-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I agree that it is an informative discussion but I have not 'vetted' this enough personally to feel comfortable with this opportunity. Opinions will vary, as they do about almost every investment opportunity (there are up to 35% of TSLA shares sold short as of Jan 15..most of us don't agree), so I wish you and others good fortune.
This statement by Nigel seems contradicted by the existence of this very thread, which is about Alt Energy investment, not Tesla investment, but is located in the Tesla Investor forum because it is of interest to many Tesla investors. The same is true of the Other Cool Tech Stock thread, which also is located in this forum despite having nothing to do with Tesla or even (in many cases) energy or sustainability.
That's fine, but pz1975's point was that readers who are not already aware of the LPP Investment thread are less likely to see it in the doghouse of the Off Topic forum than in the Investment forum, and they are unlikely to find it by clicking your link buried in this thread or by using the subscribed thread function for a thread they don't know exists.
Nigel, you have stated (here) that you personally would never consider investing in LPP. But this forum in not for you personally; it is for all Tesla investors, and many of them have expressed interest in LPP and expressed gratitude (to me and LPP) that this TMC forum brought LPP to their attention.
Are pz1975 and I the only people here who think the LPP Investment thread logically belongs in the Investor forum where new readers interested in investment can easily see it and explore it if they wish?
EDIT: NigelM quickly moved this post from the Alt Energy thread in the Investors forum to here in Off Topic forum, which tends to cut off discussion of it in the Investors forum.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
NigelM
Recovering Member
Actually I think the mods are being quite generous in keeping this thread open.
I think it has to do more with people being pushy in promoting LPP as an investment that raises concerns. If the site allows users to be pushy in promoting high-risk private equity investments (esp. ones that they are shareholders of), then it really sets a bad precedent for others to do the same and eventually for the site to be filled with peddlers. The point of the investors section is not for people to push their own investments (esp. in highly speculative private companies) but rather to objectively discuss investment opportunities. When a company is public there is more accountability (ie., from the SEC) and everyone can read their financials and annual/quarterly reports. However, with a private company there needs to be a much higher level of due diligence required in order to understand and evaluate a company. This is why it's more dangerous for the site to allow people to heavily push and promote private equity investments, which tend to be very risky.
I think if the LLP-backers would have just focused on the science and not pushed the company as an investment, then it probably would be fine. But when the LLP-backer(s) became defensive and hostile in their promotion of LLP as an investment, then it crossed the line. If it was my site, I would have already shut down this thread and handed the offenders 1-month suspensions. But that's just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Dave, I sincerely wish I understood the difference in your eyes between being pushy and correcting misinformation about the company. I did the latter about Tesla for many months on Seeking Alpha, thinking that is the purpose of a pubic forum.
Alright, I'll give an example.
Let's say one of the early stage private equity companies I've invested in is being talked about on TMC but in a very factually incorrect manner. Let's say people are saying the company is about to go bankrupt and has no customers. I might step in and say that I know the company and that they have 6 months of runway (cash in bank) and they have 200 customers paying $100/month. That is correcting misinformation about a company.
But if I were to jump into that discussion, correct the misinformation but also tell people that this company is going to be huge and that they ought to invest in it or they'll miss out (and hand out info on how to invest)... then that's not just correcting misinformation... that's being pushy.
On certain sites, that kind of behavior might be accepted or even encouraged. However, this is not TMC's culture. TMC is a very different site than SeekingAlpha or StockTwits.
Also, it becomes even more questionable/concerning on TMC when someone strongly pushes an investment in an early stage private equity company since investing in startups is extremely high-risk behavior with high risk and high rewards. For example, one person might say "My uncle started this cool startup. Invest 50k each now so you don't miss out." What if 50 people make posts like that about 50 different startups? How do the moderators know what to do? Do they leave them up or shut them all down? Since TMC is not focused on startup (early stage private equity) investing, it makes sense that they would discourage such posts as the site and mods aren't really equipped to research each investment opportunity nor is the site's focus about giving those opportunities an audience.
TMC is already stretching themselves somewhat to allow discussion on certain publicly traded stocks/industries. But publicly traded stocks have much greater transparency and legal accountability than early stage private equity companies, so that's why I think those discussions are fine.
If you're going to say that you've only corrected misinformation about LPP on this site, then I think that would be disingenuous since at least part of your motive and posts had to do with introducing LPP as an investment opportunity and encouraging TMC readers to consider becoming investors in the company.
