LPP’s policy on data release
(37) CommentsLawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. (LPP) policy on data release, as stated by Eric Lerner, President:
Now that our Focus-Fusion-1 device is operational, we know that many people who have been following this project will be eagerly awaiting our experimental results. LPP firmly believes that scientific advances occur when results, both positive and negative, are freely shared and discussed throughout the community.
However, it is important to understand that experimental data have to be analyzed, digested and interpreted before they can become meaningful results. This takes time and affects the way that results are released.
Eric describes three main ways of publishing scientific results:
Announcing results on a website
The fastest way to release results is to announce them to the press and put them on our website. The disadvantage of this route is that it lacks the feedback from our scientific colleagues, who might point out alternative explanations of the data or flaws in our analysis. It increase the risk of publicizing results that may in fact later prove to be in error, which can have a big negative impact on the credibility of our effort.
Announcing results at scientific conferences
The second fastest way, which we intend to use in most circumstances, is to announce results at scientific conferences. Here, even if the results are preliminary, we have an opportunity to get our colleagues reactions, get suggestions from them, and either get confirmation of our conclusions or, possibly, modify them. LPP is currently lining up conferences that we intend to participate in, including the Conference on Future Energy this month and the International Conference on Plasma Physics (ICOPS) next spring.
Peer-reviewed scientific journals
The slowest method is publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This method is useful for highly controversial results, where we expect considerable skepticism from some in the scientific community and the public in general—especially results that may seem “too good to be true”. The peer-review process, although it has very significant flaws, does allow us to answer some skeptical arguments and gives to our work, once published, a greater degree of credibility. Avoiding this process could very well bog us down in unproductive debate.
Since any positive result with hydrogen-boron fuel will in fact be highly controversial, we will almost certainly wait for peer-reviewed publication before publicizing these results, which we will not in any case be expecting until 2010.
So, we ask for everyone’s patience as we let them know, as rapidly as possible, of our results.
For those of you who were hoping for a webcam in the lab to watch it all unfold in real time, this may come as a disappointment. Here’s a little humor on scientific results to ease the pain.
Rest assured, we will be documenting LPP’s process as much as possible - even if we don’t get to publish everything right away.
The Baby has a Name!
LPP Press Release
Comments
For a more in depth discussion, start a thread in the forums.Cranking out Kilo- or Mega-watts trumps all. If you’re making milli-watts, the niceties of peer review are important. But when your lab can light up a small town, you can thumb your nose at the reviewers!
Poor strategy, Brian. You let sales of mass production licenses and the license-holders’ press releases and other marketing spell it out in irrefutable terms.
Much as I hate waiting, I can see that Eric’s right.
What strategy? Just demonstrate that you can make mega-watts and the license-buyers will flock to your door, with little or no concern for whether the science journals figger all the Ts have been crossed and all the Is and Js dotted! They can catch up later.
Brian there is no need for FF finish their work:
FREE ENERGY MAGNETIC POWER GENERATOR
Only US $9.99!!!!
Electricity is Finally On The Open, And You’ll Never Have To Pay A Single Dime to the Power Company
One small minor unimportant slight problem:
Returns:
No Returns Accepted
Hi Breakable, thanks for that link! I feel I’ve wasted my life so far with this silly focus fusion thing.
Also, I went in and edited your comment, putting an a href tag around the link to shorten it.
Eric Lerner is the boss of course and what ever he says goes but…
The second video in Breakable’s link (if a little melodramatic) shows exactly why the results should either be lodged with as many people as possible as soon a possible or kept completely quite until Q>1 is reliably achieved - then the whole world told at once.
(Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you:ohh:)
Well, LPP does have a way to meter the energy - so they’re safe on that count. That’ll keep the extortionists happy, and we can gradually ween them off…chalking up initial bribery & extortion fees as a cost of business.
Must post that free energy video in a “conspiracy” section.
It makes me want to go and set up a Tesla tower. And where can I find the mythic water driven cars? Can’t the inventors virally distribute the designs on the internet?
Breakable;
You malign the jenyus who developed the MagniWork free energizer! 60-day money back guarantee, no questions asked!
Of course, it’s just instructions; apparently the components will probably cost $100 or more, but you’ll get that paid back in no time. Give it a shot, and let us know how it works! (Good luck on returning the components to wherever you scrounge them if you mess up the construction, though.)
Rezwan;
the water-driven cars work. But eventually they use up the aluminum oxide powder that you mix the water with, and then you’ve got to extract and replace that.
The theory of mag power is that if you ignore permanent magnet entropy, you can make a PM motor that will turn a generator. What he doesn’t tell you is what the magnets are going to cost.
Look it up on YouTube and you’ll find lots of PM machines without a full walkaround, etc.
As we non-purists know, FF is salable when it can recharge the input cap bank high enough make a BTU cost half as much electricity as Machinery’s Handbook says it’s supposed to. That number is supposedly an unassailable constant.
Page 1 of 4 pages of comments 1 2 3 > Last ›
Post a Comment