[Patientman]

I think the “About” page can refer to the discussion on Face Book and adding other categories on FB will help with public relations. I posted a question on a different thread, which may be of interest to many interested in private generation of energy: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/167

We know how difficult the government can be in trying to start and run a business.

[Patientman]

I was researching large power source generation a year ago and found a special section in the Minnesota law that gave Xcel energy certain responsibilities in this area. I am wondering what the various state laws say, versus federal law. These are laws that are on the books and may affect the distributed energy efforts so many people think is a better approach to the future. The Federal government has earmarked (so to speak) $108 Billion for the power grid.

[Patientman]

I like the focus on business model discussions. I have only looked at the Face Book pages briefly. One of the bigger concepts ( I have personally) was an interactive science fiction story generated by scientists, creative writers, business people and anyone else interested. This would have two parts, the organization of telling the story(private) and the actual published story to the public. Here again, you could make links within the story to give educational definitions to concepts of a technical nature, yet entertain the audience with a future vision of fusion energy. If you published the story on Face Book and invited comments and discussions, who knows what direction in might take. That seems to be the beauty of the idea. Some of your background organization may change as the story progresses, because you only publish a few pages or a chapter at a time. That is just one of many concepts I think Social Marketing can lend to getting the word out. It is extremely important these forums generate discussions and different perspectives on Fusion. Spreading these words should spark a clear understanding of the difference between DPF and other types of Fusion technologies. Like a fine wine.

[Patientman]

Pretty much. I will check CNN and BBC, but I don’t have any funds for the video. I have a music source and we may cut a trial voice over if the captions don’t cut it. I have put together videos since the eighties and with the help of Flash we can add a few little nice touches. If you have any special images please let me know. I still need the Torulf video RAW footage that was assembled. I was hoping it would be in Flash.

Thanks for the offer.

[Patientman]

I guess the PGA can get pretty intense :coolsmirk: I have a couple of moves Ken hasn’t thought of yet.

[Patientman]

Pictures, I can get. Thanks.

Video is not so easy, yet.

[Patientman]

Does anybody have a location of Golf war/Iraq video footage?

[Patientman]

Would the group be interested in a presentation similar to the one suggested above?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg

We could still mix in still frames and video if necessary. The question comes down to a voice over, or text titles.

[Patientman]

I will have to re-size the ones I found at wikimedia:

Names:
800px-Kuwait_burn_oilfield.png
Amoco_Cadiz_1.jpg
Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg
Controlled_burn_of_oil_on_May_19th.JPG
EVOSWEB_013_oiled_bird3.jpg
Great_barrier_oil_spill_march_2010.JPG
Manripo071210_5.jpg
Oil_spill_in_San_Francisco_bay.jpg
Oiled_Bird_-_Black_Sea_Oil_Spill_111207.jpg
Three_Mile_Island_1979-04-11.jpg

I don’t think all of these pictures will be used. If you have the original Flash files for the Plasma Fusion video we could incorporate parts of it.
I have a storyboard template in my archives and will post it. We need to determine the format size. I thought 550 px by 400px was appropriate.

Attached files

[Patientman]

benf wrote:

vansig-21 June 2010 12:10 AM

They seem to indoctrinate their people to regard with distaste anything that has a nucleus. Many are even leery of microwaves. I predict a long education for this group.

They largely have had a fear of fission nuclear, which is justified. I may not agree with tactics some environmental groups have used, but overall they have for years been trying to call peoples attention to issues concerning the planet’s health, which I respect.

Education is a huge part of an approach to change perception and I believe that Focus Fusion needs to educate the all sides of the energy issues today. By taking an educational direction, rather than a “we have the answer” approach, you should be able to accomplish more. One thing today that everyone wants to know is cost of energy. Do you have a comparable reference on this web site?
I found this:

Imported Uranium is $46 a pound

The energy required to build nuclear plants, operate them, and mine and process the uranium may be so large as to cause a net energy deficit. Here’s a thorough Energy Analysis of Power Systems including nuclear energy and its competitors. The basic fact about nuclear energy is that the input energy is 4.8 percent of output energy if gaseous diffusion is used to enrich uranium and 1.7 percent if the newer centrifuge technology is used. Another way of looking at the same facts is that if gaseous diffusion is used for enrichment, the energy invested in building the plant is paid back in 5 months, whereas if centrifuges are used the payback time is 4 months.

I was unable to find the cost of a single fuel rod. They only last 18 months. I have some numbers from the Dept of Energy on “overnight” costs for building a fission reactor. The use of number is not my favorite approach to educating and audience, but having a list of comparisons may be useful in the video.

