My thoughts, for what they're worth...
Peter, thanks for the continued discussion...
...
Trying to help here, that's all.
FluxCap / Everyone,
I replied to your post for not particular reason other than to add my $0.02. (Warning: Megapost ahead.)
I found this thread looking for new news on LPP. I don't drive a Tesla, although I considered it carefully last year. I've decided to wait a couple of years to see what happens with batteries, supercharger stations, etc. However, I was VERY close... But I digress. My G37S is paid for - hard to beat at the moment. So I apologize if non-invested people aren't welcomed in these parts.
I wanted to chime in because it looks to me like a common digital miscommunication has happened. Perhaps I can give a slightly different viewpoint on a couple of things and help reduce some chest thumping. Nobody asked me to come here - I'm not advocating anything except emotional restraint.
I have no official affiliation with LPP other than I hope what they're doing is possible because I feel it would benefit humanity in many ways. I've also had conversations with those at LPP having to do with issues irrelevant to this post. I visted LPP's Middlesex lab in January and it is my opinion that Eric is not only brilliant, but may just be right about the focus fusion device being viable as a commercializable energy source. Eric is careful, frugal and knowledgeable. The consequences of LPP being successful would be enormous, *IF* the device can be made to work.
I am a US citizen, accredited investor and investor in LPP (well above the $25K minimum.) I invested before the minimum was dropped to $5K. LPP asked me the right questions about the SEC requirements and I had their agreements reviewed by one of my attorneys, who has experience with SEC restrictions and regulated investments. The only red-flag my attorney's brought up was was Eric Lerner's salary, which he mentioned (and I agree) was slightly low compared to other companies. (The reason for this, I believe, is because Eric isn't in this to get rich off of the VC - he's perfectly satisfied with being rich with the end result, or poor, as it were. Gotta love that.)
Peter (who I have never met) wrote a positive article recently (which I have read) and (I think) linked to it here. Peter is obviously motivated to help LPP (as am I.) Peter's advocacy of LPP is understandable, but it looks to me like he's been caught in a common situation that happens a lot in online forums. Emotion is difficult to convey via text. He's jumping up and down (rightly so) about a great opportunity and can easily come off as someone trying to push a scam (even unwittingly.) This appears to have been exasperated by misinterpretation of honest questions being brought up. Those questions were perhaps interpreted aggressively as accusations and so the responses were written aggressively only to come off as unjustified defensiveness. Rinse + repeat = conflict. Nobody wins.
First, I encourage accredited investors to contact LPP directly to get their investment package. Email them and ask them questions. I did this and received timely answers to my questions.
Second, have their documents reviewed by people you know including an experienced attorney. If you don't do this, then you only have yourself to blame.
Third, I believe LPP has burned through just over $3M. The lower numbers are (I believe) due to the website being out of date. This is probably due to severely limited staff (as is alluded to in their most recent status report.)
Fourth, I'm pretty sure they opened up the minimum to $5K to encourage foreign investment in smaller amounts, but I could be wrong (ask them!) They don't appear to be anywhere close to hitting any legal limits of investors. Would I have done that? I don't know. They've been squeezed into a cash-scarcity position because of how complicated it is to evaluate whether or not to invest. It seems they could reverse that decision at will. If they get a good burst of cash, I would expect them to reverse it.
I started following fusion issues starting with Bussard's infamous Polywell talk and Eric Lerner's Focus Fusion talk in 2007. I read for years about everything surrounding all of the different approaches. When I got close to leaning toward the LPP technology (mid-2012), I literally read for 4-5 months - I read everything about it on the internet, watched countless hours of videos. I read in detail about every competitor as well (Helion, General Fusion, Tri-Alpha, etc.) I must have spent more than 1000 hours reading and digesting this stuff. I would be surprised if there's a publicly available video about LPP that I haven't seen at least once; many several times. I finally ended up firmly hedging that LPP was my horse in the race. Something interesting I've heard is that even if another solution works, it isn't over if LPP ends up working as well. LPP appears to have the simplest/cheapest solution going. For LPP to lose, it means that something else has to win *AND* LPP has to fail, regardless of the time frame, or something much better than LPP's solution has to be found. LPP's solution is essentially solid state and remarkably simple.
Before I finally invested, I went through what I call the "acid test" phase - I approached it from the standpoint of someone trying to criticize LPP's position in any way possible. I searched for any information I could find about people criticizing Eric Lerner's ideas and/or the LPP/DPF (DPF = Dense Plasma Focus) approach. I couldn't find much against it and the small amount I found didn't compel me.
I cold called the gentleman who runs the Abell Foundation (whose name I cannot recall at the moment.) He originally called on a plasma physicist he knew to do an external/impartial investigation into LPP and he essentially came back with a positive report finding no undisclosed boogey men. But nobody will know for sure until it is proven. Abell ended up investing a substantial amount (ask LPP for specifics) and the guy who ran it saw it for what it is: A risky investment with large potential upside, but considerable unknowns.