Mario Kadastik
Active Member
As multiple people have sent me private messages about this topic to weigh in as the resident experimentalist, then I decided to finally write a few words just to do a blanket answer 
Firstly, I haven't had the time to do due diligence on LPP as the recent past has been full of my daily works requirements as well as private situations that have demanded a lot of my attention including a loss of someone close to our family. So I cannot at this time in good conscience give a recommendation or assessment of LPP as such until I read their papers but even then I might not be qualified enough.
Now in general from physics point of view fusion as such is kind of the holy grail of energy production due to multiple good reasons already pointed out in this thread and elsewhere. The trouble with fusion is the conditions under which it happens that are extremely difficult to control. Mankind has already unleashed fusion energy on large scale, but I doubt you like the application. The thing I'm talking about are H-bombs which use a nuclear bomb as trigger to reach the necessary conditions of temperature and pressure.
Now I personally am always suspicious and careful for any energy research that has something to do with fusion (cold or hot) due to the huge amount of scammers out there. The most prominent recently being the whole LENR devices by A. Rossi that have been debated in scientific community multiple times. It's not that it isn't possible from physics point of view, but from the way the organizations are run and how they protect the IP making the scientific feasibility extremely doubtful as they clearly don't allow independent validation and the ones they've organized has been utter mockery of the scientific method.
Now LPP so far that I've seen and heard seems to follow a decent path. The physics is published in peer reviewed journals and there have been independent evaluations that as far as I've heard have affirmed the research as promising. To make a realistic assessment one would need to read a ton of papers by them and understand how they attack the main unsolved problems and what kind of team is there to do it. The probability of failure is high and not because always of the theory not being sound enough. ITER is a simple machine in theory, the physics is known and it works. The trouble is the containment and materials to survive the extreme conditions of the plasma. The method by Lerner seems at least from what I'm told to be ingenious in doing a self containment and using smaller scale. But wether it works or not is yet to be seen.
So I cannot promise that in the next couple of weeks I can get around to reading all the paperwork, but even besides the physics part, there are other valid questions about the company as such. How do they plan to protect their IP? With a small team they might not have enough experience to protect it enough that they could indeed enter licensing deals with manufacturers that would give the company the investment perspective that an investor might have. So I do appreciate a lot the due diligence that DaveT and FluxCap are doing as that part can kill a company even if it's innovative and on the right track.
Firstly, I haven't had the time to do due diligence on LPP as the recent past has been full of my daily works requirements as well as private situations that have demanded a lot of my attention including a loss of someone close to our family. So I cannot at this time in good conscience give a recommendation or assessment of LPP as such until I read their papers but even then I might not be qualified enough.
Now in general from physics point of view fusion as such is kind of the holy grail of energy production due to multiple good reasons already pointed out in this thread and elsewhere. The trouble with fusion is the conditions under which it happens that are extremely difficult to control. Mankind has already unleashed fusion energy on large scale, but I doubt you like the application. The thing I'm talking about are H-bombs which use a nuclear bomb as trigger to reach the necessary conditions of temperature and pressure.
Now I personally am always suspicious and careful for any energy research that has something to do with fusion (cold or hot) due to the huge amount of scammers out there. The most prominent recently being the whole LENR devices by A. Rossi that have been debated in scientific community multiple times. It's not that it isn't possible from physics point of view, but from the way the organizations are run and how they protect the IP making the scientific feasibility extremely doubtful as they clearly don't allow independent validation and the ones they've organized has been utter mockery of the scientific method.
Now LPP so far that I've seen and heard seems to follow a decent path. The physics is published in peer reviewed journals and there have been independent evaluations that as far as I've heard have affirmed the research as promising. To make a realistic assessment one would need to read a ton of papers by them and understand how they attack the main unsolved problems and what kind of team is there to do it. The probability of failure is high and not because always of the theory not being sound enough. ITER is a simple machine in theory, the physics is known and it works. The trouble is the containment and materials to survive the extreme conditions of the plasma. The method by Lerner seems at least from what I'm told to be ingenious in doing a self containment and using smaller scale. But wether it works or not is yet to be seen.
