[Breakable]

In October 1745, Ewald Georg von Kleist of Pomerania in Germany found that charge could be stored by connecting a high voltage electrostatic generator by a wire to a volume of water in a hand-held glass jar

So you just need a bigger jar.

[Breakable]

The old logo could probably serve as a model for some jewelery accessory. Maybe a pendant? Or earrings?

[Breakable]

I would suggest to leave it as light as possible ATM (non-voting), as the resources are sparse.
And proudly proclaiming “being an associate member of FFS” seems really good benefit :D.
While I would love to have a say what FFS should do, its is better that resources are allocated for higher priority purpose
and at the moment I am really happy how well informal feedback is accepted.

One thing might be a good idea is to have some sort of membership accessory as a conversation starter.
It could be a plastic membership card, key-chain, amulet or some apparel item (hat, t-shirt).
I would not even mind paying for it myself as it could help spread awareness.
I bought a few clothing items some time before, but they seemed not usable enough for my climate to wear in the public.

[Breakable]

Maybe FFS website should pose as newbie welcoming comity, where the LLP should be serious business an science part?
It would also help LLP look more professional in case it was all about science, technology and investing. While in FFS most of us are not scientists anyway.
Edit:I don’t like the idea of having different start pages on the same website, as it makes it more complex and involves more work – even if not mine.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote: Well, initially the idea was to get 25MW out of a FoFu by running it at much higher Hertz. I think 330Hz –> 5MW was decided pro tem to be the best balance of useful power and feasible cooling given current tech. But there will always be the same ratio of heat waste to electricity generated, more or less, so running slower would just mean using more generators to get the desired output, with the same total heat waste. What would be gained?

Lower overall power means lower heating requirements and simpler thermal management per reactor.
If it it outputs only 5KW instead of 5MW, you don’t need a cooling tower or liquid helium moving at supersonic speeds anymore and can put it in the backyard as the bulk of the system should be cooling.
I even think it would output less radiation, so maybe you wont need as much shielding.

[Breakable]

Rezwan wrote:
“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”

My suggestion is to merge the changes:

“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research, while applying a priority to the cheapest, cleanest and most rapid approach”.

[Breakable]

Tulse wrote: The traditional Big Fusion approaches already have well-heeled advocates, as evidenced by the billions (and billions and billions) poured into ITER, NIF, and prior projects. I’m not sure that a grassroots effort is needed to promote these forms of fusion. It seems to me that aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches are in far greater need of champions, especially as they are often dismissed by Big Fusion supporters.

If ITER ultimately produces something that can be turned into practical fusion power, it won’t need a non-profit society to help. So I don’t think advocacy for “fusion in general” in needed, so much as assistance to those approaches that aren’t supported by massive research funds.

While the BIG FUSION approaches have their supporters and probably don’t need more, it would not be a bad idea to entice those supporters to look at other fusion approaches as well. If FFS will encompass fusion support without discrimination, maybe it will be able to draw support from a broader base that includes current opposition to aneutronic fusion. At least we could become a place where discussion and analysis and comparison of different approaches takes place and this could lead to reevaluation of DPF route compared to Tokamak.

On the other hand if we try to distinguish and disenfranchise ourselves from big fusion supporters as much as possible, then they will probably reciprocate. As you might know LPP is called pseudoscience by some, so to loose that stigma it will take a lot of convincing on the rational as well as on the emotional levels. While this route might be preferred by some, on the other hand only demonstrated and peer-reviewed over-unity can conquer the skeptics, which is unfortunately still a little out-of-reach today.

[Breakable]

I shared this idea before before, that reducing the frequency of operation should reduce the requirements for thermal management as well as radiation shielding. And this is what should be done for first prototypes as well as commercial units to avoid engineering complexity.

[Breakable]

1)Is probably a good addition as “CHEAP” can be relative. What is cheap in USA can be expensive in Uganda.

2)Would be nice to include as many options as possible.
I am not sure about other members but I don’t mind neutronic nor even fission-fusion hybrids as long as the end goal is achieved. Of course I also support other endeavors like thorium reactors or renewable energy, but those have their own supporter base, where fusion seems to be quite divided by different concepts. So I would probably suggest to change the statement
“We will pursue this purpose by developing the Plasma Focus device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion.”
to
“We will pursue this purpose by supporting any nuclear fusion development, by applying a priority to the cheapest, cleanest and most rapid approach”.
This could probably win more people over from other camps as well as bring independent (amateurs) to brag about their developments here.

[Breakable]

While LPP approach seems to be the most achievable in our eyes, it might not be so in others. So having a place for universal fusion discussion would be beneficial to spreading the message as well as staying in touch.

[Breakable]

Here is the actual article and it is not Stephen Colbert, but John Cusack and it is not “SATANIC DEATH”, but to be exact “SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER”
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/

“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted

[Breakable]

Probably endorsing any popular figure will claim supporters as well as alienate people.
In case of Stephen supporters are progressive, where alienated are some of the conservatives at least those that don’t threat it as a comedy show. In case of Oprah supporters are popular folk, where alienated could be rational thinkers, as Oprah pseudo-science bias starts to show.
As you Rezwan are probably the PR person for FFS/LPP, you should consider those statements very carefully, even if they are your own opinion.
While I think progressives are an excellent choice of fusion supporters, I believe there are a handful of conservatives which have big checkbooks and could be potential investors. This is probably the reason why most of the PR releases are politically correct and void of substance. Good luck in your work and I would love to see Eric on Stephens show.

[Breakable]

I think the main problem with current energy storage methods is not energy density, but cost.
If FF golden age brings the cost of most materials and manufacturing down, we will not have storage problem anymore.
If you want to you can make liquid fuels from air co2 and run internal combustion engines off that, where the FF generators do not work.
Still for those who are betting on non-near-fusion future, storage technologies should look like a an attractive investment.

[Breakable]

MTd2 wrote: They could just easily heat their crops on green houses.

I think first you need to have:
a)Crops
b)Greenhouses
Failing that you could have:
a)Sources to buy crops from and money
b)Materials to build greenhouses
Failing that you could have
a) Artillery pointed at closest neighbors
Yes, that could totally work, but why do you need crops and greenhouses for?

[Breakable]

I don’t believe one can invest in charity directly, unless using some loophole to retrieve the profits.
Most big corporations avoid taxes one way or the other – some establish charitable trust funds within their organisation where the sole benefactors are the shareholders.
I cant find a link where I saw it using charitable organization now, but here is the similar scheme by wall-mart by using spending deductions:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455149.html

Anyway establishing elaborate funding schemes is only for the rich, because you need expensive lawyers and powerful friends to do it. Maybe it could become possible by first donating to FFS until fusion becomes viable and giving some sort promise to benefactors that they will benefit from fusion breakthrough. IANAL, so I am not sure how sound it is legally, but I think a few years could be won even if operating in grey-legal-state.

Still I believe the best and most legal thing for now would be to find either an accredited charitable investor or try to raise venture capital as a startup until you get better results and funding becomes available for any king of further fundraising (IPO?). If you really need to release a product to make an IPO, then probably you should release one, even if it is just an excuse. For example you have build spark plugs yourself, while the market might not be big for this type of product, it is still a product.

[Author]

Posts