Fusion Message Board

In this space, visitors are invited to post any comments, questions, or skeptical observations about Philo T. Farnsworth's contributions to the field of Nuclear Fusion research.

Subject: Re: Unification
Date: May 09, 11:37 am
Poster: Jim Lux

On May 09, 11:37 am, Jim Lux wrote:

>If we are to succeed as a collective, we should have a "common vocabulary" - today this means software and protocols... Plain text is easy and well handled by this board... However, this is not sufficient... I suggest that we "standardize"

Inasmuch as I suspect we are all somewhat of iconoclasts, and we are mostly heavily funds constrained, and each poking at some aspect of the problem: I don't know that standardization helps all that much.

Also, in general, your suggestions are quite expensive. Unless you steal the software, you've listed more than $1K in software alone, and minimum buy in for all the tools and equipment would jack that up a bit.

Considering that one could scrounge and probably get a fusor up for under $1K total (and probably under $500, if you really scrounge), this seems excessive.

But, since comments are the order of the day:
>Normal stuff: Microsoft Office 2000
I'd say .txt or .html..... Sure, if you have a spreadsheet then excel is likely to be the most common, but for text, Word (in any flavor) is not a particularly good way to do it.
And, for wide availability, I'd say that .pdf files are even better.
>Flow charts: Visio 2000
MSVisio 2000 is all well and good, but many of us work with older versions. Besides, it's not likely that we'd edit each other's charts, so why not write it to a GIF or .pdf and then, anyone with a browser can see it.
>Math: Mathematica
Sure, if you have many $K to spend (I'd rather buy a new vacuum pump with my few hundred $$ than a copy of Mathematica).. But why not use standard math notation, drawn in whatever tool you want, and exported to .pdf, .gif, or .ps, or whatever is viewable.
>Control: GPIB
Again, awfully expensive. For those of us who scrounge for equipment, you may have noticed that GPIB controlled lab gear doesn't show up very often. I suspect that most automated control applications will use some sort of analog and digital interface card in a PC or controlled by a RS232. The precise nature of it will depend on what your experimental set up is. The vast majority of folks will use that most sophisticated fuzzy controller, the hand on the knob while watching the meters.

I also would commment that most folks in the nuclear biz (particularly for surplus) use CAMAC or NIM, not GPIB (unless, of course, you own substantial stock in HP/Agilent)

>Systems: LabView