So I cannot promise that in the next couple of weeks I can get around to reading all the paperwork, but even besides the physics part, there are other valid questions about the company as such. How do they plan to protect their IP? With a small team they might not have enough experience to protect it enough that they could indeed enter licensing deals with manufacturers that would give the company the investment perspective that an investor might have. So I do appreciate a lot the due diligence that DaveT and FluxCap are doing as that part can kill a company even if it's innovative and on the right track.
Mario,
Welcome! I'm really curious about your thoughts here. I'm an investor in LPP and spent years reading tortuously before I came to my conclusion and finally invested. I seek all reasoned contemplations. (I'm a software and strategy guy, but have little physics background; thus the years of reading.)
What is your background? (I'm hoping it includes physics, because LPP appears to be at the very bleeding edge with ultra-high energy electromagnetic plasma theory.)
Cheers!
-Paul
Mario is an accomplished, award-winning particle physicist who worked on the LHC, though he might not admit as much due to modesty. Whether he takes the time to dig in fully is up to him, but if he chooses to, you can be sure his science will be sound.
LPP - My Take On This and An Effort to Bring it On Topic
At the request of Peter JA, whom I count as a friend and that I respect both as a commentator and as a successful ethical investor I have been taking a close look at LPP for the past couple of months.
As a bit of personal background, my father was a very senior nuclear physicist in the UK and as a result I grew up somewhat immersed and carried with me ever since a baseline fascination in the subject matter of things that make the universe tick from a physics standpoint. In common with anyone who is interested in a future in which humanity exists and thrives I should declare a bias of being interested in seeing practical fusion up and running asap.
Let me start out by stating my impression of the LPP Phase 1 business case.
(Spoiler alert, on first glance it might not be what you would expect coming from me).
Purely from the perspective of owning part of a company (LPP) with a working commercial fusion reactor design amongst its future assets I would calculate the odds of profitability as follows:
(Expectation of Success ~ near zero) multiplied by (Value of success ~ near infinite) divided by (Execution risk upon success ~ near infinite) = rational expectation of return: Infinitesimal (the doughnut). Is this a sensible way to try to make money? No.
It would be a very short piece if that was the end of it and this is a long piece. Why? Because the above is potentially the answer to the wrong question in a case like this, especially in an environment called the Tesla Motors Club Forum. A forum dedicated to discussing a $24bn market cap electric car company to whom the correct answer at the outset was also No and for exactly the same reasons.
So what happened between No and $24bn?
Is fusion one of those things that is most likely to affect the future of humanity? Absolutely Yes.
Does succeeding in this field fit on the evolutionary scale of importance with the taming of fire for example? Absolutely it does.
The success of commercially viable fusion is so important that it will without question be the key to accelerating all of the other things that fit on the evolutionary scale of importance. In particular, precisely the non-radioactive fusion reaction that LPP is aiming to achieve will unlock universal wealth in a clean energy economy on Earth and the freedom to travel beyond this planet and to make other planets habitable with comparative ease.
Is success at least one of the possible outcomes? Well in fact it is.
Sound eerily familiar? Personally I think it does.
To relate it to the familiar, LPP Phase 1 falls somewhere in-between Musk's Mars Oasis philanthropic mission with zero probability of financial success and the first Falcon 1 where at least success was a possible outcome. That would about sum up the linear connections between investment and possible return in my view.
Digging further into LPP there are some very interesting non-linear paths that both stand to enable LPP to blossom from a Mars Oasis to something more resembling SpaceX in 2014 and they offer mechanisms to derive value that are much more reliable than the simple on/off switch view of whether or not a particular set of experiments is likely to achieve net fusion yield or not.
