Homepage Forums Building a Better Focus Fusion Society About FFS – Feedback request

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5252
    AvatarDerekShannon
    Member

    Wow, detailed, Rezwan! Don’t forget, as a nonprofit, FFS is eligible for many grants that could expand its educational and other missions, bringing in busloads of kids to overwhelm the tiny lab, for instance. I learned a lot in the nonprofit development course I just finished, so let’s definitely talk sometime!

    #5256
    Avatarjamesr
    Member

    Here’s a few quick comments on the first few sections, I’ll have a look through the rest later.

    Aneutronic Advantages – Don’t have cold fusion statement first. I think you get a kind of guilt by association, we do not want FF to be associated in peoples minds with this so even a statement saying it is NOT this creates an association. Don’t be so black&white;with the No neutrons – we need to be honest about the small percentage of low energy neutrons.

    A comparison of typical Conventional and aneutronic fusion fuels – mention other aneutronic reactions and that pB11 is just the most favourable of these.

    Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) Advantage – Mention why pB11 will not work in conventional tokamak design (they can never get hot enough). Fusion with higher charged ions such as Boron will only work in a device that can create the huge magnetic fields needed to suppress the cooling by radiation mechanism. Also mention efficiency due to direct conversion to electricity rather than the thermal cycle.

    I think there should be some mention of other plasma focus research around the world. Although LLP may be the only company working on it as a power source there are many groups using and researching plasma focus devices for other uses. They are not something new – we can bring together and discuss relevant advances from other groups.

    #5257
    AvatarDr_Barnowl
    Member

    Rezwan wrote: tips on how to convert a word doc into an html doc – without all that crazy extra formatting that word sticks in there! – please let me know.

    My tips would be

    * Don’t use Word to write web pages.

    Sorry, that’s not very helpful, but if you’ve seen the output of Word as HTML you now know why. I tend to write documents that I know have to be HTML, using HTML and CSS, by hand, in a plain text editor.

    The document is heavy on the copy, light on the formatting, so just reformatting the plain text by hand as HTML wouldn’t be too bad.

    * Try OpenOffice.org

    Exporting it as XHTML from OOo has lots of “Crazy formatting” too, alas, but exporting as MediaWiki format really pares it down ; the resulting format should convert back to nice clean HTML without too much effort, e.g. Mediawiki to HTML

    * Maybe use TeX

    Possibly using a cannon to kill a mosquito ; but very good for the inevitable publication of lots of scientific papers!

    #5264
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Dr_Barnowl wrote:

    tips on how to convert a word doc into an html doc – without all that crazy extra formatting that word sticks in there! – please let me know.

    My tips would be

    * Don’t use Word to write web pages.

    Sorry, that’s not very helpful, but if you’ve seen the output of Word as HTML you now know why. I tend to write documents that I know have to be HTML, using HTML and CSS, by hand, in a plain text editor.

    The document is heavy on the copy, light on the formatting, so just reformatting the plain text by hand as HTML wouldn’t be too bad.

    * Try OpenOffice.org

    Exporting it as XHTML from OOo has lots of “Crazy formatting” too, alas, but exporting as MediaWiki format really pares it down ; the resulting format should convert back to nice clean HTML without too much effort, e.g. Mediawiki to HTML

    * Maybe use TeX

    Possibly using a cannon to kill a mosquito ; but very good for the inevitable publication of lots of scientific papers!

    Try SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/
    It is very efficient, and supports WYSIWYG HTML composing. Current 2.0 supports CSS etc.

    #5265
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    The About doc is thorough, but needs some slashing — lots of repetition and duplication. Not to mention redundancy. Did I mention replicative reiteration? And reiterative replication? πŸ˜‰ %-P

    I’ve sent a few other comments and selective edit by email.

    I’m rather unhappy with the “Threshold Guardian” analogy and terminology. Maybe if you provide a good advance explanation of why you want to lift it from the worlds of mythology and computer adventure and video games it might fly, but it’s not a term used in actual economics or science-based discussion. Barriers, gatekeepers, and vested interests are more “usual” and more understandable terms for the hard-headed and reality-based communities!!

    #5291
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Thanks James! Looking forward to the rest.

    jamesr wrote: Aneutronic Advantages – Don’t have cold fusion statement first. I think you get a kind of guilt by association, we do not want FF to be associated in peoples minds with this so even a statement saying it is NOT this creates an association.

    I need to mention cold fusion somewhere, because that’s one of those frequently made assumptions. First thing people ask me. “Do you mean cold fusion?” I would think disassociation by declaration in no uncertain terms would be the better policy.

    Don’t be so black&white;with the No neutrons – we need to be honest about the small percentage of low energy neutrons.

