Science News Forum || SciScoop Science Article

Ś Ś Ś Ś Ś Ś Ś Ś

Now online: 9 Anonymous(s) and SciScoop membership: 3652. Total stories since November 2002: 2767

Search SciScoop

Section Stories

The stories that didn't quite make it to the Front Page...
Educators beware!
by bear
Events::Announcements
GE shows a glimpse into the future of lighting [OLEDs]
by mertero
News::Environment
Lose Stomach Fat, Get Six Pack Abs
by sciencebase
Reviews::Medicine
Science Fair Projects E-Book Download
by sciencebase
Site News::Potpourri
Free Computer Information Resources
by sciencebase
News::Announcements
A simulator of catastrophe to improve the programming of autonomous robots of rescue
by engineering
Events::Robotics
Radioprotection by Plant Flavone
by cesarsed
News::Chemistry

Soapbox 5
By rickyjames, Section News Posted on Sun Jul 11, 2004 at 06:14:49 AM PST
Hi, everybody; welcome to "The Soapbox". Think of this posting as a permanent "letter to the editor" page, the watercooler we can all gather around from time to time and just chat. It's recommended that you click on the "+Hotlist" tag in the upper right of this article, visible to members; this will create a Hotlist right-column box you can monitor for future newly-posted comments. This the place to come to get the latest updates, news and gossip about ongoing changes to the SciScoop site. This "Soapbox" posting is also to give you a place you can leave the editors a piece of your mind on whatever subject you want. The Soapbox: May 2003 The Soapbox: June - Dec 2003 The Soapbox: Jan - Apr 2004 The Soapbox: Apr - Jul 2004 The Soapbox: Jul - Oct 2004

Soapbox 5 | 98 comments (98 topical, 1 hidden)

<soapbox>Thanks for the.. . (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jxliv7 on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 11:37:15 AM PST

.
...compliment, rickyjames. As controversial or politically incorrect as I try to be (and I will not deny I try to encourage or display diverse points of view), at least I try to stay on the topic of the article.

Last night falling asleep, I was composing a biting and fed-up "f--- you!" message. I particularly don't like being attacked personally -- I can find better things to do with my time than read drivel. Then I wasn't going to come back.

In retrospect, I can see it's not my Texas or U.S. based view that's shortsighted. I've got more "seen-that, been-there-done-that, know-that" than most people. No. It's the fact that a few people won't question the things they read or have been indoctrinated to believe. Why should idiots ruin my day?

Want to know the definition of an idiot? It's someone who knows better but does the wrong thing. It's someone who chooses a path for profit or pride or peer acceptance instead of doing right. IQ has nothing to do with it.

So I think I'll stick around a while and see what happens. Isn't it true that some days you're a bug, some days you're a windshield?

jon

</soapbox>

jon

SciScoop Sources (main page left col.) (none / 0) (#2)
by barakn on Sun Jul 11, 2004 at 01:10:34 PM PST

Try clicking on any of the links whose names begin with "Astronomy," for example. They'll probably take you to an error page or a blank page. Those aren't the only bad ones. Looking at the html code, most of the malformed addresses have the same obvious defect: an additional string of text repeating the TARGET has been added to the proper URL, e.g.

should read

I emailed rickyjames about this, but received no response.

Yep by rickyjames, 07/11/2004 03:37:25 PM PST (none / 0)

Half Done by rickyjames, 07/12/2004 04:30:30 PM PST (none / 0)

Hey, J n, (none / 0) (#4)
by gypsysoul on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 02:07:44 AM PST

I was hoping you'd have a submission this morning!

I gave mtigges a temporary email address for me in the last Soapbox, but I may as well wait until I switch providers, I HOPE sometime this week, before I list an email address regularly on ss. I would be happy to "adjust" your submission grammatically before you post it for voting -- I'm honestly not an ogre with a flaming red pen.

Believe it or not, I enjoy making the good writing of others even better. (I know -- That's weird. It's a right-brain thing, I guess.)

