FAQ - Discussing new ideas in fusion

[Carl Willis]

The sensationalism of fusion as an energy source drives a lot of people here with their ideas. The reality of what we do as amateur fusion experimenters clashes with the manic and pompous clown-parade thusly inflicted upon this forum and the so-called “theory” forum of the site. Often, there is acrimony and whining. Often, big fluffy egos get charred—like marshmallows beneath an Atlas rocket. The pain is avoidable. Here are my five suggestions for discussing new ideas. People who read the forums regularly will find nothing new or surprising.

1) Are you going to write for our audience? If so, your idea can reasonably be approached in practice in an amateur laboratory, on Planet Earth. The more detail you can offer on how to do this, the better.

2) Are you interested in sharing? You will be expected to share sufficient detail about your idea to allow someone to test or use it, as this is explicitly an “open source” forum. You will be expected to stick around for any discussions you start. If you get cagey because you have “intellectual property” at stake, you’ll be out of here like shit through a goose.

3) Have you done your homework? New suggestions should be distinct (there are 12+ years of archives on this site) and foundational premises undisputed (or at least harmonious with established physics).

4) Are you serious? If you don’t take a careful, skeptical eye to your own ideas, and if you don’t show interest in advancing them into practice with your own resources, no reader here will give a rat’s ass. That includes—at a bare minimum—making sure your idea isn’t predicated on erroneous simple arithmetic or online anecdotes or pseudoscience. Proofread your math, check formulae for dimensional agreement, and make sure any background you reference is either common knowledge or well-supported in the mainstream scientific record. If in doubt, get a second opinion privately before posting.

5) Organization counts. It’s vastly better to offer bite-sized ideas, succinctly described, approachable in scope, than to try to solve the entire fusion energy problem with a ponderous “word salad.”

-Carl

[Edward Miller]

Agreed!

There should be a sticky requirements list and it should be known that all need to be fulfilled in order to be taken seriously enough for feedback. It's ok to show up and throw out new ideas but they need to have taken it seriously enough to describe the experimental setup and what it adds to the science.

Also there should be a way for people that can accurately describe a problem that can be easily tested with a fusor to collaborate with someone with a working fusor provided they do the legwork and supply the rest of the required equipment/diagnostics. Eg. I have an amazing new neutron detector that I'd like tested, can you test it and report back the data vs bubble/3He/etc.

[Richard Hull]

With Carl's permission, I have changed the title of his original post slightly and made it a FAQ. This will be a guideline that will, hopefully, supply "newbs" searching on FAQs in each forum some guidance for future postings here.

Carl, good work and thanks on behalf of both the newbs and we older fusioneers tired of reading a lot of half baked stuff.

Ricahrd Hull

[Edward Miller]

6. Economics. Does it make financial sense? What does your system cost per neutron/joule/watt?

It's one thing to propose experiments to understand fusion better. Making the money work is a key factor to any new design for fusion power feasibility.