[Breakable]

Even if RPM reduces, it does not mean its a hoax.
It could be possible that the inventor found a way to convert magnetic potential into energy. Most of physical processes are reversible. As we know how to convert electrical energy into magnetic potential, it is possible that somebody might found a reverse process.

[Breakable]

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

[Breakable]

With plenty of cheap energy we might explore the element transmutation option more thoroughly 😉

[Breakable]

Phone apps can be arranged as long as we have some estimates available

[Breakable]

Brian, I can agree that in that article they might have been talking about the original hypothesis where in Wikipedia they were talking about null hypothesis.
Still as far as I understand, failure to check for null hypothesis does not make the original hypothesis false.
Maybe it was not done because you cant learn anything new doing that. What do you think can be learned?

[Breakable]

This is what article said:

A “Type I” error in Statistics (Stats Math) means the conclusion is incorrect for the data and the hypothesis must be rejected.

This is what Wikipedia said:

The hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected, this is called type I error…

Just stating the obvious, but it seems to me that “hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected” and “hypothesis must be rejected” are absolutely different things.

[Breakable]

Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

[Breakable]

I had some experience with web development. Nobody usually suggests this, but I have found in my experience that fixing validation errors usually fixes display errors as well:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/&charset;=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
obviously you can ignore the “alt” ones, I think the blind folk not care much about the images anyway.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:

Here’s some info about how unclean the AGW data is: http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/ClimateGate-Data-Series-Part-I-A-break-down-of-large-data-file-for-manipulating-global-temperature-trends-from-2006-2009.aspx

I am not a statistics expert, but this article is flawed. Type I error does not make hypothesis invalid:

The hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected, this is called type I error, or one can inappropriately fail to reject the hypothesis, this is called type II error

[Breakable]

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

[Breakable]

vansig wrote: Here’s that marketing black-magic: if $250K for a 5MW reactor piques peoples’ “too good to be true” filter, then tell them $1M for 1..15 MW. People have come to expect incremental improvements, not revolutionary ones. We know it’s revolutionary. Let’s downplay that. Later, when the technology triples their expectations, we all win.

For a quite long time I was suggesting to go for the fusion-fission hybrid approach. Its essentially the same as going the high price road, but does not involve lying about the price. Not only would it increase experiment believability, but if other projects are of any measure funding would skyrocket:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_Approval_for_Myhhra_0503101.html
And after this has been implemented funds earned can buy time to learn more and finish the engineering of the DPF.
The current route seems much more risky:
After the current goals are achieved LLP will still have to prove (using peer-review or otherwise) that the results are real (while on minimal or no funding)
or they will have to secure the funds and work on the prototype without having the results validated at all.
This does not seem easy at all, especially that the energy crunch is about to start (peek oil 2011=50%, 2016=90% probability) – everything will get more expensive and less funds will be available for investment.
Still I hope that the current funds will be enough for this experiment to prove that PB Fuel can be burned and it wont end on that.

[Breakable]

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?

[Breakable]

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

[Breakable]

Thank you, this certainly sheds some light on the situation

[Breakable]

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

[Author]

Posts