To start with, I am confident that the aim and the approach to the science is valid and makes considerable amounts of good common sense. I believe that aiming for pulsed p+B11 fusion is dramatically more sensible than going after Deuterium+Tritium fusion or steady-state fusion containment in any context that lacks the gravity-well of a star. Mankind has got pulsed fusion to work on Earth quite reliably (Hydrogen bomb) - no attempt at steady-state plasma containment there. In addition to that, the principle of powering a vehicle with pulsed chemical reactions of a compressed gas mixture with electronic ignition is also well understood. Pulsed compressed plasma reactions with electronic ignition is just to take a familiar principle to the next level: From the chemistry of internal combustion engine to the plasma physics equivalent. I like LPP's aim for a reaction that does not need a large and expensive steam turbine to collect the resulting fusion energy (just an induction coil to collect power from accelerated electrons). I also like the idea that LPP is not aiming for a technology that will result in large amounts of neutron radiation - a feature that renders Deuterium-Tritium fusion barely more attractive than nuclear fission (as in a typical nuclear reactor). I like the idea that the end product could ultimately be useful due to the scalability of plasma reactions on a small scale - a clean no-need to refuel for life electric vehicle range extender or a main power source for something like a Tesla Model S. Owing to momentary self-confinement in a kind of magnetic vortex (something like a smoke-ring) is also possible to contemplate opening the back end of the LPP reaction chamber as a controllable and very powerful pulsed plasma rocket engine that could propel anything from a supersonic airliner or the turbine of a large shipping vessel to a near-light speed interplanetary or interstellar spacecraft without irradiating the passengers in each instance. The LPP pulsed plasma fusion concept is very interesting in that it can be controlled by a very similar method to an internal combustion engine with electronic ignition and a carburetor - just with a much bigger spark plug and much cheaper fuel in relation to the energy output. I think this is the right direction for investigation to head in. Whether or not LPP is the one to achieve the end game, on this basis I think any IP generated by LPP is of commercial value in the direction of progress.
On the subject of IP, LPP does possess realistic and immediate IP in the here and now to develop a massive, portable and controllable X-Ray source. The sort of thing that could scan an entire Falcon 9R first stage for structural integrity on return to Earth as an aid to rapid reusability. I am sure that there are similar commercial applications in rapid routine scanning of airliners for metal fatigue as well as pinpointing where and whether or not maintenance work is required for civil engineering structures - bridges and so on.
Generating IP and commercial spin-offs such as the massive X-Ray source camera do in my opinion bring LPP into the range of an investible proposition with measurable risks and rewards (less zeros and infinities required to perform calculations). As some have mentioned, angel investors often like to get involved in their investments and I would suggest the area of focus for that ought to be in providing competence and connections to commercialise the massive X-Ray source camera. This would be an excellent source of profitability and a source ongoing R&D funding.
Additionally, I believe LPP "could" use some help in crafting a funding instrument to both fund the R&D and to repay its angel investors with profits. I am aluding to a financial instrument that treats funding of the near infinite risk and reward case that is commercial fusion as a cheap hedge to the possible total disruption risk it poses to fossil fuels and competing nuclear energy technologies. It would be a sad day for a new multi $billion investment in an oil rig or nuclear power plant to discover LPP has proven net fusion yield effectively rendering those things worthless. However a few shares in LPP at that point could ease the pain considerably. I do believe that Mankind will succeed with fusion and that fossil fuels will be wiped out as a result. When (not if) that breakthrough occurs the effect will be far more rapid than the incremental effects of solar cost-reduction vs the increasing cost of obtaining and suffering the consequences of fossil fuels.
Fusion is not a mystery cure that needs inventing. It is of course the predominant physical effect at the root of all energy on Earth as delivered by the Sun, the giant fusion reactor in the sky. Even fossil fuels obtained their energy content originally from this source via the photosynthesis of ancient plant life. I do not know if heating and compressing plasmas to replicate conditions on the Sun will make fusion commercially viable on Earth. However by the time LPP is done with Phase 1, we will all have the answer to that one way or the other. Assuming that achieving temperature and plasma density is the path to success then LPP is a front runner. Nevertheless, ultimately LPP could be the front runner in proving that fusion R&D aimed at increasing temperature and plasma densities is misguided. There is value in that too. I would expect governments would pay handsomely for simple experimental proof that the Tokamak experimentation is pointless, freeing up $billions.
LPP therefore offers a very interesting binary that may be of use to someone more expert than I in creating funding instruments. LPP is set to disrupt either fossil fuels and Fission or Tokamak experimentation but not neither - and could be sold as a hedge to both. I have introduced this concept with the words LPP "could" use some help in crafting a funding instrument, because (as I have advised LPP) the level of sophistication required to provide funding of this nature disproportionately exposes LPP’s work to expropriation the second LPP crosses the winning line whether it be by dilution or by excessively well-funded legal action. For that is the nature of big money vs financially vulnerable inventors.