How many... (none / 0) (#5)
by jxliv7 on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 03:25:06 AM PST

.
...SciScoop readers dancing on the head of pi... er, voting does it take to put an article on the front page? Is it eight?

A low number (five or six?) seems better, but I'm not sure of the number of voters versus readers, etc. It just seems to me that the more articles on the front page more often is adventageous.

Yes, some editors/superusers should have the ability to directly move articles to the front page (go, rickyjames).

I've always been one in favor of strong leadership deciding things instead of a democratic spreading out of the decisions among the population. That's the strong mayor, weak city council concept. Or the benvolant dictator. But, hey! that's me.

jon

jon

democratic decisions by janra, 07/12/2004 10:25:49 AM PST (none / 0)

Section Stories - left side box (none / 0) (#6)
by mtigges on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:11:04 AM PST

Recently a very nice story didn't make the front page. Currently the left hand side box containing the section stories is way down the bottom of the page. It's below the Serenity box and the external interesting links box. I thing it should be higher, it's too hard to see the headlines there.

Changes Are Coming Soon by rickyjames, 07/12/2004 09:37:07 AM PST (none / 0)

I wonder... (none / 0) (#7)
by jxliv7 on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 09:13:34 AM PST

.
...how long the articles stay in the voting que before being shipped to the "didn't quite make it to the front page" section?

I posted an very good (I thought) article at 2:30 in the morning my time and TWELVE hours later nobody can vote anymore...? Uh?

I already feel the articles need an inordinately high number of votes to go front page, but now I feel the articles need more time to be voted on as well.

jon

jon

do you mean... by mtigges, 07/12/2004 09:33:23 AM PST (none / 0)
it's not a time limit by janra, 07/12/2004 10:15:50 AM PST (none / 0)

time limit by mtigges, 07/12/2004 10:20:11 AM PST (none / 0)

Okay, this is NOT... (none / 0) (#13)
by jxliv7 on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 03:30:07 PM PST

.
...because I posted something and it didn't get popped onto the front page. It just seems to me that there are two classes of articles: "front page" and "didn't quite make it to the front page". If this is a "Soapbox", I'm standing on it.

My answer to your question, janra, of "Which do I prefer?" is neither.

I would rather see readers or members be able to browse through everything. If it's going to be a popularity contest, then give them a (large) choice -- not a choice of whether something is to be on the front page to read or not. It could be the answer to declining readership. Nontheless, if SciScoop et al wants to be a community, it's not my decision.

Part of me wonders, how politically correct must I be or what hidden agenda do I need to follow to get an article on the front page? But the bigger part of me knows that offering articles on SciScoop is like anything else -- you win some and you lose some.

jon

jon

Join The Club by rickyjames, 07/12/2004 04:01:55 PM PST (5.00 / 1)
Also by rickyjames, 07/12/2004 04:05:56 PM PST (none / 0)

My astounding ignorance (none / 0) (#18)
by mtigges on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 10:13:46 AM PST

So I've wondered for awhile, and it's a slow day here ... so.

What the $%^& does sciscoop:MLP stand for?

It Stands For... by rickyjames, 07/14/2004 10:21:17 AM PST (none / 0)

More griping about boxes... (none / 0) (#20)
by mtigges on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 11:25:03 AM PST

I noticed that the side boxes have changed. Much improvement. Looks great. But the last link in the serenity box is to a webite, rather than a website. Ever since it was pointed out to me by another reader it always grabs my attention. It'd be nice to change it. Especially since the typo might be unfortunately misinterpretted by non-firefly fans (like myself, sorry rj, but I hope you get that t-shirt).

