-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
No, last September NIF got more energy out than their laser target absorbed, which is a tiny fraction of the energy needed to fire the lasers.
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2013/10/fusion-breakthrough-nif-uh-not-really-…
I agree.
The original question you raised was: Can "one scientist working in a garage" be relied on to "not change his mind and sell out" his shareholders for personal gain. All the evidence that you've helpfully provided suggests to me that the answer for Eric is yes, since he seems quite concerned about people besides himself. And his scrabbling for 25 years suggests to me the same determination and tenacity that Elon showed when he bet his last dollar on Tesla.
A man need not be a billionaire to have integrity. A man need not work in a fancy place to bring great benefit to the world. Elon, despite his great contributions to the world, is unlikely to win a Nobel prize for physics. Eric, despite his great lack of billionaire trinkets, just might.
Clearly you don't like Eric's politics. But what do his politics have to do with his ability to achieve breakthrough science, and his determination to not sell out?
The fact that Marxism and business are not polar opposites is a topic we can't discuss here. Suffice to say, you would find the answers to your questions, if you looked, in LPP's private placement memorandum, which is a highly businesslike document.
- - - Updated - - -
NIF would prefer you to sit uncorrected.
Last edited:
Nigel. Lerner is no salesman and he is certainly no Musk, that much is for sure. However that I think is not such a bad thing.
Musk and Jobs before him are extremely rare in their ability to fully comprehend both the nuances of the technology and the nuances of marketing and finance.
Lerner is an academic in the field of physics with all of the usual attendant disabilities (financially repellent views on social engineering for example).
I think it is incumbent on anyone looking at this to be able to take a view on it. Personally I put it in the same category as Stephen Hawking's wheelchair. They are both very serious distractions to the goal of dating chicks but it does not necessarily detract from the subject of plasma physics.
A as mater of fact I have written to Eric Lerner in person as well as an open letter to his team asking the very question: After 25 years largely wasted on actively repelling the money required to see this project through, is Mr Lerner willing to focus on the tech and get out of his own way on the subject of business and finance. Interestingly the answer came back as a yes.
I believe it is possible to look at the public image of LPP and Lerner in particular as an opportunity. During the due diligence scan that I performed of LPP and Lerner I became confident that I had identified all that I need to know about why this project has dragged for so long. Essentially I was much intrigued to have identified a howling absence of business smarts as a cause of delay instead of inadequate or bogus technology claims.
Here we have a bunch of nutters in a warehouse that just so happen to have achieved (on a shoe string) the plasma temperatures and stabilities required to hit the spot for a fusion reactor ahead of numerous really heavily funded competitors. Now they need a greater plasma density and have a plan for that too.
NigelM
Recovering Member
I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but I do want to say you penned there very well the point I was inadequately making. Of course Mandy Rice-Davies wouldn't be surprised at the answer you received.
Maybe already mentioned here but I came across this morning:
Warning: behind a pay wall.
U.S. Scores Fusion-Power Breakthrough - WSJ.com
Warning: behind a pay wall.
U.S. Scores Fusion-Power Breakthrough - WSJ.com
NigelM
Recovering Member
Here's another article about NIF, published yesterday. Excerpt (with emphasis):
Baby Steps on the Road to Fusion Energy | Science/AAAS | News
The article makes clear that NIF scientists are shooting in the dark. They don't really understand what is happening inside their laser target, and are trying random things, hoping something will work. Their computer simulations are based on results from other trial-and-error experiments, not a good understanding of the underlying physical principles at work.
In contrast, LPP has a mathematical model of their device based on proven principles of classical and quantum physics. The model has been experimentally confirmed in several ways, and provides a clear path to ignition with no need to stumble about trying different random things. LPP understands what is happening in their small device much better than NIF with all their billions understands what their football-stadium-sized laser is doing.
Also note from the article:
LPP has heated fusion fuel to 1.8 billion degrees Kelvin.
