Critique of Lockheed Martin's fusion PR campaign and critique of critiques thereof
I think I've already said enough on the word "breakthrough" and lack of specificity, but here are some things LM could have done to allay the truest criticisms:
1) Link to the patent applications. Or at least give the application numbers. They mentioned them in their press release, and they had already been published. It was only a matter of time before someone looked them up, so why not make it easy for everyone to find them? It would have focused the criticism on more relevant matters. (Well, maybe. There are always those who are too lazy to click on a link and read something before commenting on it, but presumably they would be less likely to spout off if they saw other commenters having a serious discussion of the patent applications.)
2) Talk about submitting papers to peer-reviewed publications from the beginning. (Unless, of course, this was a move made in response to criticism.
) If people know a paper detailing results is in the works, they'll be more likely to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
3) Even if papers about results are not ready for publication, emphasize the fact that LM has already done experimental work on the concept. True, there are images of the current device all over the place, but some sites only give the text of the Reuters article (or links which people don't follow).
4) Avoid mentioning timeframes, or at least emphasize that they are only estimates, and could vary depending on available funds, personnel, and any unexpected physics or engineering setbacks.
Criticisms of the website:
The design reminds me a bit of Helion's latest redesign, which reminds me of the Focus Fusion Society's latest redesign. Maybe it's just a coincidence, and it has to do with the increasing prevalence of smart phones, but on the other hand, the close-up end-on view of the device with the text "It's Closer Than You Think" is giving me a sense of deja vu. I guess neither LPP nor the FFS bothered to trademark the phrase, and it's entirely possible that LM came up with it independently, but still....
The phrase "infinite energy" tends to trip people's woometers. Then again, I suppose other people are drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
Maybe it's just personal taste, but I have a similar reaction to the phrases "power of the sun" and "magnetic bottle" that others have to the jokes about fusion always being XX years away, or always being the energy source of the future. I look forward to the day when fusion power just is, and we don't have to explain it with hackneyed metaphors. The rest of the web page is pretty good, in my opinion, except for the repeated references to mimicking the process by which the sun works.
As for the press release, I detailed what I think it was lacking in points 1-3 above. I also think the part about LM building on 60 years of fusion research was ambiguous enough that it could be misinterpreted as saying that LM itself has researched fusion for 60 years.
Criticism of criticisms:
I'll avoid discussing the numerous criticisms fielded by those who are completely ignorant of controlled nuclear fusion and instead address the criticism of those who are completely ignorant of patent law. I've seen several comments from people who speculated that LM would hide their technology in patents instead of sharing them with the world. I'm not sure how to respond to that except to say that it's patently obvious that such people don't know the first thing about patents.
A common criticism of the LM concept is that it's just a magnetic mirror. Or it's just a picket fence. Or it's just a Polywell. The story of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. (I will admit, though, that it's always looked a lot like a magnetic mirror to me.) I presume that Tom McGuire knows the problems those various devices have encountered, and for some reason thinks his particular concept resolves those problems somehow. But of course publication of results could clarify that point.
Another common criticism, not just of the LM concept, but of any alternative fusion concept, is the idea that various nations wouldn't be spending tens of billions building a huge tokamak in Cadarache, France if there was a smaller, more economical route to fusion. I have two responses to this. First, this is government we're talking about. Several governments, in fact. Second-system effect is pretty much guaranteed, even for first systems. My second response is that nobody—not even the government—sees everything. The government probably wouldn't have given Langley $70,000 to develop his
Aerodrome if they had known the Wright brothers' $1000
Flyer would work. But they didn't, so they did. That's just an analogy, of course. I could say a lot more about why the tokamak monopolizes fusion research (and why it shouldn't), but I think this comment is getting long enough.
Oh, and one more criticism is that LM is just talking about a concept, or just running simulations, and they haven't actually built a test device yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the photographs we've seen (including some from back in 2013 showing plasma) indicated that they do have a test device, and they have tested it? Just because they haven't published any papers yet doesn't mean they haven't seen any results yet. True, we don't know what results they may have obtained, but it would seem to me that if they've produced a plasma, they must have obtained some kind of results.
The last criticism, which is quite common, is that LM hasn't achieved net gain. That's (probably) true, but then (probably) neither has anyone else. Of course, it does mean everyone should be careful about throwing around the word "breakthrough" when the press is listening, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with making announcements regarding recent progress, as long as they're couched in realistic language.