More important perhaps than LPP's statistical likelihood of being 'the one' the cracks the code of commercial fusion, I believe that there is a statistically verifiable societal trend that includes a growing willingness to back efforts aimed at solving fossil fuel dependency. The fact that a few investors motivated by the potential for gains, the excitement of a lottery ticket or by a sense of philanthropy are apparently willing to sink small sums of money in support of LPP is I believe evidence of such a trend. I think there is a growing market for shares in ventures like this both in volume and value, even if the only reason for that increase is more newcomers to the table with an honest desire to help.
Finally, I have proposed to LPP something that has the potential to make everyone very happy, angel investors R&D coffers and the company alike. I am referring to $million scale funding based on corporate sponsorship that seeks to link itself with the brand values of exploration of life beyond fossil fuels and the surface of the planet. Well-structured corporate sponsorship provides a ready springboard for "Phase 2" in the case of success and contains none of the negative repercussions of crossing the winning line associated with share ownership. Additionally a Phase 1 delay is simply a longer sponsorship contract, not a blow to shareholders. I happen to have a background in corporate sponsorship and I believe it is possible to raise a figure in the low single digit $millions to back the LPP story. Goodness only knows that with Musk running around with EVs and Rockets there a few companies out there that could use a few verifiable links to cutting edge fusion research to keep up appearances.
As alluded to above. Like Mars Oasis becoming the nucleating thought behind SpaceX for which the absence of a multi $billion valuation in 2014 would be an exquisitely improbable outcome, there is no linear path from investment to returns with LPP. Nevertheless, the non linear paths can occasionally be even more interesting in the final outcome. I think LPP has the potential to qualify for this scenario. Perhaps giving them a hand because fusion is important is reason enough.
Julian.
Do PM Me if any points raised results in an action item to explore.
At the request of Peter JA, whom I count as a friend and that I respect both as a commentator and as a successful ethical investor I have been taking a close look at LPP for the past couple of months.
As a bit of personal background, my father was a very senior nuclear physicist in the UK and as a result I grew up somewhat immersed and carried with me ever since a baseline fascination in the subject matter of things that make the universe tick from a physics standpoint. In common with anyone who is interested in a future in which humanity exists and thrives I should declare a bias of being interested in seeing practical fusion up and running asap.
Let me start out by stating my impression of the LPP Phase 1 business case.
(Spoiler alert, on first glance it might not be what you would expect coming from me).
Purely from the perspective of owning part of a company (LPP) with a working commercial fusion reactor design amongst its future assets I would calculate the odds of profitability as follows:
(Expectation of Success ~ near zero) multiplied by (Value of success ~ near infinite) divided by (Execution risk upon success ~ near infinite) = rational expectation of return: Infinitesimal (the doughnut). Is this a sensible way to try to make money? No.
It would be a very short piece if that was the end of it and this is a long piece. Why? Because the above is potentially the answer to the wrong question in a case like this, especially in an environment called the Tesla Motors Club Forum. A forum dedicated to discussing a $24bn market cap electric car company to whom the correct answer at the outset was also No and for exactly the same reasons.
So what happened between No and $24bn?
Is fusion one of those things that is most likely to affect the future of humanity? Absolutely Yes.
Does succeeding in this field fit on the evolutionary scale of importance with the taming of fire for example? Absolutely it does.
The success of commercially viable fusion is so important that it will without question be the key to accelerating all of the other things that fit on the evolutionary scale of importance. In particular, precisely the non-radioactive fusion reaction that LPP is aiming to achieve will unlock universal wealth in a clean energy economy on Earth and the freedom to travel beyond this planet and to make other planets habitable with comparative ease.
Is success at least one of the possible outcomes? Well in fact it is.
Sound eerily familiar? Personally I think it does.
To relate it to the familiar, LPP Phase 1 falls somewhere in-between Musk's Mars Oasis philanthropic mission with zero probability of financial success and the first Falcon 1 where at least success was a possible outcome. That would about sum up the linear connections between investment and possible return in my view.
Digging further into LPP there are some very interesting non-linear paths that both stand to enable LPP to blossom from a Mars Oasis to something more resembling SpaceX in 2014 and they offer mechanisms to derive value that are much more reliable than the simple on/off switch view of whether or not a particular set of experiments is likely to achieve net fusion yield or not.