I will write more about LPP's mathematical model soon.
Interesting to see the different headlines for essentially the same content. Scientific American and the WSJ say Fusion Energy Breakthrough. Science Magazine says Baby Steps on the Road to Fusion Energy.
Some comments on the article that Nigel linked:
This statement is true but highly misleading if you read fast and skim over the sentence buried below:
That's the same result reported last October in Science Magazine:
But the claimed goal is not just energy for mankind, but economical energy. From Nigel's article:
Ask yourself how a pulsed-energy generator that costs $1M per pulse will ever produce cheap energy. Clearly NIF hopes for some future economies of scale in making these plastic pellets. But the plastic is not working too well:
So the giant lasers might shoot diamonds filled with radioactive fuel (deutirium-tritium), producing fast neutrons that damage the nearby machinery and turn it radioactive (requiring expensive disposal), and producing heat that requires giant steam turbines to convert the energy to electricity. I can see why NIF scientists have a backup plan to ensure their continued employment:
Nuclear weapons keep nuclear scientists employed. But ask yourself why national governments are spending so much money on fusion approaches like NIF and ITER, which promise "energy for mankind" sometime in the far future, and don't threaten to disrupt the fossil fuel sector anytime soon.
In October 2012, Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, a former head of US fusion research and the initiator of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, gave a speech to the 14th US-Japan Workshop on Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion. He described many reasons why he now believes tokamaks like ITER will never provide economical energy. His conclusion, which he said was "painful" for him:
I don't know Dr. Hirsch's current opinion on the NIF approach to fusion. But I do know his opinion on LPP's approach. Dr. Hirsch chaired the independent committee of senior fusion scientists (credentials here) who evaluated LPP in November 2013. Their conclusion:
Why is this? What is so different about LPP's approach?
1) No fast neutrons produced, so no radiation damage or radioactive waste.
2) Direct conversion of ion energy to electricity, so no giant steam turbines required.
3) Small, cheap, easily mass-produced machinery. No giant containment building, costly safety systems, or diamonds required.
How can LPP accomplish this when NIF and ITER can't? Dr. Hurricane of NIF sums it up well:
NIF and ITER are ferociously fighting Mother Nature, trying to compress their fusion fuel. LPP is using Mother Nature to do the job. Parallel electric currents attract each other, so LPP's magnetic bottle compresses itself.
This is at the core of my concerns. If they are determined to shoot themselves in the foot and actively repulse investors and managerial talent, then the technology simply doesn't matter. They will fail, because they will run out of money. Mr. Lerner must cede control and let his company and in fact himself be managed by an experienced professional that will give him scientific autonomy but not complete autonomy, and so far, I see little evidence that this could happen anytime soon.
Regardless, I appreciate your well-thought analysis as always, Julian.
Still looking into things on my end.
LPP has some managerial talent, and is currently seeking more. All interested candidates please apply, if you share LPP's mission of benefiting the world, not just yourself. LPP has not repulsed all investors, just those more interested in maximizing personal profit than achieving larger goals.
I don't think Eric must "cede control of his company" to attract a top manager. Autocrats are not the only folks who can get a job done.
Last edited:
Well, maximizing profit is itself a science that does not have to be inversely correlated with scientific, social and environmental gains. See Net Impact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a few examples.
It still seems that profit is used as a "dirty word" in this case. Unless the company is seeking charitable donations without regard for personal gain, they are in the business of soliciting profit-seekers. And to solicit profit-seekers (investors) while actively describing a distaste for them, seems counter-intuitive at the least.
If not for profit, why seek to commercialize this science at all within a corporate framework now, and not simply remain under the umbrella of a grant program or nonprofit?
Not by me. Nothing wrong with profit, in my opinion, when balanced with other goals like honesty, decency, environmental preservation, peace, and children having enough to eat. But maximizing profit at the expense of all other goals has a track record I don't like.
