Talk:Focus fusion

message: What is this article for? Why does it need an entry separate from Dense plasma focus? --Art Carlson 08:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. I gather that "Focus Fusion" is a marketing name for the concept of, and experiments/organisation around, the use of the DPF to produce energy - it is used only by the focus fusion society and lawrenceville plasma physics as far as I can tell (one is a non-profit wing of the other). This is one for deletion, the concept is mentioned elsewhere and interested readers are referred to the focus fusion society. TristanDC 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been redirected to Eric Lerner but I think Art Carlson's suggestion of Dense plasma focus is a much better place to send readers. TristanDC (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That patent talks about "dense plasma focus", but doesn't mention the term "focus fusion", so it provides no help on this question.  We should consult secondary sources for how this term is used.  Is it unique to Lerner's Focus Fusion Society?  Or is it an alternative generic term for dense plasma focus?  Maybe a book search will help.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It appears to me that this article should redirect to either Dense plasma focus or Eric Lerner. As I do not see evidence that "focus fusion" is really used for energy, and it appears notable only so far as Lerner is its cheerleader, I think Lerner's article be the redirect target. I have asked for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics to help settle this dispute. YellowFives (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see pretty much nothing in books or scholar to suggest that anyone uses the term "focus fusion" without the word "plasma" in front of it, and usually "dense" as well, and usually "device" after, as in "dense-plasma-focus fusion device" most often.  The other occurrence of "focus fusion" is in Lerner's "Focus Fusion Society".  I'd say keeping the redirection to Lerner, or Focus Fusion Society which currently redirects to him anyway, would make the most sense.  If we want to redirect to dense plasma focus, we should at least find some sources that use it that way.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (from WP:PHYS) Lerner looks like the best redirect to me. The Society is there and a little DPF material (with link to full article, of course). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I would not object to a separate article if notability can be shown.  The previous attempt at Focus fusion was sourced only to Lerner's company and Society, and a magazine article based on their press release, mentioning only "dense plasma focus fusion device".  So far, no evidence that "focus fusion" is used as a technical term by anyone outside Lerner's organizations.  I looked around, and found nothing that I could use to establish notability of this concept (and reported above what I found); if you find differently, let us know.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only judge by the number of articles reporting on focus fusion. Of course, most of these are probably based on Lerner's press releases, but still, the number of articles in independent news sources shows that the term focus fusion is quite notable for the concept that Lerner proposes. I believe a neutral wikipedia article that describes the concept, including any controversial aspects, would be quite valuable for anyone who wants to know what the buzz is all about. NNemec (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, both Lerner's theory and Focus Fusion are pseudoscience, but I think it is notable enough to justify articles.  So my inclination is to restore the Focus Fusion article. Paul Studier (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But opinions don't cut it.  What evidence of notability can you cite?  NNemec says they exist, but hasn't shown us.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I would not say that "the terms dense plasma focus and focus fusion are clearly distinct". Rather the latter is a special case of the former, specifically, focus fusion = dense plasma focus + p-B11 + direct conversion. Simply putting these building blocks together is not enough to justify a separate article, any more than we need articles on p-B11 tokamak or magnetic mirror fusion with direct conversion. On the contrary, it is better to discuss the physics of focus fusion within the DPF article to give the reader the context that he almost certainly does not have otherwise. For aspects related to the company and its marketing campaign, that is tightly coupled to the person of Eric Lerner, so is easier to understand within that article. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I have translated and linked this article into the Dutch wikipedia. It ties in very nicely with some research done in the 80's in the Netherlands, which is experiencing a recent revival. As such I would ask for this article to remain. The term focus fusion seems to be sufficiently well defined to be considered distinct. Regardless of the fact that the subject is still disputed (which I think is properly reflected in the article as it is).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.196.131 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

message: This article appears to be dinged for notability when in fact it's a case of small size and incompleteness.  Not all articles start out complete in gold star quality, and some subject can never get that far due to limited scope.  The term is sufficiently in context for the technical subject at hand.  Redirect to a person is completely incorrect.  Worst case would be a redirect to an anchored subsection in the Dense Plasma Focus article, but the burden of creating the anchor and the entire subsection should fall on the redirector.  I'd suggest 2 years of incubation here, however.  Let it have some time to grow like thousands of others. Poppafuze (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 2-1/2 years since I first questioned the existence of an independent article. We just now got a teeny bit of content, but on the whole I would say incubation isn't progressing very rapidly. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody knew this article even existed, because FOCUS Fusion and Focus fusion (capitalization) was redirecting to Eric Lerner. I just discovered it  by accident and added a few changes. I am not familiar with wikipedia policy, trying not to get into wikiwars, so editing conservatively. Now that the redirect is fixed (until its not reverted), its more likely somebody else will discover/expand this article. Also 2010(or 11) is expected to be a big year for FF, if their goals are achieved. If not then at least it can document the story (in case its notable enough)... --Someone  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.82.183 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Redirect; Let it Incubate 

message: Focus fusion is type of aneutronic fusion - there are also other types of fusion approaches using anetronic fusion see Polywell and Aneutronic fusion explained at FFS site
: Exactly my point. Since almost all of your comments refer generically to aneutronic fusion, and not uniquely to DPF, much less Focus Fusion, it makes more encyclopedic sense to go into the details of those arguments in the Aneutronic fusion article. The articles on Dense Plasma Focus, Focus Fusion, Polywell, etc., should not rehash that content but only summarize it and refer to the main article. Some of the points, like "condensed and abundant fuel" and "no fossil fuel" even apply to every form of nuclear power. The presentation of the arguments against Focus Fusion is also misleading. The argument, "We haven't been able to do it with tokamaks, so why should DPF be any better?" is a lousy caricature. There are solid physical arguments against DPF fusion, including the virial theorem. I don't know how serious the high temperature is, but it is an argument I have only seen presented as a straw man by aneutronic fusion enthusiasts, never by mainstream fusion researchers. If you have plans for this article and think you can clean it up, give it a shot. The current version will not survive. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aneutronic vs. Focus fusion