Homepage Forums Story, Art, Song, Self Expression Focus Fusion on Wikipedia – good news this time

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6179
    Avatarbenf
    Participant
    #6181
    Avatarbenf
    Participant

    Another interesting hardware shot is this one from the gallery:

    https://focusfusion.pmhclients.com/images/gallery/DSC_5573_medium.JPG

    #6193
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    Thank you benf I will upload some images as soon as license issues are resolved.

    #6212
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_fusion
    […]
    Also it would be a good idea to link to some press releases and/or papers that cite “Focus Fusion” name. Any good ones?

    […]
    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.

    Complaints i see on the article’s talk page are about the specific wording of the term, its distinctiveness, and about whether it’s a promotional gimmick. So the fastest way to dispel those is to find and post more links to published papers that are independent from those authored by Eric, Lawrenceville plasma physics, or the focusfusion.org website.

    #6217
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    I can find some paper here
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=”focus+fusion”&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as;_ylo=&as_vis=0
    but I am not a physicist so its hard for me to evaluate what papers are talking about

    #6219
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Ever try to learn the rocket equation from Wiki without knowing what that funny looking e in the equations is? Wiki articles are inherently flawed in their lack of an integrated, big picture articles aimed at those without degrees.

    I Google links to an AIP (great source) that doesn’t mention which fuel is used. Nothing on page 1 that seemed to apply mentioned the fuel, so I doubt they’re directly applicable other than demonstrating that we are not entirely alone in this line of investigation.

    I’m only recently learning my way around the PolyWell site, where I’ve questioned Art Carlson, who seems to have the biggest problem with the technicalities of this article and the last one that we edited. While he is a licensed atomic engineer, he has a noted aversion to FF and/or Lerner, as well as an affinity for the Polywell, that makes his objectivity highly questionable in this case.

    A good sign is that most of the criticism seems to be looking for a few thousand words while in gestation. I’d like to add a backgrounder establishing the horserace between FF on the low end of the power output curve at ~5MW if/when it works, CBFR ~50MW(?) if/when it works, and PolyWell at ~100MW if/when it works. We could continue by mentioning that the higher outputs come at the price of cryo magnets, whose capital and maintenance costs erode their ability to make cheap, clean electricity.

    They also undermine the fusion field’s ability to create clean energy jobs, and they lack any schedule other than “one of these decades”.

    The Polywell wiki entry is subject to the same criticisms that Art Carlson is attempting to level against FF. They just have a more developed and polished sales pitch article. And how do you describe an object or procedure, and the times it was developed in, without selling it in the process? If it’s an improvement, you’re going to be writing promotional copy, just like the PW article did.

    We need a BOY I’M STEAMED icon, btw.

    As pioneers, we have no direct peers at this point. We do have illustrated theory which the PW gang hasn’t been able to match. That, I believe, is our edge at this point. We want to link to the equations, while keeping the article accessible to the people without technical degrees, and we need to plan this article’s development so that we’re always a step ahead of our times with a design that’s so elegant that we’re still under $2M total funding.

    That means not subject to the whims of Navy or Wall Street funding. No wonder nobody else can show a complete game plan and schedule. [/end rant]

    #6221
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    Great rant Aeronaut, not sure if there is anything concrete in it though…
    I sent an email about images to Rezwan using the forum link, but no response thus far. Rezwan do you read?

    #6223
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Was that you? Got an email. Definitely “attribute” over “public domain”. I’m just concerned because some pictures feature people, and want to clear that with them. Can you just give me the urls of specific images for now and I’ll clear them?

    I want to set up a system with some pics free and clear, and some more protected. Two tier system.

    #6226
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    0)Regarding email, I believe it was me.
    1)Regarding licensing I would suggest to seriously consider PD license over Attribution, while it does not give any control over content, it does allow for freest (and that means widest) distribution. Imagine if you had to add a attribution text each time you pasted something from Wikipedia, how would that affect you?
    2)Some images I would want:
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/66/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/88/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/14/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/112/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/111/

    3)Would be nice to have one with people, but its optional:
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/25/

    4)I would also love to have license for the gallery images description in PD or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

    #6228
    AvatarHenning
    Participant

    Art Carlson is mainly following the “Ryder Argument” (somebody called Ryder did a rather highly valued Ph.D. thesis about the feasibility of fusion attempts, which Art happened to proof-read). That argument mainly says, only tokamaks work. So he was sceptical to polywell too, just that Dr. Bussard was a much more renowned figure than Eric Lerner. Now after some time he supports the polywell effort, but also that took some time.

    And he even buys Eric’s argument about the magnetic field effect.

    I value his opinions rather high, although I’m not sharing all them regarding focus fusion. He is a sceptic, and that’s good.

    And he lives in Munich. Maybe it’s time for a beer (I hate beer).

    #6230
    AvatarHenning
    Participant
    #6231
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Henning wrote: Art Carlson is mainly following the “Ryder Argument” (somebody called Ryder did a rather highly valued Ph.D. thesis about the feasibility of fusion attempts, which Art happened to proof-read). That argument mainly says, only tokamaks work. So he was sceptical to polywell too, just that Dr. Bussard was a much more renowned figure than Eric Lerner. Now after some time he supports the polywell effort, but also that took some time.

    And he even buys Eric’s argument about the magnetic field effect.

    I value his opinions rather high, although I’m not sharing all them regarding focus fusion. He is a sceptic, and that’s good.

    And he lives in Munich. Maybe it’s time for a beer (I hate beer).

    So that explains the bias. I respect Art’s expertise as defined by his license, and honest skepticism is to be encouraged. One way I see that is when somebody asks “Why” and “How would” types of questions- that indicates an attempt to understand new concepts.

    But honest skepticism and petty finger pointing are entirely different. That’s why I looked up the Polywell article today. Because any fusion technology with a decent chance is going to be described favorably in Wiki or any objective media.

    #6271
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    Creative commons, share-alike with attribution, is flexible enough for wikipedia. The most illustrative of the above images i think are
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/66/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/14/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/111/
    but there should be an image, specifically for the focus fusion wikipedia article, that illustrates the magnetic field effect that distinguishes focus fusion from the more rudimentary DPF devices. if i remember correctly, there was such an image in Eric’s google tech-talks video.

    #6402
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    Just to remind Rezwan, I still don’t see a permission no re-license, but there is no emergency.

    #7167
    BreakableBreakable
    Keymaster

    Great news everyone. Rezwan promised to put attribution license on the gallery, so everyone can share images on Wikipedia. I will get to it eventually, but meanwhile everyone will be able to do it as well.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.