new volunteer task: DPF bibliography

[Lerner]

Here is a new task for some volunteer. The number of papers coming out on the DPF is increasing rapidly. It would be really great put up on the DPF Network website a list of all DPF papers published since Jan. 2010, with their abstracts. This would involve searching with Inspec for the terms “DPF”. “Dense Plasma focus”, copying the abstracts and paper descriptions (Journal, vol, page, date, authors, and affiliations) and compiling them into a single document—I suggest grouping them chronologically by month. We just don’t have time for it here, but it old is very useful if someone can get to a library that has Inspec. Any takers? If there are more than one, you could divide the task by year.

[AaronB]

Those without Inspec could probably start with Google Scholar. For instance, here is a suggested search:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=dense+plasma+focus&as_sdt=0,31&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0

[zapkitty]

Hmmm…. how many hundreds of papers would that be, I wonder… 🙂

I was working up a chisel-tip crown for the fun of it, as opposed to the spikey crown, (the right-angle tip is strong but it’s still a point) but I guess that I could take a stab at this.

Have to register there? Rezwan should have a common login option for her sites 🙂

[Lerner]

Actually, you will find many more articles with Inspec than with Google Scholar–not everything is on line even today. I don’t think it’s worth it to do Google because that list will be included in what someone else finds in Inspec. Unless of course you are just curious in which case it’s fine.

[jamesr]

I was trying to maintain a list of papers using the zotero plugin for firefox, but I’ve been pretty useless at keeping it up to date.

Anyone can view it at https://www.zotero.org/groups/focus_fusion/items/
just request to join the group and I can add you as an editor as well.

In the mean time here’s a dump from it in bibtex form and a pdf report zotero can generate

https://files.warwick.ac.uk/jamesrobinson/browse#FocusFusion
(I tried to attach them to the post but I get “The file could not be written to disk.” error)

[zapkitty]

Lerner wrote: Actually, you will find many more articles with Inspec than with Google Scholar–not everything is on line even today. I don’t think it’s worth it to do Google because that list will be included in what someone else finds in Inspec. Unless of course you are just curious in which case it’s fine.

Well, if the idea is picked up by someone who already has Inspec access then that would be best.

If not, then perhaps we could be a cheap and tawdry interim solution? 🙂

[Lerner]

Anyone can acess Inspec from a good library. I would guess most public libraries as well as university libraries have it. The idea would be to have a complete list as a reference tool for DPF researchers. An incomplete lsit would not be much good. My guess is that it would be a few hours’ work once you are at the library.

[asymmetric_implosion]

To give you an idea, PF papers appear at the rate of 100-200 per year since 1990 with some periodic behavior. They tend to spike in years with the Dense Z-pinch Meeting every three years. The percentage of these papers that deal with neutron production and fusion vary but they do make up a reasonable portion of the papers. A colleague is writing a review article on the PF for a journal so he did most of the digging into the history of the PF. I will see if he has a formal list to start with but my guess is he has a set of notes he understands with the key physics papers that make up his review. The paper should appear in a Special Issue of IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci in Dec 2012.

It is sad on some level how little progress has been made since the 1970’s. If you are looking for innovative ideas look to the 1970’s. Some new ideas have come up but most of the key physics and ideas were established long ago. Even concepts of what are referred to as plasmoids on this board are described back in the day. The old rule holds true, science is rediscovered every generation. Think you have an original idea, search papers from 20-30 years ago and you will find someone already did it. PF is old enough this rule holds true in general. Technology advances so more precise measurements can be made but to put things in perspective, LPPX published an image of a plasmoid in the PoP paper, similar images exist from the 1970’s. The resolution isn’t quite as good but 5 ns framing camera images are shown in these papers.

If you want the fast way to get the papers, there are about a dozen groups that publish regularly on the PF worldwide. Most of the university groups post their publications on-line. The NTU/NIE group does this frequently and their archive is pretty up to date with their own papers. This is a resource for expanding the search to the other groups such as the groups in Poland, Chile, US, Pakistan, India, etc. Those publishing in the field are citing the key papers in many of the articles. It doesn’t take long to put together the most important authors. My personal list includes two people that usually do a fine job keeping up with all the published work; Sing Lee and Pavel Kubes. The rest of us in the community cite their work for one reason or another.