To start with, I am confident that the aim and the approach to the science is valid and makes considerable amounts of good common sense. I believe that aiming for pulsed p+B11 fusion is dramatically more sensible than going after Deuterium+Tritium fusion or steady-state fusion containment in any context that lacks the gravity-well of a star. Mankind has got pulsed fusion to work on Earth quite reliably (Hydrogen bomb) - no attempt at steady-state plasma containment there. In addition to that, the principle of powering a vehicle with pulsed chemical reactions of a compressed gas mixture with electronic ignition is also well understood. Pulsed compressed plasma reactions with electronic ignition is just to take a familiar principle to the next level: From the chemistry of internal combustion engine to the plasma physics equivalent. I like LPP's aim for a reaction that does not need a large and expensive steam turbine to collect the resulting fusion energy (just an induction coil to collect power from accelerated electrons). I also like the idea that LPP is not aiming for a technology that will result in large amounts of neutron radiation - a feature that renders Deuterium-Tritium fusion barely more attractive than nuclear fission (as in a typical nuclear reactor). I like the idea that the end product could ultimately be useful due to the scalability of plasma reactions on a small scale - a clean no-need to refuel for life electric vehicle range extender or a main power source for something like a Tesla Model S. Owing to momentary self-confinement in a kind of magnetic vortex (something like a smoke-ring) is also possible to contemplate opening the back end of the LPP reaction chamber as a controllable and very powerful pulsed plasma rocket engine that could propel anything from a supersonic airliner or the turbine of a large shipping vessel to a near-light speed interplanetary or interstellar spacecraft without irradiating the passengers in each instance. The LPP pulsed plasma fusion concept is very interesting in that it can be controlled by a very similar method to an internal combustion engine with electronic ignition and a carburetor - just with a much bigger spark plug and much cheaper fuel in relation to the energy output. I think this is the right direction for investigation to head in. Whether or not LPP is the one to achieve the end game, on this basis I think any IP generated by LPP is of commercial value in the direction of progress.
On the subject of IP, LPP does possess realistic and immediate IP in the here and now to develop a massive, portable and controllable X-Ray source. The sort of thing that could scan an entire Falcon 9R first stage for structural integrity on return to Earth as an aid to rapid reusability. I am sure that there are similar commercial applications in rapid routine scanning of airliners for metal fatigue as well as pinpointing where and whether or not maintenance work is required for civil engineering structures - bridges and so on.
Generating IP and commercial spin-offs such as the massive X-Ray source camera do in my opinion bring LPP into the range of an investible proposition with measurable risks and rewards (less zeros and infinities required to perform calculations). As some have mentioned, angel investors often like to get involved in their investments and I would suggest the area of focus for that ought to be in providing competence and connections to commercialise the massive X-Ray source camera. This would be an excellent source of profitability and a source ongoing R&D funding.
Additionally, I believe LPP "could" use some help in crafting a funding instrument to both fund the R&D and to repay its angel investors with profits. I am aluding to a financial instrument that treats funding of the near infinite risk and reward case that is commercial fusion as a cheap hedge to the possible total disruption risk it poses to fossil fuels and competing nuclear energy technologies. It would be a sad day for a new multi $billion investment in an oil rig or nuclear power plant to discover LPP has proven net fusion yield effectively rendering those things worthless. However a few shares in LPP at that point could ease the pain considerably. I do believe that Mankind will succeed with fusion and that fossil fuels will be wiped out as a result. When (not if) that breakthrough occurs the effect will be far more rapid than the incremental effects of solar cost-reduction vs the increasing cost of obtaining and suffering the consequences of fossil fuels.
Fusion is not a mystery cure that needs inventing. It is of course the predominant physical effect at the root of all energy on Earth as delivered by the Sun, the giant fusion reactor in the sky. Even fossil fuels obtained their energy content originally from this source via the photosynthesis of ancient plant life. I do not know if heating and compressing plasmas to replicate conditions on the Sun will make fusion commercially viable on Earth. However by the time LPP is done with Phase 1, we will all have the answer to that one way or the other. Assuming that achieving temperature and plasma density is the path to success then LPP is a front runner. Nevertheless, ultimately LPP could be the front runner in proving that fusion R&D aimed at increasing temperature and plasma densities is misguided. There is value in that too. I would expect governments would pay handsomely for simple experimental proof that the Tokamak experimentation is pointless, freeing up $billions.
