Homepage Forums Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Experiment (LPPX) Wikipedia on Focus Fusion

This topic contains 10 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Dr_Barnowl 7 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #660

    Ormond Otvos
    Member

    Not to be offensive, but merely to relay the likely impression a naive reader might get from reading it, the wikipedia entry for focus fusion redirects to Eric Lerner, who is mostly painted as a weirdo who’s got his own view of the origin of the universe.

    Now you and I might be able to correct for that, but if you want focus fusion to be a concept in its own right, standing separate from the other aneutronic processes, someone authoritative needs to build a wikipedia entry for focus fusion. I can start the article, but some of you senior bloggers would need to fill it out.

    Wikipedia is a very important source of information for the average person who just barely uses the internet, such as a congressional staffer, or the funding researcher for a venture capital firm.

    I just went to wikipedia, where I have an old account, still active, and have found many changes stiffening up the quality of the articles, which is a good thing. However, that means that I need strong references to put in the articles, and a thorough explanation of the uniqueness of focus fusion.

    I don’t think it’s enough to have a focus fusion link at the bottom of an article about Eric Lerner. Anyone skilled at composing wikipedia articles?

    Here’s a very rough draft:

    ”’Focus Fusion”’ is a specific aneutronic method for producing electricity from plasma fusion of a boron compound and hydrogen, by generating a metastable toroidal plasma between a central post electrode and several surrounding post electrodes, from a large ultracapacitor voltage source.

    The plasma so generated automatically collapses in such a fashion as to generate charged particles that exit through a coil that converts them directly to electricity, with no moving parts. Incidental x-rays are also converted to electricity using a multilayer wrap of several elements to cover the wide range of x-ray frequencies generated.

    Emission of neutrons is very low, thus overcoming one of the most important objections to such processes, and the process proceeds by repeated impulses, occurring the low kilocycle range.

    The process is much cheaper than tokamak to build and has recently (October 2009) achieved actual fusion and produced energy.

    #4859

    Aeronaut
    Member

    Ormond Otvos wrote: Not to be offensive, but merely to relay the likely impression a naive reader might get from reading it, the wikipedia entry for focus fusion redirects to Eric Lerner, who is mostly painted as a weirdo who’s got his own view of the origin of the universe.

    Now you and I might be able to correct for that, but if you want focus fusion to be a concept in its own right, standing separate from the other aneutronic processes, someone authoritative needs to build a wikipedia entry for focus fusion. I can start the article, but some of you senior bloggers would need to fill it out.

    Wikipedia is a very important source of information for the average person who just barely uses the internet, such as a congressional staffer, or the funding researcher for a venture capital firm.

    I just went to wikipedia, where I have an old account, still active, and have found many changes stiffening up the quality of the articles, which is a good thing. However, that means that I need strong references to put in the articles, and a thorough explanation of the uniqueness of focus fusion.

    I don’t think it’s enough to have a focus fusion link at the bottom of an article about Eric Lerner. Anyone skilled at composing wikipedia articles?

    Here’s a very rough draft:

    ”’Focus Fusion”’ is a specific aneutronic method for producing electricity from plasma fusion of a boron compound and hydrogen, by generating a metastable toroidal plasma between a central post electrode and several surrounding post electrodes, from a large ultracapacitor voltage source.

    The plasma so generated automatically collapses in such a fashion as to generate charged particles that exit through a coil that converts them directly to electricity, with no moving parts. Incidental x-rays are also converted to electricity using a multilayer wrap of several elements to cover the wide range of x-ray frequencies generated.

    Emission of neutrons is very low, thus overcoming one of the most important objections to such processes, and the process proceeds by repeated impulses, occurring the low kilocycle range.

    The process is much cheaper than tokamak to build and has recently (October 2009) achieved actual fusion and produced energy.

    Excellent synopsis. Although I agree with your take on the first impression of the wiki article about Eric, I believe that it is a very effective filter. We’ll have our corporate-grade fanboys soon enough. Anybody willing to invest $4M to $20M before 2011 is not going to be ‘normal’.

    #4860

    Ormond Otvos
    Member

    Have to disagree, on no other basis than fifty years of talking about technology to the masses, and 14+ years on web forums advocating for such weirdities as yahoo.com, google, cell phones, community wireless, etc.

    I know it’s just credentialing, but what do you want to filter for? To keep the forums from being overrun by noobs? To keep site hits down?

    I can see filtering forums, but I’m talking about getting site hits, and enthusiastic advocates who force evaluation of a “fad that isn’t”…

    #4861

    Henning
    Member

    Ormond:

    There had been an article about ‘Focus fusion’ but it has been deleted after Eric and Aaron had big debates with someone called ‘ScienceApologist’ (or something similar). The entry ‘Eric Lerner’ even has been one of the most controversial in Wikipedia because of that debate. So you have to be careful not to wake sleeping dragons again.