[Lerner]

I don’t think this is any longer an accurate description of the field. High quality work is pouring out of the Iranian groups, which are pretty new. My experience has been that if you focus on the established groups, you miss a lot of interest. That’s why I would like to get a comprhensive list for the last two years. If needed, i’ll do it myslef, but I thought it would be a fun task for someone who wants to get a good overview of the field.

[Patientman]

A comprehensive list of papers on DPF in a website or some Focus Fusion related site.

Journals
Papers
Abstracts

Listed chronologically by month from 2010 to present.
With titles of descriptions that include: Journal, vol, page, date, authors, and affiliations

A single document or web page.
Why not pay the fee for someone to join inspec. I would seem that this would be a very good resource for someone to continually work on, since there are a large number of papers being published.

http://www.theiet.org/resources/inspec
Standard membership fees for 2012

Fellow (FIET) £150.00
Member with designatory letters (TMIET or MIET) £129.00
Associate £129.00
Students and apprentices £20.00
Students and apprentices (for duration of course) £50.00
Please note…

Reduced fees and discounts are available to members in special circumstances. If you wish to apply for a reduced fee, please contact the Member and Customer Services Centre.
IET qualified and registered membership fees for 2012

If you are professionally registered with the Engineering Council, you are required to pay the IET qualified and registered member fee. This rate includes the standard IET membership fee.
IET registered Fellows: Chartered Engineers, Incorporated Engineers
or Chartered Electrical Engineers £180.00
IET registered members: Chartered Engineers, Incorporated Engineers
or Chartered Electrical Engineers £159.00
IET registered Fellows: Engineering Technicians or ICT Technicians £163.00
IET registered members: Engineering Technicians or ICT Technicians £142.00
Engineering Council fees for 2012

If you are professionally registered with the Engineering Council, you are required to pay the IET qualified and registered member fee plus the Engineering Council registration fee below.
Chartered Engineer (CEng) £32.50
Incorporated Engineer (IEng) £27.50
Engineering Technician (EngTech) £15.80
ICT Technician (ICTTech) £15.80

[zapkitty]

Lerner wrote: Anyone can acess Inspec from a good library. I would guess most public libraries as well as university libraries have it.

No luck at the county level. DePauw at least should have it but I’m pretty much chairbound nowadays and can’t make such a trip without extensive preparations. Apparently, living in the wilds of western Indiana has drawbacks I’d not yet become aware of so I’ll have to leave it to the laterally mobile 🙂

[asymmetric_implosion]

I’m familiar with the Iranian work and I completely disagree. I’ve reviewed some of their work it is fair at best. I’m not suggesting established groups are the only way to go, but they tend to keep an archive of the work that has impact and cite it. That is just the jumping off point. The NTU group is a large reason for the international growth of PF devices so they are linked into most of the international groups as they have trained many students that go out and start groups such as the one in Pakistan and I know some students from Iran trained with NTU. One of the newer groups at Kansas State has a NTU alum leading the group. The spread of technology tends to come from a few groups in the beginning and spread as the students graduate and move on to their own activities. New comers certainly pop up such as the UNLV group but they also tend to focus on different applications.

[Lerner]

Would any srtudents take on this taks if we bought the 20 pound sub to inpec?

[KeithPickering]

Let me give it a shot before you spend anything.

My local university has Inspec. They have public computers in the library that should have access. Since Google Scholar lists 280 DPF papers since 2010, I assume the total number we’re talking about is manageable.

I’ll post my progress here.

[KeithPickering]

OK, just back from the library. My Inspec search for “dense plasma focus” during 2010-2012 yielded 72 citations, which I downloaded in bibtex format. I did the identical search using ISI and got 31 citations; later inspection showed that 19 of these were duplicates from Inspec, while 12 were not found on Inspec (including a couple by LPP team members). So it’s definitely worth it to search ISI too.

So now I’ve got 84 citations, and the question is how to display them in a useful manner. Two options come to mind:

1. Just put them all in a big HTML table, all on one page. Rather long, but the page is searchable. I could do this by writing a perl script.
2. Create a bibliographic database using MySQL or similar, along with query and display screens using .php. This would require someone at your site with the time and expertise to do it. Or I could do it, but that would mean giving me access to your server for testing.

For now I’m proceeding with option 1. Let me know if you’d prefer option 2.

[Author]

Posts