Talk-Polywell.org

classicpenny wrote:

Skipjack wrote:Seeing that LPP had problems getting even 200k via crowd funding, I have no hope that this will work.
I recently saw a really good speech by Jeff Greason from XCOR (who I admire for a lot of reasons) about how congress decides on their funding for the space program. It is a really good explanation for why this does not work well:

If I had $40 million to invest, I would ask Dr. Park if he was interested, but I don't have it. I DO pay taxes to the US however, and I DO have representatives in the US government, and I can TRY to get Dr. Park funding that way. I want him to get his funding as soon as possible and I believe he will be in a better position to negotiate if he has more than one funding pathway to choose from. We DO want his funding to continue, don't WE?

I absolutely agree that trying every angle is a good idea, but I am skeptical (being skeptical does not mean that you should not try anyway).

CP
While you are at it, double your odds by buying a lottery ticket.

I absolutely think that some funding is better than no funding.
However, given any chance to flavor and/or prioritize the funding, I would do so.

ladajo wrote:One of the problems I think is very clear once you notice it. That is the team.
In order to do this work you can't go to the local 401 and hire an electrician, and then get another one the week after.
It is specialized work with specialized experience. And the only guys who really have it are those who are on the team. This is most definately not general plasma work.

That's an excellent point. What do we know about the team? Park and Krall are familiar to the forum, what about the rest of them?
With the Navy contract only under no-cost extension, and the publicity tour looks like only the beginning of a fundraise, how many do you suppose are still on payroll today?

Well....

at least Dr. Park.

It is probably fair to say that they are not in 'full operations' at this point.
Staffing level is really dependant on the $$ burn rate, and how soon Dr. Park anticipates follow on funding.

What would make sense would be to have a couple of key persons on call (if they could be convinced to do this over time), and bring them in for Demos and special specific maintenance or other needs.

Core staff? At this point, the safer way would be bare bones.

But I don't want to speak for Dr. Park, after all, what do I know?

This whole funding discussion is absurd, given that the cost to bring Polywell to Demo level is about the same as one widebody airliner.

I agree it is absurd.
So convince someone who is buying an airliner to give it up and buy Dr. Park instead.

This is the focal point for EMC2; visibility.

To date they have had little to none.

Now they are coming out. Two factors will determine how fast and how much funding support he will get.
1. Credibility
2. Distribution of knowledge of this credibility.

IMO, Congress doesn't care about credibility, and thus can not be counted on for serious funding. They care about how many votes the money they spend will buy.
And right now, based on items 1 & 2 above, they don't give a shit.

You forgot the most important factor, the crony - stooge factor. Buffet can get the Keystone pipeline shut down just so his rail business will get a boost. Reality, folks, reality.

I still do not get why one of the silicon valley mega-rich nerds doesn't privately fund this as a project.

They are all green energy liberal tycoon types. You would think they jump at a chance to pioneer an energy system like this. It is a drop in the bucket for some of them. This is why Bussard went to Google in the first place and nothing came of it as far as I know. Instead, you hear of people like Paul Allen trying to buy up sports teams as a private collection for whatever pleasure that gives him.

These are technology nerds, they should grok the possibilities without too much trouble.

JoeP wrote:I still do not get why one of the silicon valley mega-rich nerds doesn't privately fund this as a project.

They are all green energy liberal tycoon types. You would think they jump at a chance to pioneer an energy system like this. It is a drop in the bucket for some of them. This is why Bussard went to Google in the first place and nothing came of it as far as I know. Instead, you hear of people like Paul Allen trying to buy up sports teams as a private collection for whatever pleasure that gives him.

These are technology nerds, they should grok the possibilities without too much trouble.

Rich investors are generally risk averse.

Skipjack wrote:

JoeP wrote:I still do not get why one of the silicon valley mega-rich nerds doesn't privately fund this as a project.

They are all green energy liberal tycoon types. You would think they jump at a chance to pioneer an energy system like this. It is a drop in the bucket for some of them. This is why Bussard went to Google in the first place and nothing came of it as far as I know. Instead, you hear of people like Paul Allen trying to buy up sports teams as a private collection for whatever pleasure that gives him.

These are technology nerds, they should grok the possibilities without too much trouble.

Rich investors are generally risk averse.

Paul Allen is worth about 16 billion USD.

A few tens of millions invested into Polywell is hardly going to give him investment anxiety. Even with, say, only a 25% chance of success, it is a good "gamble" on a game changing technology. And the profits with a successful system are potentially vast.

I believe the JOBS Act was intended to remedy this situation. However, the SEC has been slow to implement Title III of the Act. There have been complaints with Title III as it was passed, as well as with the SEC's proposed regulations. Congressman Patrick McHenry is introducing legislation to amend Title III to remove some of the grounds for complaints, to make it less ambiguous, and to give the SEC less room for interpretation. The hope is that this amended form of Title III will get implemented more quickly. I guess we'll see.

I would say crowdfunding, as it currently exists, is not an ideal way to raise money for a fusion research company. If you want to go that route, you need to think long and hard about what cool rewards to offer people for contributing. Otherwise you might as well be asking for handouts. Offering shares in the company, on the other hand....

That said, I could see using a crowdfunding campaign as a way to raise awareness, then when conditions in the U.S. change so that you're able to offer stock to ordinary people, notifying your contributors of the opportunity.

Regarding Paul Allen, he has already invested in Tri-Alpha, which leads me to another thought: I wonder how much of a role competition plays in investment decisions. True, most people don't know much about fusion, and those who have only know about say, ITER and NIF. But if you've heard of EMC2, there's a very good chance you've also heard of LPP, Tri-Alpha, General Fusion, etc. It's one thing to decide you know enough about fusion to invest in a certain fusion company, It's quite another to decide you know enough to predict which companies will make it and which won't. Of course, nothing prevents you from hedging your bets....

I don't get the sense that there is much jealousy between these small fusion projects. I doubt Allen will back EMC2, but that's because he's already invested. This is somebody else's turn. But I'll bet, if that somebody else asked Allen if he should back EMC2, the answer would be "Go ahead. One or the other has a good chance of succeeding first, and whichever one it is, the other will benefit. Each company has expertise needed to make fusion a commercial reality."

EMC2, Tri-Alpha, and LLP all want to do p-B11. The first one to get fusion going with DD or DT reinforces this goal.

This brings up an important point. These various approaches to fusion are fighting to not only prove the concept, but also potentially compete for economic viability. This is mostly different from the Tokamak, which can only progress with huge government investment and oversight, and which has poor economic viability even if the concept is proven out.

Dan Tibbets