I don't speak for LPP or Eric Lerner. All I can tell you is what I've observed of them. Like Elon, they seem to be using business, money, and profit-seekers to help achieve larger goals. Profit is not their sole and preeminent goal, but that doesn't mean it is unimportant or distasteful.
Peter (et al),
You put this better than I could have. I invested because it looks to me like it might be possible, it won't happen without investors like me, it needs to happen to get rid of fossil fuels and I profit if it succeeds. Sure there are possible downsides but that's true of any investment. I can't see how what LPP is doing would repel the right investors or be shooting themselves in the foot at all. I do understand how LPP is repellant to venture capitalists who insist on gaining control. (Not all do.)
By the way, someone implied that Eric has somehow done poorly because he spent 25 years "scrambling" when he could have gotten further if he had more money. Speed of execution is one dimension. I'd say Eric has been damn successful at retaining 100.0% control of his venture and owning a set of patents outright that may end up being some of the most valuable patents in the world. I call it "genius."
Cheers!
-Paul
Peter, Paul and others: I don't speak for Dr Lerner either, of course, but I feel confident that it was not his fault when NASA cut the program he was working on for them. If anything, it's remarkable that he could continue that work on his own shoestring, so to speak.
That is not to deny the utility of adequate funding and a business plan, and I regard i.a. Julian Cox' approchement to LPP regarding that side of the project with hope.
That is not to deny the utility of adequate funding and a business plan, and I regard i.a. Julian Cox' approchement to LPP regarding that side of the project with hope.
Peter, I think it is OK to concede to the observed reality that LPP has suffered two very long periods of delay owing to starvation of funds. I think it has a lot to do with Lerner pressing a philanthropic agenda prematurely (it's a lot cooler when Bill Gates does it, but there is an order of business to philanthropy). I am not that phased by it, I grew up with a scientist for a father who did many brilliant and valuable things while being just about impossible to relate to on a human level. It has been very useful throughout my career to have experienced a foot in each camp (both deep science and a deep immersion in the world of marketing).
I can very much understand that Lerner has become somewhat polarised in his anti establishment views precisely because of a feeling of injustice while watching comparatively silly and impractical ideas receive $Billions in funding. Rightly or wrongly that is the way of the world for those fighting for justice instead of just getting on and running a business instead.
As it stands LPP is offering some shares on the cheap that reflect the historical weakness. Without saying much more than I have already said in previous comments, I believe both the will and the way now exists to turn that around entirely. I am not actually a fan of this project selling equity as the primary funding route but if you happen to get your hands on a few shares as a fun thing to do then I suspect that after addressing far more appropriate funding sources that I believe are available to LPP regardless of scientific success outcomes and some sources that are conditional on success outcomes too with a bit of help from yours truly stand to fundamentally alter the risk profile of such a holding and turn it from a play thing to something much more real and interesting.
Naturally Lerner would prefer to live in the lab than have to deal with running a business. I have scheduled a call with Eric Lerner next week specifically on the topic of authorising a mandate to go sort out the non-science bit - as I put it to him, to fundamentally alter the public facing profile of this business to make it attractive to money.
I can very much understand that Lerner has become somewhat polarised in his anti establishment views precisely because of a feeling of injustice while watching comparatively silly and impractical ideas receive $Billions in funding. Rightly or wrongly that is the way of the world for those fighting for justice instead of just getting on and running a business instead.
As it stands LPP is offering some shares on the cheap that reflect the historical weakness. Without saying much more than I have already said in previous comments, I believe both the will and the way now exists to turn that around entirely. I am not actually a fan of this project selling equity as the primary funding route but if you happen to get your hands on a few shares as a fun thing to do then I suspect that after addressing far more appropriate funding sources that I believe are available to LPP regardless of scientific success outcomes and some sources that are conditional on success outcomes too with a bit of help from yours truly stand to fundamentally alter the risk profile of such a holding and turn it from a play thing to something much more real and interesting.