    I think what’s Aaron doing is to add small pieces to ‘Aneutronic fusion’ updating the advances. One of the gatekeepers there is Art Carlson, a physicist involved with tokamak construction (currently at Leibnitz Rechenzentrum in Garching near Munich) – as far as I remember. Art himself is quite interested in Robert Bussard’s Polywell, and is a frequent contributor to talk-polywell.org . Eric and Art had long discussions about the validity of Eric’s theories on focus fusion, but in the end admitted the possibility Eric might be right. [ I got that from reading talk-polywell. ]

    But now with ongoing experiments, focus fusion could be described just as an experiment as any other physical experiment like LHC. As long as its experimental nature is emphasised and not being described as a hypothetical device, this could even pass somebody like ‘ScienceApologist’.

    #4862

    Brian H
    Member

    I’m VERY leery of Gore and government; both are wedded to pumping big bux into low-return heavy cost “green” ideas like solar, etc. FF hits all of those crossways, and would destroy Gore’s financial empire, e.g.

    As far as the suggested entry, it’s OK up to the final statement; AFAIK, the “pinch” was not fusion, and couldn’t have been since only He4 was used, which does not fuse. In any case, achieving fusion (with D-D, e.g.) is no big deal; lots of people do it in their basements with fusor rigs. It’s getting near and past unity that counts.

    #4867

    Ormond Otvos
    Member

    Am I correct in assuming that the usual screwed up politics of wikipedia are at work here? Because I’ve followed some of them, and they are worse than useless. I didn’t know about the bad blood, but the splatters are all over the Eric Lerner article.

    Perhaps it’s better not to replace the focus fusion article there without some preliminary probing, which I have not the diplomatic chops to do properly.

    Guess it’s back to google, etc.

    #4869

    Henning
    Member

    Well, we could prepare the initial wiki page at Plasma-Universe.com, just as zeuz explained at the forum article Alternative wikipedia site for plasma cosmology.

    zeuz describes the goals of the site’s owner Ian Tresman in his post. As long as we respect him, I think he’ll be happy to let us elaborate the focus fusion article. Again we should emphasise it being an ongoing experiment, and not touting it as a miraculously wonderful magic technology.

    After everyone agrees (including Ian Tresman) focus fusion as being described in a neutral way, it may be uploaded on Wikipedia. But as it being a formerly deleted article, we’ll have to jump some hoops again.

    #4888

    Ormond Otvos
    Member

    Thanks again. I appreciate the trouble you’re going to collecting these previous efforts. I’ll read up. Can we at least get the focus fusion =>DPF into the first paragraph of Eric Lerner, you think, on that basis, explicated, that there is current progress on his main thesis?

    #4973

    Henning
    Member

    Yes I think it should be possible to add an extra section of Focus Fusion (in capitals) into the Eric Lerner article, just before the book review. But by all means it has to be checked by Aaron, and redefined here a few times. He has more experience dealing with Wikipedia bureaucrats. Also one picture like one of the following should be included (maybe take another one of the fully assembled device):

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/75/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/81/
    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/79/

    Something along these lines:

    ——————————————————————

    Focus Fusion

    As an ongoing experiment Lerner currently conducts research with a Dense Plasma Focus (-> Link to DPF) built at his company Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, which shall reproduce and surpass the conditions allegedly achieved in experiments conducted at Texas A&M University (-> Link to Texas A&M University) by him and others, with which he tries to accomplish fusion of p11B (-> Link to Aneutronic Fusion).

    The DPF is constructed with the following characteristics:
    Peak-Voltage: 45kV
    Peak-Current: 4MA
    Inductance: ???mH

    On 2009-10-15 the device pinched the first time with 20kV and a peak current of about 0.9MA on the second shot using helium as fuel. (citing https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/lpps_newly_assembled_dpf_achieves_first_shots_and_pinch/ )

    ——————————————————————

    That first section only includes the claim (the rationale), and the rest is pure facts. Additionally the fact section needs to be more spread out, but not too long, before anyone cries out: “Unrelevant! Let’s do more Electric Universe bashing.”

    Bussard’s Polywell also has a lengthy article of its own. The rationale goes something along this (in the talk-page of the Polywell article): Dr. Bussard was a well known and respected fusion scientist, therefore we have to include his not commonly supported fusion device.

    And the rationale about Focus Fusion seems to be like this: Eric Lerner is a commonly known crook who supports an Electric Universe and questions the Big Bang. So we do not include any scientific work, and just hack about the book he’s published.

    #4992

    Ormond Otvos
    Member

    Thank you for including the proposed first draft. I’d use will instead of shall, and instead of putting in the characteristics, which don’t include information about Unity, I’d put in a link to the characteristics page.

    Good summation of the editorial bias. I wonder if sending the summation to the Wikipedia main editors would help. I don’t presume evil on the part of Wikipedia, just human characteristics in the editors, who I do presume to be cajolable, if not confrontable, to net positive effect.

    #5009

    Dr_Barnowl
    Member

    I believe the response I had to people who thought that “plasma cosmology” was a bit hinky (and I’m not well informed enough to make a call on that), was that KekulĂ© was inspired to discover the structure of benzene by a dream about a snake biting its own tail, but it didn’t make the discovery any less valid.

    Original comment

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.