Polywell Will be a Chapter in My New Book on Risk

Discuss ways to make polywell research more widely known or better understood. Includes education and outreach.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:48 pm


Curtis Faith
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:59 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Postby Curtis Faith » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:48 pm

I have spent a lot of time in startups and believe that the source of U.S. innovation has been the novel way we fund new ideas. Initially this was venture capital but more and more the VCs are only interested in proven ideas. Most of them are no longer willing to risk much. They prefer the sure thing.

The role of risk-taker has been usurped by angel investors. These are the early investors who take the big risk developing an idea to a proven concept at some scale which justifies investment in development dollars at the scales that interest VCs.

There is a lot of interest on the part of VCs in alternative energy but not so much in ideas which are not proven at all.

It is my belief that Polywell Fusion will be easy to fund if the results of WB-6 are corroborated by Dr. Nebel's work with WB-7. The Navy has done the angel investing here.

The problem here is that if this is to prove out, we have an excellent example of the failure of our energy research at the national level. These ideas should have been funded better. We need to come up with ways of investing in research that spend a lot more on ideas that might be viable, and a lot less on the "one true way."

If the ideas hold up then this will be a good example of success despite the system not because of it.

You would think that an approach which was an extension of the simplest and easiest known working method to generate actual fusion (i.e. a fusor) would be funded over one that is the most complicated and expensive way to get fusion and one where we see no viable way of producing power at reasonable capital costs (i.e. Tokamak). Alas that has not been the case.

The examples of the Office of Naval Research highlighted above are one approach that works better than what we've been getting out of the DOE.

- Curtis

Curtis Faith
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:59 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Postby Curtis Faith » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:20 pm

I have spent a lot of time in startups and believe that the source of U.S. innovation has been the novel way we fund new ideas. Initially this was venture capital but more and more the VCs are only interested in proven ideas. Most of them are no longer willing to risk much. They prefer the sure thing.

The role of risk-taker has been usurped by angel investors. These are the early investors who take the big risk developing an idea to a proven concept at some scale which justifies investment in development dollars at the scales that interest VCs.

There is a lot of interest on the part of VCs in alternative energy but not so much in ideas which are not proven at all.

It is my belief that Polywell Fusion will be easy to fund if the results of WB-6 are corroborated by Dr. Nebel's work with WB-7. The Navy has done the angel investing here.

The problem here is that if this is to prove out, we have an excellent example of the failure of our energy research at the national level. These ideas should have been funded better. We need to come up with ways of investing in research that spend a lot more on ideas that might be viable, and a lot less on the "one true way."

If the ideas hold up then this will be a good example of success despite the system not because of it.

You would think that an approach which was an extension of the simplest and easiest method to generate actual fusion would be funded over one that is the most complicated and expensive way to get fusion and one where we see no viable way of producing power at reasonable capital costs. Alas that has not been the case.

The examples of the Office of Naval Research highlighted above are one approach that works better than what we've been getting out of the DOE.

- Curtis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:20 pm


drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Postby drmike » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:32 pm


MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:34 am



[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1236: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Awareness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests