[Charles Wilcox]

Glenn, a few thoughts (#4 is the most important):

1. Is it necessary to have the plus sign between ‘H’ and ‘B’? Since the diagram arrows imply they are combining, the plus sign is redundant.

2. Should there be a depiction of the temporary ‘C’ atom formed where ‘H’ and ‘B’ combine?

3. The ‘He’lium symbol shouldn’t be in the center of the reaction; there should be three arrows going away from the center with three ‘He’lium labels on the output nuclei, just like the two nuclei going into the reaction.

4. Where’s the energy release depicted?! The whole point is that this is a huge source of energy. It needs to be listed along with the ‘He’lium output, but with much more emphasis; bigger font, bold… something. Actually, I’d place it at the center as some “explosive” icon with a “+ 8.7 MeV” label. The ‘He’lium output lines that I suggested in point 3 should then come away from that explosion.

5. With the current top-to-bottom layout, it will be cramped if you add any of these details. Changing the reaction to proceed left-to-right would give you room to expand, and keep the very top and bottom text where it is.

I didn’t intend to be critical of the current design, but I do think my ideas would provide clarity and potency to the idea depicted.

P.S. I really like the stylized plasma focus you created here for the background.

[Charles Wilcox]

Rezwan wrote: Like with the B11 + Proton picture, you make the “Fusion” in the star much bigger, and the molecules smaller on the outside.

And right now the problem with this graphic is that it looks like the boron and hydrogen are hitting the “fusion”, and not hitting each other. So maybe there is some better way to convey this with arrows and placement…

Wow. Graphical display of information is quite an art form.

What’s missing is the intermediate step, where Boron and the Proton become an unstable Carbon atom. Then it decays into the 3 Helium atoms with the release of energy. I googled briefly for other diagrams of fusion reactions to find something close to this. Here’s a close match: MSN Encarta: Nuclear Fission and Fusion I think if you rotate it left -> right, as opposed to top -> bottom, it would be close to what we want.

Also, may I suggest we also have the “textual” reaction on the diagram? p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV.

[Charles Wilcox]

“Dark Matter” is discovered all the time, and the gusto with which it is proclaimed should make me nauseous.

“Dark Matter” == BBT predicted matter – observable matter. The acceptance of an unprovable concept by the larger astronomical community is contemptible.

Most people consider a discrepancy between theory and measure to mean the theory is bad, especially if the relative error is high. An 85% error rate in any class lab experiment would earn you a failing grade and some public ridicule. (Number derived from the wikipedia entry for Dark Matter.) Yet, this is how gravitation-only cosmology matches up to measure.

Like so many other facets of modern Big-Bang theory, Dark Matter was not predicted by or a part of the theory before it surfaced as a discrepancy. Adding on another strut to fill in that hole is somehow reminiscent of other patchwork on top of a idealized/idolized belief.

— Charles Wilcox

P.S. Sorry for being a little off topic; this isn’t exactly about how gravitational lensing is invoked to alleviate the behavior or galaxy clusters.

[Charles Wilcox]

Rezwan wrote: 4) Glenn, thanks for the drawing! Cool! Although I’m not sure about the colors. Very earthy, and we’re going more for high tech space age silvers, blues and purples. Although maybe fusion should be more fiery like the sun? No, fire freaks people out. Blues seem more in control and less like an imminent explosion – and as you know, there are many unfounded fears of proliferation and such.

Actually, for a first attempt, it’s pretty good. The diagrams color reflects the actual copper and brass colors, (which I presume came from another description of the device.)

I do agree that eventually you need to have a consistent color palette, but is it appropriate for such a drawing? Simply, are we being vague and abstract in the drawing, or are we attempting to be somewhat photorealistic. Depends on the goal, I suppose. Maybe you could have two versions, one a diagram to illustrate the plasma focus device in operation, and another one that is just an abstracted icon. Overall though, I think it’s more important to clean up the “scientific” diagram one, but both have some merit.

— Charles Wilcox

[Author]

Posts