Yikes! by rickyjames, 07/14/2004 11:33:52 AM PST (none / 0)

stem cells (none / 0) (#22)
by katesisco on Sat Jul 17, 2004 at 04:10:56 AM PST

Browsing the internet I found an interesting site that has to do with stem cells. The site is by a retired OB/GYN and it concerns the umbilical cord. The news that umbilical cord blood was the richest in stem cells made me take a look and this is what I found: After WWII, medical professionals were induced to act to curtail the yellow appearance of newborns which the infusion of the iron-rich umbilical cord blood created. Although totally harmless, the iron-rich blood-induced jaundice frightened mothers who demanded a "cure." The cure was to cut the umbilical cord before it had completed infusion the baby, less blood meaning less iron and therefore no jaundice. Of course, medical professionals had believed this infusion was "overly ample" so the small amount of blood kept from the baby would do no harm. Later, to prevent drugs circulationg in the mother to keep the birth relatively pain free, the cord was cut early. These reasons became standard practice and no one questioned the loss of the baby's blood as being detrimental. No one, of course, except professionals who knew or suspected that nature intended the complete infusion. When the stem cell issue entered the picture, some medical professionals began to speak about the importance of allowing the the umbilical cord to complete infusing the baby with blood as it had important considerations. On this website: http://www.cordclamping.com the doctor outlines what may be the most important consideration, which is his belief that the loss of umblilical cord blood causes hypovolemia and is the cause of cerebal palsy and may contribute to other equally serious medical conditions of the infant. I was awed that this site was available and want to share it. Read and see what you think.

Interesting comment by rickyjames, 07/17/2004 04:28:06 AM PST (none / 0)

Press Releases (none / 0) (#24)
by rickyjames on Sat Jul 17, 2004 at 06:35:40 AM PST

Interesting day. First a Soapbox comment I've turned into a story, now a comment from a story I'm putting on Soapbox for general comment. In the recent SciScoop nerve cell regeneration story member iGrrrl rightly points out some errors that were in the original press release - but then comments she thinks I'm not attributing press releases adequately. I think I do, noting to her in my comment:

"Just before this article went into verbatim mode, immediately after after my paltry two original lead-in sentences, were the words-and-link "From a UCSD press release". I consider this adequate attribution that "tells your reader and give credit to the source" as you correctly note is appropriate. If you will notice, I follow this exact convention (saying "from an XYZ press release" that is linked to the press release being quoted verbatim) in EVERY SINGLE ONE of my articles based on press releases. The only thing I add is three-to six relevant links on various keywords already in the press release. If anybody considers this some kind of con job or intellectual theft, please speak up. I think it's fine, and I'm so busy this style of article has unfortunately become the backbone of this site. I'd love to write two long original articles every single day, but I Just Don't Have Time."

Until we've got a steady stable of routine contributors that fill up the submission buffer routinely every day, me recycling press releases are going to be the foundation of this site for a while. I think I pick pretty good ones and add good links. However, the question of attribution is important and I want to do it right. I think I am. I'm elevating the discussion out of this particular article to Soapbox to see what everybody else thinks. Comments anyone? Is an overhaul in order, or am I doing OK?

Enjoy reading this SciScoop story? Here's a thousand more.

From an XYZ press release: by gypsysoul, 07/17/2004 01:03:48 PM PST (none / 0)

I was just looking... (none / 0) (#26)
by jxliv7 on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 05:13:00 PM PST

.
...at the "moderate submissions" page and noticed that the "post threshold" is now "9". I had thought it was "8". Am I mistaken...?

jon

jon

It's A Variable by rickyjames, 07/20/2004 06:03:05 PM PST (none / 0)

actually, I didn't change it by janra, 07/20/2004 06:53:07 PM PST (none / 0)

Alan Greenspan... (none / 0) (#29)
by jxliv7 on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:56:36 PM PST

.
...is on his last term at the Fed. Any significance there? [chuckle]

On the other hand, I have noticed that almost everything lately gets pushed onto the "front page", and rather quickly, too. Once again, I might make the argument that relegating an article to "Sections" instead of the "front page" is unneccesary if SciScoop is trying attract readers and there are not that many articles being submitted.

Of course, you could also argue that members (like me) ought to submit more articles. Especially since the membership is increasing.

jon

jon

what on earth are you talking about? by MostlyHarmless, 07/20/2004 07:08:32 PM PST (none / 0)

His Comment... by rickyjames, 07/21/2004 12:05:55 AM PST (none / 0)

ahhhh.... by MostlyHarmless, 07/21/2004 08:17:33 AM PST (4.00 / 1)

It's About The Votes by rickyjames, 07/20/2004 07:09:55 PM PST (none / 0)

What Atomic Vets article...? by jxliv7, 07/21/2004 11:19:01 AM PST (none / 0)

Its simple. by barakn, 07/22/2004 08:59:50 PM PST (none / 0)

The Sciscoop scoops bugs (none / 0) (#35)
by mtigges on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:52:39 PM PST

The new comments link in the the new "The Sciscoop scoop" box doesn't return the same page as the "new comments" link does in the "In the past 30 days" box. That's kind of annoying. Is it a bug?

I think by janra, 07/21/2004 01:59:51 PM PST (none / 0)

will the bug be fixed first? by mtigges, 07/21/2004 06:37:28 PM PST (none / 0)

already fixed by janra, 07/22/2004 04:05:15 AM PST (none / 0)

Where... (none / 0) (#37)
by jxliv7 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:45:40 PM PST

.
...do the "hidden" articles go, the ones that reach the "Hide threshold" without going to the "Front Page" or sent to "Sections"? I'm curious -- I was answering mtigges' reply to my comment but when I tried to bring up the article for review, it was gone! SciScoop allowed the comment to be posted, but where?

jon

jon

They're gone, but you can see your comments by apsmith, 07/21/2004 06:32:09 PM PST (none / 0)

I'm just curious... (none / 0) (#42)
by jxliv7 on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:55:48 PM PST

.
...whether the adjustment of the "new comments" number is in real time -- i.e., every minute it drops the comments that are more than 30 days old -- or whether it adjusts the number periodically (hourly, daily, etc.). The numbers have changed every time I log in is why I ask.

I don't really check the front page anymore, I just see if there are any new submissions I can moderate and then I click on the new comments to see what I haven't read.

jon

jon

Is there a PRINT button on this thing? (none / 0) (#43)
by pythor on Thu Jul 29, 2004 at 10:22:21 AM PST

Most mainstream news sites include a "Print this story" link that allows you to print the text of an article without all of the adjoining frames. Is there an option for that in Scoop? The stories are often long, and interesting, and would make good traveling reading, but I don't want to print the whole page. In most cases, I don't even particularly care about the comments (Though that's not an issue, either, since the comments are seldom longer than the full length story.).

That's an GOOD question, pythor... by jxliv7, 07/29/2004 12:27:11 PM PST (none / 0)

Persona non grata? (none / 0) (#45)
by pythor on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 08:02:51 AM PST

<tongue-in-cheek>Did I do something to offend an admin somewhere?</tic>

I have visited the site fairly regularly over the last couple days, and each time, the Moderate Submissions box has told me 0/0 new. Yet I find that new stories are appearing anyway. This leads me to the following possiblities:

Stories are getting voted through the queue at very fast rate, and I'm missing them.

Somehow my ability to see and vote on submissions has been revoked. I hope not. I really like that part of the site, and my own personal contribution is almost completely in the voting. I don't normally have time for anything else.

RickyJames and co. are pushing stories through the queue without waiting for the votes. Acceptable to me, since I remember when this was regular practice, and I liked the site just as much (almost) then. I just thought that it wasn't happening anymore.

If it's number one or three, let me know, and I'll shut up. If it's number two, I'd like to know why. Is it a bug in the system, or did I anger someone? Either way, I'd like to fix it.

It Ain't Me by rickyjames, 08/11/2004 08:24:47 AM PST (none / 0)
I'm guessing it's #1 by Sweetwind, 08/11/2004 02:25:02 PM PST (none / 0)
nope by janra, 08/12/2004 05:27:52 AM PST (none / 0)
5 in the queue by apsmith, 08/14/2004 03:31:25 AM PST (none / 0)

One more time... (none / 0) (#50)
by jxliv7 on Tue Aug 17, 2004 at 06:27:29 AM PST

.
...Why shouldn't registration be a prerequisite for participation (posting articles and probably comments) in SciScoop...?

It seems like any "Anonymous Hero" (privately referred to as an "A*s H**e") is hiding something or to scared to put their name on what they wrote. Is it too much to ask for registration?

Yes, I understand the value of increasing SciScoop's readership and the need for growing a community. Isn't joining SciScoop worth something (like the priviledge of posting)?

At the very least, change the moniker to something appropriate -- instead of "Anonymous Hero" make it "Anonymous Coward", "Unidentified Invertebrate", or simply "Lurker". We could even have a poll to decide the new name.

jon

Good idea by apsmith, 08/17/2004 08:34:19 AM PST (none / 0)
"Don't shoot the messenger" by barakn, 08/17/2004 08:36:48 AM PST (none / 0)

agreed by janra, 08/17/2004 10:48:04 AM PST (none / 0)
Two points... by jxliv7, 08/17/2004 11:07:22 AM PST (none / 0)

Maybe it's time to retire (none / 0) (#51)
by barakn on Tue Aug 17, 2004 at 08:06:52 AM PST

the depression med poll on the front page. People stopped posting comments in early August. Not that it wasn't a great poll; the discussion it provoked was interesting.

Is there something going on with SciScoop...? (none / 0) (#56)
by jxliv7 on Tue Aug 17, 2004 at 04:29:06 PM PST

.
All day today it has taken at least 10 seconds to load each page -- the little progress bar stops at maybe 10%, then finally scoots across. Since I'm on DSL and this behavior is not normal, I'm wondering. Most of the time the pages or links ("new comments" Hotlist, "HOME", etc.) just zip in. Thanks,

jon

A suggestion for the queue (none / 0) (#57)
by janra on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 03:37:08 PM PST

Last week, rickyjames mentioned that he had unilaterally given several stories display-in-section-only status after they have languished in the submit buffer for several days.

Since there are occasionally stories that don't clearly post after a reasonable time for whatever reason, I think it may be time to turn on the auto-post system.

(Yes, I could just do this, but I wanted to talk over the values that should be used before turning it on, just so everybody knows what's going on.)

The "auto-post" system works by waiting for a certain time that is significantly longer than the average time it takes to post a story then if a story still hasn't been posted or dropped by that time, it calculates a "score" for the story based on the votes the story has gotten and the ratings of the comments, to determine whether or not - and where - it should post.

Auto-post will sometimes post a languishing story to the front page, unlike rickyjames ;-)

If a story is languishing because it's controversial and many people are voting it both up and down, and there are numerous well-rated comments attached to it, it will post to the front page.

There are quite a few parameters, but I will talk about only a couple here: the timeout, and the scores.

For the timeout, I think two days (48 hours) would be a good place to start. Most stories seem to post in about half a day; by the time something's been in the queue for two full days all the regulars have probably seen it and the chance of it getting posted or dropped normally then decreases sharply.

There are two scores that auto-post uses to determine where and if to post: the "front page score" and the "section page score". If the story's calculated score is above the former, the story is posted to the front page; if between the two scores, it's posted to section; and if below the latter score, it's dropped. The story's score is a weighted average of story votes massaged to use the same scale as comment ratings (1-5) and comment ratings. Since a vote for section is worth 3.3 on this scale, the "front page score" should be higher than that, and the "section page score" probably shouldn't be too much lower. Scoop's defaults are 4 and 3.25, respectively, and I think they're reasonable values.

Comments? Questions?
--
Discuss the art and craft of writing

I Vote Do It by rickyjames, 08/21/2004 12:45:32 AM PST (none / 0)

Me too by Drog, 08/23/2004 01:52:54 AM PST (none / 0)

Likewise! by Sweetwind, 08/23/2004 05:13:15 AM PST (none / 0)

generally, no by janra, 08/23/2004 07:02:44 AM PST (none / 0)

unfortunately by janra, 10/04/2004 03:32:12 AM PST (none / 0)

bug? by apsmith, 10/04/2004 05:29:55 AM PST (none / 0)

details by janra, 10/04/2004 07:45:07 AM PST (none / 0)