[Patientman]

I agree that the web site is a different issue and should be addressed elsewhere. Sorry. I consider the larger picture as the end result of a puzzle. A small piece is this video, the ones that follow should continue to draw attention and build on the first one. It takes a minimum of three “views” for a message to finally click in a person’s mind. The media communication noise of the web and TV, overload people. You need to creatively convey the same message in many different ways and many times over, just to get their attention. Then go back and do it again to get their Awareness. If you plan out the big picture and break it down into these small pieces, your audience will put it back together. People love puzzles. 😛

I think you have enough to begin production on the first video. Do you have enough to define the next steps in the campaign? What are they?
1. Eric’s script
2. A History of approaches to fusion (sticks, wood, wind, coal, steam, solar, oil, fission…)
3. Throw out some ideas and see where they go…
4.
5. Get a meaningful and insightful conclusion that drives home how plasma fusion is cheaper, safe and unlike any other energy source ever…

[Patientman]

Currently, you folks are digging out the main concepts and refining them. Please don’t rush your process or the four “A’s”. Yes this video needs to be timely(yesterday), but then being patient is what will also give you the guts of the message.

The Time Perspective video was a great visually stimulating piece, it kept my attention. We are a more visual world and using words can back fire sometimes. “Donate Today”, is very powerful and if you add “Save The World Tomorrow”. You will get a very interesting response. Matter of Fact, the less words you use at the beginning the better. Most of your message in words should be on your home page, this is where you make the biggest case. Right now, you have lost the message and only a bunch of teaser articles, there is no meaty article that would draw a user into the rest of the site.

[Patientman]

Stewart and his writers really think before making a point. Then drive it home.

[Patientman]

This discussion was started on a different page and has been left for this forum. I volunteered to assist with this project because I have 20 years experience in media projects from beginning to end. Planning is everything, but so is the exactitude of the message. You have hit upon a very good concept here, even if you were only joking about it. The idea of an “infomercial” can be extended as a subtle advertising and learning tool. To think about your approach to this tool, use the four “A’s” of advertising, Attention, Awareness, Attitude and Action, incorporate them into each video message and the overall campaign. Right now, focus your audience’s Attention the environment and the need to raise capital for Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) for conducting proof-of-concept experiments to show the feasibility of plasma fusion. If they find it interesting fine, if not then it is on to the Awareness campaign, which you should be producing concurrently.

Your message is trying to cut across multiple types of audiences. They may agree with you on the environmental problem, but have a complete misunderstanding of your ultimate goal. Don’t lose them in technological babble. Selling is “KISS” and marketing is gaining life long customers who have an emotional attachment to your product.

My mentor was the lady who wrote the NordicTrack infomercials. I wrote the video on “How to Get Started”. It reduced returns on the 30 day policy by at least 50%. Education on the product brings wisdom and provides great service. Service is why we are here.

[Patientman]

vansig wrote:

The conversations by non-technical advocates of fusion need a guided understanding of how and when this technology may impact the world. One of the key aspects of Dr. Lerner’s book was to dispel misguided theoretical science. The fine line in science fiction writing on this subject should be in the area of providing possible futures without fantasy. The site already has a section on Space ships and their engines, which is good. Are the expressed concepts within the realms of solid science and how does it bring Focus Fusion into the spot light?

This will have an impact from the moment that above-unity power is announced, as it will trigger quite a lot of scientific research and engineering. first applications will be in x-ray lithography and heat generation, even before electrical unity is reached. there is also a socio-political angle. energy futures markets will adjust as knowledge gets out about its potential.

Electrical unity will depend on efficient electricity recovery from both x-rays and the alpha exit beam — i’m guessing two to five years later.

In the first decades of use, deployment will be limited by cost of components, which is a function of mass production processes and availability of raw materials. there will also be a ripple effect as derivative applications are realized: in recycling, desalination, transportation, manufacturing.

This thread was initially focused on the “About” page and I respect that. I did go an review it after the above response. The extreme technical can scare typical audiences, due to their misguided understanding of terms. They don’t take the time to look things up, unfortunately. The phrase “above-unity power” needs some explanation. Not here and not for me. This is where the fission boys and girls have marketed and explained their world in a positive and simple way. I think Focus Fusion needs a definition section for the non-technical participants, like politicians, investors and simple folk. A wiki-pedia approach. Also, your “About” page should be focused first and briefly on who, what where and why, with links to other posted pages that “pop-up”. You should not put posts on the same page, it is distracting. There are rules of engagement and loss of audience when try to put to much on an executive overview type page.

[Author]

Posts