    A comparison of typical Conventional and aneutronic fusion fuels – mention other aneutronic reactions and that pB11 is just the most favourable of these.

    Roger that. Much of this will be in the “Aneutronic Fusion” section, which still needs to be fleshed out. Can add disclaimer in “About FFS” article, and link to more detailed explanation. Those articles to which it will link are not yet written, although the info is tucked away somewhere.

    Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) Advantage – Mention why pB11 will not work in conventional tokamak design (they can never get hot enough). Fusion with higher charged ions such as Boron will only work in a device that can create the huge magnetic fields needed to suppress the cooling by radiation mechanism. Also mention efficiency due to direct conversion to electricity rather than the thermal cycle.

    OK, I’ll put in a sentence. Note that that info is to be spelled out more clearly in the “How hard is it?” section, where we discuss the difficulty of fusion and why the dpf may overcome these difficulties.

    Hey, I’m reading “Sun in a bottle” by Charles Seife right now. He puts the difficulty in clear laymen terms. But it’s funny. He labels all the mainstream fusion folk as “wishful thinkers”. And they label us as wishful. Not very confidence boosting.

    Of course, need to cross reference this in the “dpf” section – which needs to be better organized. This is currently set up as simple categories, so it just lists things in chronological order. I need to go in and give it more structure.

    I think there should be some mention of other plasma focus research around the world. Although LLP may be the only company working on it as a power source there are many groups using and researching plasma focus devices for other uses. They are not something new – we can bring together and discuss relevant advances from other groups.

    Yes, that is on the “to do” list. I tentatively started a section for plasma networking, because I want that to be a function of this site. A lot of strucute and content to be done there. Cross referenced with general info about the dpf…

    Organizing this venture in terms of data is interesting. Still wrapping my head around it.

    #5292
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Brian H wrote: The About doc is thorough, but needs some slashing — lots of repetition and duplication. Not to mention redundancy. Did I mention replicative reiteration? And reiterative replication? πŸ˜‰ %-P

    Your expertise in redundancy is unmatched. I shall take these notes to heart.

    I’m rather unhappy with the “Threshold Guardian” analogy and terminology. Maybe if you provide a good advance explanation of why you want to lift it from the worlds of mythology and computer adventure and video games it might fly, but it’s not a term used in actual economics or science-based discussion. Barriers, gatekeepers, and vested interests are more “usual” and more understandable terms for the hard-headed and reality-based communities!!

    This will take some discussion. Yes, I’m trying to tap into the computer adventure/sci-fi culture, and leverage the emotional and mythic elements that seem to actually drive people. I think when you explain things in terms of the story, people relate to it better. I’m trying to popularize science with theater.

    LPP can’t do that. It has to be by the book, peer review, serious. FFS, on the other hand, has a lot of leeway.

    There is a lot of conversation on these forums that is technical, science and economics based. That’s great. I want to open things up to the artists, painters, poets, writers, comedians, filmmakers, musicians and such. I think these are the type of people that can address the entrenched political and economic issues.

    Sure, “barriers, gatekeepers and vested interests” are understandable terms on an intellectual level, and easily dismissed – “let some policywonk/economist deal with that – wake me up when you’ve sorted it out – good god, the left and right are screeching at eachother again – where can I buy a scientist?”.

    But when you switch to symbolic mode and consider that what you are facing is a beast with a sword asking you a riddle – and this is a threshhold guardian here to test of your essence, your humanity, your worthiness – then you get it at the gut and emotional level. Perhaps even the spiritual level, if such level exists.

    I think most people like to stay at the “hard headed” “reality based” intellectual level because they find gut and emotion too messy to deal with. And, many of these folks disingenuously use the tools of intellect on behalf of unacknowledged emotional or gut (anger/territoriality) issues – not thinking of anyone in particular here : ) and get trapped in their confirmation biases, while building more and more elaborate protective intellectual scaffolding.

    It’s important to distinguish these multiple levels instead of denying one level (mythic/emotional) and pretending to be operating at the other (intellectual). More integrity/honesty that way.

    A lot of the barriers we’re experiencing in opposition to fusion are, indeed psychological/symbolic. So, best to take them head on in the world of story/myth/psyche.

    In sum, I think this dimension of perception or visualization merits attention.

    #5301
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Rezwan wrote:

    The About doc is thorough, but needs some slashing — lots of repetition and duplication. Not to mention redundancy. Did I mention replicative reiteration? And reiterative replication? πŸ˜‰ %-P

    Your expertise in redundancy is unmatched. I shall take these notes to heart.

    I’m rather unhappy with the “Threshold Guardian” analogy and terminology. Maybe if you provide a good advance explanation of why you want to lift it from the worlds of mythology and computer adventure and video games it might fly, but it’s not a term used in actual economics or science-based discussion. Barriers, gatekeepers, and vested interests are more “usual” and more understandable terms for the hard-headed and reality-based communities!!