Posted story (none / 0) (#62)
by jekluk on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 07:51:56 AM PST

Hi folks, Did anyone see what happened to a story I (think) I posted about 2 hours ago about the connection between emotion and heartbeats? It seems to have disappeared from the queue within an hour. Or maybe I didn't post it properly (?) I didn't receive any notification of rejection.

was it posted? by janra, 08/24/2004 08:28:18 AM PST (none / 0)

yup by apsmith, 08/24/2004 09:37:34 AM PST (none / 0)

OK, I'll repost unless I hear otherwise by jekluk, 08/24/2004 08:52:37 AM PST (none / 0)

Editorial policy (none / 0) (#66)
by apsmith on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 03:22:05 AM PST

From some of barakn and gypsysoul's comments recently, it seems to me we perhaps should establish a more formal editorial policy here, and expand (somewhat) our pool of editors. I work in scientific publishing myself (though my job is on the software development side, not writing) and in our organization there are two kinds of editorial review: technical editing, and copy editing. The technical editors (with the help of peer reviewers) uncover errors of fact, omissions, or other logical or large-scale (like copyright) problems with an article. Copy editors ensure that our style rules are followed, grammar is correct, typos are fixed, etc. Both are needed, and useful.

Any thoughts on adding some technical editors officially to our pool here?

We could also give all authors freedom to edit after they post - or maybe not (my freedom to edit my own posts has led to some of rather dubious quality, I think).

Join us at the National Space Society and help open space to everyone!

good idea re: having a clearer policy by janra, 08/26/2004 03:43:31 AM PST (none / 0)

turn on the edit queue by apsmith, 08/26/2004 08:05:23 AM PST (none / 0)

Good idea by rickyjames, 08/27/2004 01:46:35 AM PST (none / 0)

ok by janra, 08/27/2004 05:17:13 AM PST (none / 0)
Well... by Drog, 08/27/2004 01:46:52 PM PST (none / 0)

I agree by gypsysoul, 08/26/2004 03:54:16 AM PST (none / 0)
It would create havoc... by jxliv7, 08/26/2004 04:14:37 PM PST (none / 0)

edit queue is a bit different by apsmith, 08/26/2004 05:59:16 PM PST (none / 0)

SWEETWIND, (none / 0) (#74)
by gypsysoul on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:54:46 AM PST

thanks for coming up with the new voting system for unregistered user names. Great idea! I think it's actually going to work.

The Golden Age of the Essay (none / 0) (#76)
by apsmith on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 03:48:00 PM PST

While I don't think we're quite looking for rambling essays like this one, he has some good points on good writing. Well worth reading and thinking about a bit...

Join us at the National Space Society and help open space to everyone!

Congrats to janra ! (none / 0) (#77)
by gypsysoul on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 02:44:40 PM PST

on the selection of your new and improved suggestion for what to call nonregistered posters. The ID suggests science, it isn't threatening or belittling in any way, and it is rather witty.

I, uh, thought this might be the better place to say "good job." :-)

Friday -- September 17th QUOTE (none / 0) (#78)
by gypsysoul on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 11:08:07 AM PST

I rate it a (5.00/1)...
even with the final period OUTSIDE the quotation marks rather than INSIDE <since the words are from an American speaker rather than a Canadian/British one :-)>

High density plasma toroid fusion (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 06:24:58 AM PST

