Focus Fusion on Wikipedia – good news this time

[Breakable]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_fusion
Seems the article is not offline ATM,
but it must be improved, or the notability nazis will take it down sooner or later.
I would suggest adding the information about how focus fusion differs from generic DPF.
I am no expert, but i think these are the key differences:
Adding angular momentum using external coils,
Use of shorter electrodes might transfer more energy to heavier gases.
I will need references for these.

Also it would be a good idea to link to some press releases and/or papers that cite “Focus Fusion” name. Any good ones?

[Breakable]

Also an image with one of these licenses would be nice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_fusion
Seems the article is not offline ATM,
but it must be improved, or the notability nazis will take it down sooner or later.
I would suggest adding the information about how focus fusion differs from generic DPF.
I am no expert, but i think these are the key differences:
Adding angular momentum using external coils,
Use of shorter electrodes might transfer more energy to heavier gases.
I will need references for these.

Also it would be a good idea to link to some press releases and/or papers that cite “Focus Fusion” name. Any good ones?

Yes, that needs to be upgraded to at least stub status. Are you the originator of the article? Here’s a few ideas to mix and match for a more complete wiki article:

The single biggest difference between a generic Mather style DPF and the FF approach is the patented theory of operation (cite patent #) which predicted, and which preliminary experiments seem to confirm, that adding an Angular Momentum Coil increases performance (neutron yield when operated in Deuterium) by controlling the plasma’s spin during the axial phase and well into the radial phases, including magnetic compression.

The FF test program is scheduled for energy break-even in calendar 2010. [end content ideas]

This may be enough to take it beyond the stub phase and I believe is well-suited to Wiki’s spirit- not necessarily the political bias in their editing wars.

[Breakable]

Tnx Aeronaut.
Im not the original author.
I think I can cite the references for preliminary angular momentum in our website, I wonder if there are any experimental evidence outside of LPP.

[Aeronaut]

Another base to cover is the pair of scaling experiments funded by NASA’s JPL , both of which were successfully completed for a total cost of $300k. The third, and current scaling experiment is designed to produce at least energy break-even. Entire program price to date is slightly above $1M.

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: Tnx Aeronaut.
Im not the original author.
I think I can cite the references for preliminary angular momentum in our website, I wonder if there are any experimental evidence outside of LPP.

Pleased to help, Breakable. Far as I know, we’re the only group working with these ideas. The other groups I’ve encountered are using DPFs to teach plasma physics at a reasonable price. Their experiments tend to cluster around making precision X-rays for chip making, or neutrons for cargo inspection or proving electronics can survive a nuclear burst.

[Breakable]

I hope to get more input from others, if not then this will suffice for now.

[Breakable]

Made some changes. NN are watching.

[benf]

Great idea updating Wikipedia. Any chance of placing images and animations along with it? Also an explanation of the aneutronic aspect of using pb11 for us newbies might broaden the interest. I see there’s a link to a detailed explanation of aneutronic at the end, but it might be better to also have a brief mention after the introductory sentence.

[Breakable]

I would love to place some images an animations, but I need LPP approval for licensing. See my second post.

[Aeronaut]

Great job, Breakable. I agree with Benf that the aneutronic link should also be used much closer to the beginning. Perhaps used as an adjective. That way we’re citing existing wiki content, with no risk of sounding spammy.

The gallery images are licensed for this type of use. I used one in my press release ( you’ll have to google Edison’s Idea Factory to find it, but the top 2 results will give you some good source material ), and the same image was used the other day at http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/04/13/better-than-expected-results-from-focus-fusion/comment-page-1/#comment-53996

[Breakable]

You mean these images?
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/

I would need an exact license:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators
I guess PD is the best because it allows to do whatever you want, but others can work as well.

[Aeronaut]

Yep, those are the pix. The one where you’ve just walked into the test chamber, turned left, and are seeing everything but the vacuum system gets used the most, and that’s the one I recommend because it emphasizes just how small a FF really is. That also implies the relatively low cost.

Public Domain licensing encourages it to go ever closer to viral, as long as the image source is properly cited.

[Breakable]

PD license does not require image source citing. If source citing is important Attribution license should be chosen.
Aeronaut do you know who has the right to grant a license? Do I need to contact Rezwan?

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: PD license does not require image source citing. If source citing is important Attribution license should be chosen.
Aeronaut do you know who has the right to grant a license? Do I need to contact Rezwan?

I know Eric and Aaron do, and am pretty sure Rezwan can. The reasons I mention citing the source are for common decency as well as a chance to link using anchor text in the caption. But given that you’re publishing to wiki, you’re absolutely right to nail down the primo license. Why not just call LPP and ask? Might still be lunch time over there.

[Author]

Posts