    This will take some discussion. Yes, I’m trying to tap into the computer adventure/sci-fi culture, and leverage the emotional and mythic elements that seem to actually drive people. I think when you explain things in terms of the story, people relate to it better. I’m trying to popularize science with theater.

    LPP can’t do that. It has to be by the book, peer review, serious. FFS, on the other hand, has a lot of leeway.

    There is a lot of conversation on these forums that is technical, science and economics based. That’s great. I want to open things up to the artists, painters, poets, writers, comedians, filmmakers, musicians and such. I think these are the type of people that can address the entrenched political and economic issues.

    Sure, “barriers, gatekeepers and vested interests” are understandable terms on an intellectual level, and easily dismissed – “let some policywonk/economist deal with that – wake me up when you’ve sorted it out – good god, the left and right are screeching at eachother again – where can I buy a scientist?”.

    But when you switch to symbolic mode and consider that what you are facing is a beast with a sword asking you a riddle – and this is a threshhold guardian here to test of your essence, your humanity, your worthiness – then you get it at the gut and emotional level. Perhaps even the spiritual level, if such level exists.

    I think most people like to stay at the “hard headed” “reality based” intellectual level because they find gut and emotion too messy to deal with. And, many of these folks disingenuously use the tools of intellect on behalf of unacknowledged emotional or gut (anger/territoriality) issues – not thinking of anyone in particular here : ) and get trapped in their confirmation biases, while building more and more elaborate protective intellectual scaffolding.

    It’s important to distinguish these multiple levels instead of denying one level (mythic/emotional) and pretending to be operating at the other (intellectual). More integrity/honesty that way.

    A lot of the barriers we’re experiencing in opposition to fusion are, indeed psychological/symbolic. So, best to take them head on in the world of story/myth/psyche.

    In sum, I think this dimension of perception or visualization merits attention.
    Attempting to recruit the fruit and nuts crowd into the discussion is asking for high-velocity tooth and brain decay.

    #5364
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Brian H wrote:
    Attempting to recruit the fruit and nuts crowd into the discussion is asking for high-velocity tooth and brain decay.

    Fruits and nuts are high in antioxidants. Allegedly good brain food.

    #5431
    Avatarachataignier
    Member

    Very long page with lots of info. Very useful for newcomers on the site.

    Content is more than OK. A reformatting would probably help to read it more easily. Splitting sections in different tabs for instance, with a section selection in a left frame.

    But you can also simply begin by modifying the CSS and clearly emphasise titles from normal text by something like:
    p
    {
    … current styles in p section…
    text-align:justify;
    margin-left:50px;
    }

    Generally that helps a lot in the reading, especially when the text is long.

    Cheeers
    Arnaud.

    #5875
    Avatartcg
    Member

    I do have one small problem with the phrase “harnessing ( or leveraging ) plasma instabilities”. To my mind “instability” connotes a random, uncontrollable process, and focus fusion is hardly that. Instability is what is plaguing the ITER project.

    The plasma focus works as it does because it exploits the inherent properties of the electromagnetic force to control the plasma. It expresses the jujitsu of physics, whereas the tokomak represents the brute force approach.

    Perhaps this is a small point, but the impression I get of “working with instabilities” is nowhere near as positive as “harnessing the electromagnetic force”. Compare the image of trying to maintain order at a day care center with that of controlling a lightning strike.

    TCG

    #5877
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    tcg wrote: I do have one small problem with the phrase “harnessing ( or leveraging ) plasma instabilities”. To my mind “instability” connotes a random, uncontrollable process, and focus fusion is hardly that. Instability is what is plaguing the ITER project.

    The plasma focus works as it does because it exploits the inherent properties of the electromagnetic force to control the plasma. It expresses the jujitsu of physics, whereas the tokomak represents the brute force approach.

    Perhaps this is a small point, but the impression I get of “working with instabilities” is nowhere near as positive as “harnessing the electromagnetic force”. Compare the image of trying to maintain order at a day care center with that of controlling a lightning strike.

    TCG

    The science of “instabilities” is probably too important to abandon. Perhaps changing the phrasing to “exploiting instabilities and their power” would come closer to how the “pinch” is used to hyper-compress the plasma.

    #5879
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    I do have one small problem with the phrase “harnessing ( or leveraging ) plasma instabilities”. To my mind “instability” connotes a random, uncontrollable process, and focus fusion is hardly that. Instability is what is plaguing the ITER project.

    The plasma focus works as it does because it exploits the inherent properties of the electromagnetic force to control the plasma. It expresses the jujitsu of physics, whereas the tokomak represents the brute force approach.

