Thank you. It is well written and useful. I have requirements for the Internet as a whole that are slightly different than individuals and groups trying to design and build things.
I was writing quickly. It is a comment, not a paper or treatise. But I think I got most of the main issues if you are encouraging the use of nuclear heat sources.
Me, I would focus on the actual separation processes at an atomic level. Down in the fine details – based on the local data from actual feed streams. Those are part of the whole set of models needed. But I found, after decades of looking at these sorts of things, effort put into the core process often pays off in smaller and more efficient separations and uses.
Naif Darwish It really only takes a little more effort to share the common information, tools and assumptions for models. Rather than just putting things online in “print” formats. My favorite “bad” example is
site:wikipedia.org “fourier transform” with 8,870 entry points.
Are the millions of visitors they get all supposed to write their own FFT tools, test them, then apply them? NO. They need “best in world” tools to use, not to derive and build from scratch. Then they can stand on the shoulders of giants and use what has been learned and refined to tackle the harder problems.
All those pages and much duplication of explanation and equations on paper, but not a single place can you apply the FFT to example data, to your own and see what it does. No, the old “ink on paper” paradigm is to print it, and force every single reader to create from scratch.
Suppose a good paper like yours is read by a few thousand people. Every one of them has to check to see if it is correct by tedious tracing. If even most of the papers mentioned are available. They use their eyeballs and memories. But nothing really happens until they create models of their own, starting from scratch. How long would it take you, already familiar, to write models from scratch? And should a 1000 readers have to do that? Why not share the tools you have already made and tested?
Today I have looked closely at “magnetoseismology”, “particle-antiparticle mixing”, “dielectric resonators”, “speech emotion recognition”, “magnetic losses” and others. Each of these communities is only sharing the words and pictures about what they do, and not much of the tools and data. They are encouraging “readers”, when what is needed is “doers”.
Things are changing a tiny bit. But a good topics like yours can take many decades.
There is a children’s game called “whisper”. In the USA it is called “telephone”. I played it as a child, a standard games at birthday parties. One child whispers a sentence in the ear of the child next to them. They turn and whisper in the ear of the next one. All the way around to the last child, who blurts out what they heard. And it is always scrambled beyond recognition.
Printing things on paper, then reading, then writing on paper, then reading, then writing on paper is a research publication version of this same game. For children it is OK and “fun”. But for human society faced with many issues and opportunities, not so fun. You know many of these – “clean nuclear fuels”, “global climate change”, “cancer”. I have found and tried to get a sense of about 15,000 of these. There are a lot more than most people consider.
To simplify the “print” telephone game, just put the models, associated data online for sharing, and let people see and use the results. And “add” as they are able. One copy that “works” online, not thousands (millions or billions in some cases) of people reading about something.
At its peak (“covid” OR “coronavirus” OR “corona-virus”) had just over 7.5 Billion entry points on Google. Just now (GMT 9 Feb 2022, 10:12 am) it is 13.56 Billion – a new global industry. There are about 4.8 Billion people with some access to the Internet. Are they supposed to search all that mess and make sense of it individually? Multiple the time to gather and individually curate that one topic and multiply by the number of people, then multiply by the value of human time (about $15 per hour globally) and see a huge waste. Those two things – “diffusion by print through human readers” and “massive duplication of untraceable materials” hurts every topic on the Internet.
There are reasons it does not change. But small groups can try to create online journals where rather than print for people to read, you share the tools data and models and ask people to help on the whole. Let everyone see the whole of what is happening. I have had to work rather hard to find some combination of policies that works when things are shared. It is possible.
Sorry to write so much. In 24 years of the Internet Foundation, I have not found even one group that does it right. The Internet is improving, but mostly serves owners of sites, not the people who use them. I sat in on fusion seminars at UT Austin almost 50 years ago now, and they really are not closer. Because the process forces everyone to write on paper or in forms that cannot be used directly and interconnected to a whole.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation