and try it out with the lapel mic?

[benf]

Here are some suggestions…you already have a video camera so you can either run a separate microphone into it (assuming it has a mic line in). If the camera doesn’t have a way to balance microphone strength your better option would be to use a portable digital recorder. It has it’s own stereo mic attached. You then can feed a lapel mic into it, for the presenter. Then optionally you can use the hand held microphone on a stand for audience members to ask questions with.

The recorder is also a mixer, so you can have the built in stereo mic of the recorder set low for ambient room noise, the lapel mic volume up for the presenter, you keep the audience attendee’s mic turned low or off until they ask questions. Yes you need to be sure it’s all compatible so it’s probably best to go to a camera/video store where people can get you squared away with your current camera. Higher end video cameras have a lot of audio capabilities but they’re expensive and complicated, not necessarily as versatile for different sound options.

You load the files from the portable digital recorder into your computer video editing software and match the audio sequence with the video clips. It’s a drag and drop placement that’s fairly easy. It’s good to also record sound on your camcorder at the same time to make it easier to match up the audio files from the recorder.

[benf]

Eric, did your team ever get a hold of a lapel microphone? It’s formal name is a lavelier microphone and they are wireless these days. This device is what is commonly used for TV/stage production. Ideally you have a camera that can adjust the balance between the lapel mic and the separate audience mic, so you can hear attendees ask questions but not the squeaky chairs. I could probably improve some of the audio of your New York Center for Economic & Environmental Partnership presentation video through software editing, but there’s one part that you would need to re-record the audio of you speaking and splice it in. This can be done seemlessly.

[benf]

oldjar wrote:

Here is a link to a video on Chernobyl 20+ years after the accident. The take home message I got was that dangerous levels of radiation remain many years after the release of radioactive elements. Similar problems will be present in Fukushima, Japan:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/inside-chernobyl/

What are these dangerous levels? What is considered dangerous?

I guess it comes down to what you choose to believe…I think most people would agree that the lower the level of radiation the better. The Focus Fusion Society supports fusion over fission in part because of it’s inherent safety, it can’t have a meltdown and if aneutronic would produce no radioactive waste. Our policy statement addresses these issues.

[benf]

delt0r wrote: You really should not compare the two. They are different orders of accident. Fukushima is quite small and much more localized that Chernobyl by a massive margin.

They were both rated seven on the INES scale. While the release from Fukushima was a fraction of Chernobyl, it was mostly blown out or leaked into the sea, away from the major metropolitan areas. But what about the fish? One shouldn’t treat a meltdown as if it were a trivial event.

[benf]

Sorry, that link is not found so I’ve updated to this DOE SMR announcement.

[benf]

Sorry link didn’t direct properly, see edit in previous post 🙂

[benf]

As a follow up to my last post, here’s another funding opportunity (edit: sorry, first link no good, now fixed. It’s DE-FOA-0000800) for Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development. No requirement to tie into tokamak research with this one, but you do need to have a working reactor in place by 2025 +- 2yrs. It doesn’t state that it has to be a fission reactor. Cost sharing by the DOE up to $226 million. There would be intellectual property issues.

It seems to me if there’s this kind of money available for this program, they ought to be able to come up with more funding for alternative fusion energy research.

[benf]

Assymetric has a point….Not that I want to throw cold water on the pursuit but….

The funding announcement says this:

“Eligibility: There are no eligibility restrictions.”

but then later on it says this:

“Theoretical and computational research directly relevant to the needs of ITER and burning plasmas is strongly encouraged and will receive high priority. Work focused on integration of multiple effects across topical areas is also encouraged. Verification and validation (V&V) work will also be considered, provided it has a strong theory component and it is not predominately a data analysis or evaluation effort, which is normally supported by research at the major facilities. Research focused on theoretical aspects of plasma diagnostics is not supported under this solicitation. Work supporting enabling science, such as Atomic Physics, is also not supported under this solicitation. Efforts focused on crosscutting areas, such as magnetic reconnection, are eligible provided they address issues directly relevant to magnetic confinement science.”

As far as I know, all of the FES funding announcements that I’ve read slip this qualifier in there. If it doesn’t apply to ITER we won’t be interested, is what they’re stating.

Which is the reason for our letter writing campaign.

Now if you can figure out a way to have your research be of benefit to both the Dense Plasma Focus and ITER and can articulate it in the proposal (edit: application), then maybe there’s a chance….

[Author]

Posts