Naturally Lerner would prefer to live in the lab than have to deal with running a business. I have scheduled a call with Eric Lerner next week specifically on the topic of authorising a mandate to go sort out the non-science bit - as I put it to him, to fundamentally alter the public facing profile of this business to make it attractive to money.
Last edited:
Rownolds
High Mileage Member
Great discussion, guys. And Thanks, Julian. LPP deserves the bump that a certain skill set can provide.
Here's my take on investing in LPP. At this point, buying shares shouldn't be considered an investment, but more of a charitable donation. OK, so maybe the donation just might turn into a windfall for you. But even if you feel that there is only a 1/10 of 1% chance of this technology being feasible for large scale energy production, it's worth giving them a contribution. This would really be world-changing.
I like to think of myself as a philanthropist, so I bought $25,000 of shares (That was the minimum at the time, and still may be), a major stretch for me, and considered it, in my mind, to be a donation to basic scientific research (While maintaining the fantasy of vast future wealth). Donating to basic scientific research is good and useful and we should all do some of that. But don't fool yourself at this point in time that it's a "great investment with a 'retirement quality' risk/return profile going forward". But if you have a large chunk of cash to donate to a potentially world-changing cause, please consider LPP :smile:. Or give some pocket change through their crowd funding program (not yet on-line?)
Some months later, I wanted to do more for them, but couldn't justify just giving them more cash and considering it a donation to a good cause. So I bought $14,000 worth of scientific instruments that they badly needed at the time and I'm letting them use it. A loan, as it were. If in a few years the project hits a wall, I can sell the instruments at, maybe, 50 cents on the dollar. So not much return there! But only 1/2 the risk. And I've retained the right to give them title to the instruments in exchange for shares at a later date, so I haven't lost the potential upside. It's win-win. I feel good about myself for supporting their research while limiting the downside, and they get the use of badly needed equipment.
I've talked to these guys both on the phone a few times and at a conference we both attended, and they are passionate, yet pragmatic and realistic. Their approach might work (emphasis on might) work, but the world needs to find out if it will, and I'm glad to be a part of that. Also, I think it's cool to own a tiny piece of a mad scientist.
Here's my take on investing in LPP. At this point, buying shares shouldn't be considered an investment, but more of a charitable donation. OK, so maybe the donation just might turn into a windfall for you. But even if you feel that there is only a 1/10 of 1% chance of this technology being feasible for large scale energy production, it's worth giving them a contribution. This would really be world-changing.
I like to think of myself as a philanthropist, so I bought $25,000 of shares (That was the minimum at the time, and still may be), a major stretch for me, and considered it, in my mind, to be a donation to basic scientific research (While maintaining the fantasy of vast future wealth). Donating to basic scientific research is good and useful and we should all do some of that. But don't fool yourself at this point in time that it's a "great investment with a 'retirement quality' risk/return profile going forward". But if you have a large chunk of cash to donate to a potentially world-changing cause, please consider LPP :smile:. Or give some pocket change through their crowd funding program (not yet on-line?)
Some months later, I wanted to do more for them, but couldn't justify just giving them more cash and considering it a donation to a good cause. So I bought $14,000 worth of scientific instruments that they badly needed at the time and I'm letting them use it. A loan, as it were. If in a few years the project hits a wall, I can sell the instruments at, maybe, 50 cents on the dollar. So not much return there! But only 1/2 the risk. And I've retained the right to give them title to the instruments in exchange for shares at a later date, so I haven't lost the potential upside. It's win-win. I feel good about myself for supporting their research while limiting the downside, and they get the use of badly needed equipment.
I've talked to these guys both on the phone a few times and at a conference we both attended, and they are passionate, yet pragmatic and realistic. Their approach might work (emphasis on might) work, but the world needs to find out if it will, and I'm glad to be a part of that. Also, I think it's cool to own a tiny piece of a mad scientist.
Similar threads
