[Breakable]

Fixed url from zapkitty:
http://tinyurl.com/7dm9uud

Yes, you are generally right that accelerators are a proliferation risk, still DPF in my opinion is cheaper than accelerator of almost any kind and size considerations matter as well.
Of course in case someone has to run a fossil fuel plant, then it is harder to conceal the operation, probably thats the reason why accelerators are not scrutinised by IAEA.

[Breakable]

delt0r,
Average coal power plant in US is about 330MW (if I got the comma right), so its certainly not an issue to run a 1.1 MW non-break-even fusion reactor.

[Breakable]

As far as I see, Eric is specifically trying to workaround producing a neutron source. There are concerns of nuclear proliferation once you produce a cheap neutron source.

[Breakable]

willit, you need to know how those animations were produced. It is not a single shot, but multiple shots in different phases combined in a single animation.

[Breakable]

It is not a good idea to argue a point from an opinion’s perspective.
Kevin Kelly is an editor of a major magazine (an outdated technology) that is competing with internet which is based on anonymity. There is absolutely no reason for him to hold another opinion.
On the other hand if he provided actual data then we could talk about this on case study basis.
In any case I don’t mind any system that works. If by chance we welcome a wondering physicist that might want to fix or contribute something to our wiki, I think he could appriciate to do it without creating account/logging in. On the other hand if all we get is an inflow of bots, then it is definitely not worth it.
I would also like to point out that the spam edits have been created with spambot created users on their personal pages, so probably adding a captcha would address this type of bot.

[Breakable]

I have deleted spam users contents and accounts.
Of course if we can link forum accounts that’s in any case a bonus.
If we enforce logging in, that might help with spam control,
but if people feel that reverting and allowing of anonymous edits is a better approach then we can maintain it this way.

[Breakable]

Just finished with MathJax, previous functioning was glitching. Now seems to be much better, especially if you include the tags

[Breakable]

I installed the MathJax for the wiki
EDIT:Actually seems not to work, trying different approach

[Breakable]

It seems we cannot make wiki use math extension with our current hosting, so we will have to think about VPS in case we want to take full advantage of wiki.

[Breakable]

I don’t think Wolfram Alpha even has a wiki. There are some third party wiki sites available, but that would give up the control of platform which has some disadvantages.
There are some aspirations into remaking our website as a wiki which is not possible with outsourced resources.
A wiki-website would allow users to be more involved in the FFS mission of documenting, supporting and spreading the news about DPF (and fusion) research.

[Breakable]

Unfortunately it is more work than that to get math working. You need system libs latex, dvipng and lib OCaml.
As it is not a vps hosting we cannot install those ourselves so it will definitely take some time even if its possible (could be not).
Until we do the formulas will have to use images.
If we see that wiki is really useful, should be our primary approach and the budget allows, then we can rent a vps host.
So please try to make it useful as it is now and I will ask around about the math extension.
Just made a
https://focusfusion.org/wiki_en/index.php/Sandbox
so feel free to build some castles.

EDIT:OCaml is not php lib

[Breakable]

Just to clarify this is the link to the new MediaWiki:
https://focusfusion.org/wiki_en/index.php/Main_Page

the previous link was to the old wiki engine. MediaWiki is more advanced and more suitable to media contents and educational articles.

[Breakable]

ikanreed wrote: … Only certain kinds of energy are useful for doing work. How do you intend to get those?

Certainly its too early to even speculate on that. Feasibility is the primary concern.
Of course in the end it would depend on what would the process require and what would it generate. In my opinion as long as the outcome is EM and there is more of it than input Q>1, then you can make it useful. On the other hand if the Q is too high then it is much less desirable.

[Breakable]

An approach to falsify: try to produce ultra high frequency EM waves and have a subatomic particle detector ready

[Breakable]

Great guys, tnx for not dismissing me out of hand.

but matter IS energy. How do you propose to control the kind of energy the you get?

Why control, just make a big boom first 😉

Throw a Planck wrench into it and let the gears fly!

Exactly 😀

such as those produced near the event horizon of a black hole

Ok, so where do I buy one, does Walmart carry those yet? 🙂
Eh gravity is too messy to work with, I was hoping EM waves could do the trick 🙁

[Author]

Posts