LPP therefore offers a very interesting binary that may be of use to someone more expert than I in creating funding instruments. LPP is set to disrupt either fossil fuels and Fission or Tokamak experimentation but not neither - and could be sold as a hedge to both. I have introduced this concept with the words LPP "could" use some help in crafting a funding instrument, because (as I have advised LPP) the level of sophistication required to provide funding of this nature disproportionately exposes LPP’s work to expropriation the second LPP crosses the winning line whether it be by dilution or by excessively well-funded legal action. For that is the nature of big money vs financially vulnerable inventors.
More important perhaps than LPP's statistical likelihood of being 'the one' the cracks the code of commercial fusion, I believe that there is a statistically verifiable societal trend that includes a growing willingness to back efforts aimed at solving fossil fuel dependency. The fact that a few investors motivated by the potential for gains, the excitement of a lottery ticket or by a sense of philanthropy are apparently willing to sink small sums of money in support of LPP is I believe evidence of such a trend. I think there is a growing market for shares in ventures like this both in volume and value, even if the only reason for that increase is more newcomers to the table with an honest desire to help.
Finally, I have proposed to LPP something that has the potential to make everyone very happy, angel investors R&D coffers and the company alike. I am referring to $million scale funding based on corporate sponsorship that seeks to link itself with the brand values of exploration of life beyond fossil fuels and the surface of the planet. Well-structured corporate sponsorship provides a ready springboard for "Phase 2" in the case of success and contains none of the negative repercussions of crossing the winning line associated with share ownership. Additionally a Phase 1 delay is simply a longer sponsorship contract, not a blow to shareholders. I happen to have a background in corporate sponsorship and I believe it is possible to raise a figure in the low single digit $millions to back the LPP story. Goodness only knows that with Musk running around with EVs and Rockets there a few companies out there that could use a few verifiable links to cutting edge fusion research to keep up appearances.
As alluded to above. Like Mars Oasis becoming the nucleating thought behind SpaceX for which the absence of a multi $billion valuation in 2014 would be an exquisitely improbable outcome, there is no linear path from investment to returns with LPP. Nevertheless, the non linear paths can occasionally be even more interesting in the final outcome. I think LPP has the potential to qualify for this scenario. Perhaps giving them a hand because fusion is important is reason enough.
Julian.
Do PM Me if any points raised results in an action item to explore.
Last edited:
As an addendum:
Here is an example of a single 600 nanosecond pulse, net positive yield, man-made fusion reaction from a device that in later iterations could be carried easily on a truck, a plane or launched on a missile:
IVY-MIKE -- FIRST HYDROGEN BOMB TEST - YouTube
This is a 10 Megaton pulse obtained from the input energy of a 15 Kiloton fission reaction.
Naturally the dissipation of the kinetic, radiated and thermal energy of a 10 Megaton explosion (forming mushroom cloud etc) takes a lot longer than 600 billionths of a second, but still, the actual fusion reaction from beginning to end was no longer than that. I think this helps to validate the pulsed plasma ignition approach as a sensible attack vector on the problem of commercializing fusion.
There is of course no need to ignite anything like this quantity of fuel per pulse in the experiments or devices contemplated by LPP, nor of course any plan to ignite relatively tiny plasmas with the aid of an atomic bomb. Nevertheless it is clearly possible to derive really astonishing amounts of energy from relatively tiny quantities of fuel via this method and unlike an atomic bomb or a typical nuclear reactor, this is a reaction that amplifies the input energy. It is not a chain reaction that requires effort to get it to stop once started at risk of a melt down.
Here is an example of a single 600 nanosecond pulse, net positive yield, man-made fusion reaction from a device that in later iterations could be carried easily on a truck, a plane or launched on a missile:
IVY-MIKE -- FIRST HYDROGEN BOMB TEST - YouTube
This is a 10 Megaton pulse obtained from the input energy of a 15 Kiloton fission reaction.
Naturally the dissipation of the kinetic, radiated and thermal energy of a 10 Megaton explosion (forming mushroom cloud etc) takes a lot longer than 600 billionths of a second, but still, the actual fusion reaction from beginning to end was no longer than that. I think this helps to validate the pulsed plasma ignition approach as a sensible attack vector on the problem of commercializing fusion.
There is of course no need to ignite anything like this quantity of fuel per pulse in the experiments or devices contemplated by LPP, nor of course any plan to ignite relatively tiny plasmas with the aid of an atomic bomb. Nevertheless it is clearly possible to derive really astonishing amounts of energy from relatively tiny quantities of fuel via this method and unlike an atomic bomb or a typical nuclear reactor, this is a reaction that amplifies the input energy. It is not a chain reaction that requires effort to get it to stop once started at risk of a melt down.