    Perhaps this is a small point, but the impression I get of “working with instabilities” is nowhere near as positive as “harnessing the electromagnetic force”. Compare the image of trying to maintain order at a day care center with that of controlling a lightning strike.

    TCG

    The science of “instabilities” is probably too important to abandon. Perhaps changing the phrasing to “exploiting instabilities and their power” would come closer to how the “pinch” is used to hyper-compress the plasma.

    Tough call, indeed. I always thought the X-ray picture looked and acted a lot like water spiraling down a drain. Sure it can be called an instability, but its all part of the plan. Might want to emphasize that the Blake coil pretty much eliminates the shot to shot variations of other DPFs, which means unmatched precision.

    We also have detailed formulae and experimental evidence (in either technical paper, preferably the second one) that reinforces the control aspects.

    #6936
    AvatarPatientman
    Participant

    Rezwan wrote:

    The About doc is thorough, but needs some slashing — lots of repetition and duplication. Not to mention redundancy. Did I mention replicative reiteration? And reiterative replication? πŸ˜‰ %-P

    Your expertise in redundancy is unmatched. I shall take these notes to heart.

    I’m rather unhappy with the “Threshold Guardian” analogy and terminology. Maybe if you provide a good advance explanation of why you want to lift it from the worlds of mythology and computer adventure and video games it might fly, but it’s not a term used in actual economics or science-based discussion. Barriers, gatekeepers, and vested interests are more “usual” and more understandable terms for the hard-headed and reality-based communities!!

    This will take some discussion. Yes, I’m trying to tap into the computer adventure/sci-fi culture, and leverage the emotional and mythic elements that seem to actually drive people. I think when you explain things in terms of the story, people relate to it better. I’m trying to popularize science with theater.

    LPP can’t do that. It has to be by the book, peer review, serious. FFS, on the other hand, has a lot of leeway.

    There is a lot of conversation on these forums that is technical, science and economics based. That’s great. I want to open things up to the artists, painters, poets, writers, comedians, filmmakers, musicians and such. I think these are the type of people that can address the entrenched political and economic issues.

    Sure, “barriers, gatekeepers and vested interests” are understandable terms on an intellectual level, and easily dismissed – “let some policywonk/economist deal with that – wake me up when you’ve sorted it out – good god, the left and right are screeching at each other again – where can I buy a scientist?”.

    But when you switch to symbolic mode and consider that what you are facing is a beast with a sword asking you a riddle – and this is a threshhold guardian here to test of your essence, your humanity, your worthiness – then you get it at the gut and emotional level. Perhaps even the spiritual level, if such level exists.

    I think most people like to stay at the “hard headed” “reality based” intellectual level because they find gut and emotion too messy to deal with. And, many of these folks disingenuously use the tools of intellect on behalf of unacknowledged emotional or gut (anger/territoriality) issues – not thinking of anyone in particular here : ) and get trapped in their confirmation biases, while building more and more elaborate protective intellectual scaffolding.

    It’s important to distinguish these multiple levels instead of denying one level (mythic/emotional) and pretending to be operating at the other (intellectual). More integrity/honesty that way.

    A lot of the barriers we’re experiencing in opposition to fusion are, indeed psychological/symbolic. So, best to take them head on in the world of story/myth/psyche.

    In sum, I think this dimension of perception or visualization merits attention.

    The conversations by non-technical advocates of fusion need a guided understanding of how and when this technology may impact the world. One of the key aspects of Dr. Lerner’s book was to dispel misguided theoretical science. The fine line in science fiction writing on this subject should be in the area of providing possible futures without fantasy. The site already has a section on Space ships and their engines, which is good. Are the expressed concepts within the realms of solid science and how does it bring Focus Fusion into the spot light?

    #6948
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    Patientman wrote:
    The conversations by non-technical advocates of fusion need a guided understanding of how and when this technology may impact the world. One of the key aspects of Dr. Lerner’s book was to dispel misguided theoretical science. The fine line in science fiction writing on this subject should be in the area of providing possible futures without fantasy. The site already has a section on Space ships and their engines, which is good. Are the expressed concepts within the realms of solid science and how does it bring Focus Fusion into the spot light?

    This will have an impact from the moment that above-unity power is announced, as it will trigger quite a lot of scientific research and engineering. first applications will be in x-ray lithography and heat generation, even before electrical unity is reached. there is also a socio-political angle. energy futures markets will adjust as knowledge gets out about its potential.

    Electrical unity will depend on efficient electricity recovery from both x-rays and the alpha exit beam — i’m guessing two to five years later.

    In the first decades of use, deployment will be limited by cost of components, which is a function of mass production processes and availability of raw materials. there will also be a ripple effect as derivative applications are realized: in recycling, desalination, transportation, manufacturing.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.