Peter is justified in being excited. (I'm was and am just as excited.)
Those with hard questions are justified in being cautious. (I was and am just as cautious.)
Here are some thoughts:
What LPP is doing is both very complicated and very difficult. Perhaps some of the most complicated, misunderstood and confusing science ever. Nobody knows if LPP can make this work, including LPP. Eric will be the first to tell you nobody can know for sure if there's an unknown limit, but there does not appear to be one in established science. He says that there appears to be no reason this shouldn't work and the only way to know is to try it. That's what he's doing. 10 years ago, most scientists quickly shrugged off Eric's idea as ridiculous. I don't see anyone poo-pooing LPP anymore. The worst criticisms I've seen is people convinced he'll hit a materials limit, but that remains to be seen. From what I've seen, Eric Lerner is painfully careful about everything he says technically to not oversell his situation. He does this in person as well, which is sometimes odd because I could see the gears in his head going as he carefully chose words that avoided overstating specific things or that could give an imprecise impression.
At the same time, LPP's structure is uncommon because of how they're trying to do what they're trying to do. Don't take my word on this - ask them and look at their structure and history. Eric has been very careful to not allow a situation where a VC faction can easily corrupt the intentions of the endeavor over money. That produces a non-optimal VC environment (as rightly pointed out by DaveT.) It does at first look fishy. If I were doing what Eric is doing, I'd likely do it similarly (the hard way) because I personally hate how VC's often care only about money. Eric decided to structure it this way even if that makes it look weird to money-grubbing VCs. I can't fault him for this, but I also understand how it looks fishy.
I agree with Peter that if LPP can demonstrate scientific feasibility, he won't have to worry about typical VCs - he'll be able to take his pick on investors. I think there's a wall of investors sitting in the front row waiting for some tipping point before they spring forth. The typical VCs will be in for a rude awakening if they expect to swoop in like they would in a typical VC situation. I don't think Eric is in this to sell out. I think he'll make sure the money is there for the right reasons and that the promise of affordable power will get to the masses. It only takes one sizable philanthropist to fund Phase II for humanity and there are plenty out there.
I really encourage everyone (Peter, DaveT, FluxCap, etc.) to acknowledge that (I think) you're all correct. This is exciting stuff, but due diligence and research is necessary before making assertions that paints this situation in one way or another. It would be irresponsible to state one side without the other. I think the fact that you each ended up in adversarial postures in this thread is unfortunate and I hope you can each reset your positions. I'd welcome and acknowledge the others positions and move on.
By the way, the way I think of my investment is this: In years of trying, I haven't found a single good technical reason LPP's idea should be impossible. In addition, in my opinion, if Eric is right about the upcoming steps LPP is taking, they should meet their goals or come very close. There are a lot of variables and LPP is forging ahead in realms of science that are as yet empirically unproven. There could be materials limitations that become enough of a problem during Phase II so as to stall the project out (but who knows?) This is something of an "immovable object meets irresistable force" problem. If I don't invest, I will literally hate myself for not being part of it. At the same time, I think I understand how hard it is for LPP to get investment given that their proposition and structure is quite uncommon. If investors don't ante up, they cannot succeed. Someone has to try these ideas, so I threw my hat in the ring because I refuse to be on the depressing side of that equation. I'd rather eat the (substantial) cost than wish I'd played my cards safer.
I would much rather see private attempts like LPP funded at relatively small scales than see billions wasted over decades by corporate/government funding machines. (ie: ITER.)
I don't expect anyone to have the same reasons I did for investing and I hope my comments are taken in an appropriate context.
Getting emotional about whether or not to invest is up to you, but everyone (Peter, DaveT, et al) - just get the data in the open and may those with enough backbone partake. Trying to read tea leaves without due diligence is silly. From my experience, LPP is on the level (and is remarkably honorable at that.) However, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it is nearly impossible to convince anyone of that without having don a ton of research.
I had the time to blow 1000+ hours reading and I think a lot of the reason LPP doesn't get more investors is because people often don't have the time and/or aptitude to digest as much as I did. That's a shame, but it is understandable. I think almost all of the usual investor types are sitting on the sidelines because the LPP proposition isn't typical. I think it is good that LPP is structured this way, even with this difficulty as a downside.
If you're throwing money at this as a get-rich-quick scheme, you're irresponsible. But if it works and you don't get in, you'll get to watch others' stock skyrocket. Neither option is comfortable. Neither option should be condemned, either.
I hope my ideas help both the cautious and excited to know that everyone is just as confused/curious/opinionated about this whole thing. We don't need to pick teams like this is some contest. Each investor should pick a side with their money and avoid trying too hard to convince others about what to do.
-Paul