Yes please keep the discussion on. As far as concerns abput people posting and appearing to 'promote' this or other companies please note they have been very transparent in acknowledgement of their interest or investment in the company. Not much different from being another Tesla fanboy or girl. Public company or not please keep the discussion going.
Julian, (or anyone else)
Very helpful analysis. Just one question. If LPP has a small chance of success, but an "infinite" return, then why even bother investing now? Why not wait for the inevitable IPO, or further down the line, and invest then. This would mitigate a huge amount of risk (especially dilution risks that Dave brought up) while still securing a huge amount of profit if LPP truly is the future of energy.
Or do you not think any sort of (further) capital raising is on the horizon for LPP's path to world energy domination?
Very helpful analysis. Just one question. If LPP has a small chance of success, but an "infinite" return, then why even bother investing now? Why not wait for the inevitable IPO, or further down the line, and invest then. This would mitigate a huge amount of risk (especially dilution risks that Dave brought up) while still securing a huge amount of profit if LPP truly is the future of energy.
Or do you not think any sort of (further) capital raising is on the horizon for LPP's path to world energy domination?
Last edited:
I suspect the price is comparatively low now because the small team has to eat, pay rent, electricity, materials etc and simply have little bargaining power. If/when they can (hopefully soon) demonstrate ignition, several VCs can be expected to knock on the door offering money in the tens of millions to pay for development of a prototype machine, and only after that is proven viable will there be a secondary wave of financing or IPO. Those shares will not be $100. This is my guess.
But nobody should risk money they cannot afford to lose. The shares being offered now have exactly zero value at present (theoretical audit paper value a few dollars) and cannot be traded at all. They might become much more valuable at or after an IPO. That's the win on this lottery. ;-) The probable loss equals what one paid for them.
Or if you want an exact solution to "infinity" times "zero", expect a typical investment to lie maybe somewhere between $0.00000001 and $100.000.000, roughly. So save your piggybank for that golden opportunity ;-p
Last edited:
Right, by the time they prove out their theory with a prototype, the IPO share price would be 100,000x higher already, as it goes up that infinite value curve. Julian put it well, but a thinking person should know that cheap, environmentally benign electricity would be the most significant human invention ever (I would put fire at #2, flush toilets #3 )
)So let me get this straight.
LPP is on the verge of an energy breakthrough, and Eric Jerner presumably sees a path to total energy domination.
However, instead of getting financed through a bank, government, Bill Gates, etc. they are willing to give up the most valuable thing they have (shares, which they believe will be worth millions a piece) to a small time investor like me for a mere $5,000?!!!
I am not well versed in how business works, but someone explain to me how the above scenario makes any business sense whatsoever. I'm a biologist by training, but know a bit of Physics. The science is convincing that this is feasible, but the entire investment structure screams of a scam to me! If the science is convincing, then why do they need my measly 5k? I would think if they could convince me, they could convince someone who invests BIG money instead.
This really makes me fear that what Dave said is true: in the event of them going big, my shares won't be protected.
And I don't think Julian's argument is even that persuasive. It basically rests on "this reminds me of the beginning of TSLA, so invest now". I can dig up plenty of start-ups where the challenges were insurmountable, and guess what? Those companies failed.
LPP is on the verge of an energy breakthrough, and Eric Jerner presumably sees a path to total energy domination.
However, instead of getting financed through a bank, government, Bill Gates, etc. they are willing to give up the most valuable thing they have (shares, which they believe will be worth millions a piece) to a small time investor like me for a mere $5,000?!!!
I am not well versed in how business works, but someone explain to me how the above scenario makes any business sense whatsoever. I'm a biologist by training, but know a bit of Physics. The science is convincing that this is feasible, but the entire investment structure screams of a scam to me! If the science is convincing, then why do they need my measly 5k? I would think if they could convince me, they could convince someone who invests BIG money instead.
This really makes me fear that what Dave said is true: in the event of them going big, my shares won't be protected.
And I don't think Julian's argument is even that persuasive. It basically rests on "this reminds me of the beginning of TSLA, so invest now". I can dig up plenty of start-ups where the challenges were insurmountable, and guess what? Those companies failed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