I thought you may be interested to join in this discussion about the ball lighting claims by Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems. Enclosed are several postings I've had with these companies proposing plasma toroid fusion. In my searches for efficient home technology I came across EPS. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their fusion home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion. Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges. The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium? I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. ( All pertinent papers are on EPS's web site.) You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have. Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source. "Hi Erich, I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address the fusion application. A few points: 1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be crated by many approaches. The photos don't prove that anything else is happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don't seem to use many other than the photos. 2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to say the least. 3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not fully trust it. 3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of 3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ-- a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that much longer confinement times will happen. Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory, published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the dense plasma focus. Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they claim. I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to answer questions on focus fusion when you get them. Eric" And Clint's response: "Dear Erich, Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points. 1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions. NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see. 2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work. 3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website. 3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents. 3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest. 3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary. Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus. Hopefully this helps. Clint Seward" Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi.....Wow! "An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their having talked with our technology partners. Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review. "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General Motors). Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and compositions." Please let me klnow what you think. Clint Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004 Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons (KEWs) Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass. Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called "electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning, are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g., 600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak" fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast, EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6 seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long "neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision. Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale) EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600 km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum. Metrics: - Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities (defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets) - Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS estimate) - Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary (officially defined as 62 miles) - Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate its ESTs. Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices). Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor) - appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY 2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support), but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5) within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners (agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power) could accelerate this. -MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least $2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by development of an integratable engineering package. TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their work. Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and compositions." It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants ,NIST grants etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating. I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc. Been sending my posted questions to academics, science magazines, and forums, not a whole lot of responses. Thanks for any help Erich J. Knight Shenandoah Gardens 1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA, 22840 (540) 289-9750

Should we lower the post threshold? (none / 0) (#80)
by Drog on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:02:50 AM PST

It's been over a day and Ricky's last two submitted stories still haven't reached a score of 9 to be posted, even though they have received no votes to dump. Looking at the stats, our daily average hits have declined these past few months, for whatever reason. I know the post threshold is set to be a percentage, but we may still need to lower it...

Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".

Great Minds... by rickyjames, 09/24/2004 06:54:38 AM PST (none / 0)

I reduced the threshold... by Drog, 09/24/2004 07:27:05 AM PST (none / 0)

google news lost us? (none / 0) (#83)
by apsmith on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 03:40:39 PM PST

I couldn't locate any of our recent stories on google news. We used to attract a lot of people that way - anybody know how that got dropped?

Join us at the National Space Society and help open space to everyone!

Google News by rickyjames, 09/27/2004 11:00:31 PM PST (none / 0)

Janra, Anybody... (none / 0) (#85)
by rickyjames on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 07:06:20 AM PST

...where did the image icons go? I'm not getting them on my front page...

Enjoy reading this SciScoop story? Here's a thousand more.

I see them... by janra, 09/30/2004 05:52:51 PM PST (none / 0)

Details by rickyjames, 10/01/2004 12:09:07 AM PST (none / 0)

I don't see them either by Drog, 10/01/2004 04:04:35 AM PST (none / 0)

ok... I'm still seeing them. by janra, 10/01/2004 07:01:58 AM PST (none / 0)

that fixed it! by Sweetwind, 10/03/2004 02:31:58 AM PST (none / 0)

me neither by Sweetwind, 10/02/2004 02:26:14 PM PST (none / 0)

It's new by Drog, 10/02/2004 02:30:04 PM PST (none / 0)

I like it! :-) by Sweetwind, 10/02/2004 02:35:15 PM PST (none / 0)

New Poll (none / 0) (#93)
by apsmith on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 04:24:17 PM PST

Slashdot covered it Friday - here's the list of winners.

Join us at the National Space Society and help open space to everyone!

This Edition Of Soapbox Is Hereby Closed (none / 0) (#98)
by rickyjames on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 02:25:31 PM PST

OK, we're going to close this edition of Soapbox - this happens occasionally to keep it from getting too long. You want to do a few things to keep up with us:

Go to the top of this very page and click the -Hotlist link

Click on SOAPBOX on the main menu bar to get to the new Soapbox

Click on the +Hotlist link on the new Soapbox page.

See you there! Keep writing and let's all stick together!

Enjoy reading this SciScoop story? Here's a thousand more.

Soapbox 5 | 98 comments (98 topical, 1 hidden)

Bookmark this story with del.icio.us Digg this story Furl this item Have you Reddit?

Login



Username:
Password:
Register Now Why join?

SciScoop Support

All trademarks etc are owned by their respective companies
Comments are copyright individual "Poster" and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of individual members of the SciScoop Community. Site Š2002-2008 SciScoop.