Slashdot Mirror
Alternative to Tokamak Fusion Reactor
Sterling D. Allan writes to tell us OpenSourceEnergy is reporting on a "far more feasible and profoundly less expensive approach to hot fusion". Inventor Eric Lerner's focus fusion process uses hydrogen and boron to combine into helium which gives off tremendous energy with a very small material requirement. Lerner's project apparently only requires a few million in capital investment which is a far cry from the $10 billion being spent on the Tokamak fusion project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
If it is so simple and cost effective why do we not have it now if not yesterday.
From TFA:
... hmmm ... coffee ... coffee-makers ... *Mister* Coffee ...
"The Dense Plasma Focus device is roughly the size of a coffee can."
Size of a *coffee* can
MR. FUSION!
Yes! FINALLY!
See you space cowboy
Cheap, no long term radiation, efficient direct to electricity, sounds like everything we've ever dreamed of...
And yet... not assasinated by the oil industry...
So it must not actually work. Q.E.D.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Sounds like something Mr. Burns would say.
End transmission.
Why does slashdot give time to cranks who purport to have achieve something revolutionary, but really have no idea what they're talking about?
Too bad NASA's funding funding for him dried up. What do they know about physics, any way?
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
I recall when Cold Fusion was actually considered a possibility for essentially limitless clean energy that a bunch of environmentalist clowns arrived on the scene proclaiming that cheap clean energy would be the worst thing that could possibly happen. That, my Gawd, with cheap clean energy we would just end up with more people using up even more of the planet even faster. While my memory may have faded over time, a prominent name I believe was at the forefront of these claims at the time was Jeremy Rifkin.
I certainly expect their reappearance any time now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
by Sterling D. Allan
Open Source Energy News -- Exclusive Interview
I suppose occasionally major scientific advances are announced in press releases, but since 99.999% of the time it's somebody jumping the gun, I think I'll let it go.
I do find it interesting that the article describes him as an "inventor" rather than a "physicist". Somehow when proposing a radically different model of the universe, the former always rings of "I was puttering around and I found something I didn't understand, therefore it must be both correct and completely novel."
None of this is proof that he's wrong, but the crank-o-meter is pushing towards the red zone. Which is too bad, because apparently he's an extremely smart man with a lot of valid research to his name.
Some simple checks can prevent this sillyness from perpetuating. Bob Park's "What's New" column http://www.bobpark.org/ is an amusing and up to date reference for this kind of thing. Here is what he has to say about the "Integrity Research Institute" (the name alone should have raised a red flag): http://www.searchum.umd.edu/search?q=%22integrity+ research+institute%22&site=&btnG=Search+UM&output= xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&client= UMCP&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=UMCP
Their method of heating the plasma to temperatures hot enough for fusion seems to be by using particles accelerated by magnetic reconnection. (hmm.. that wiki needs love)
Magnetic reconnection in traditional fusion reactors is seen as a bad thing because it shoots particles in unpredictable directions that often can't be contained by the confining magnetic fields. So it results in a loss of plasma density and also eventually puts small holes in the sides of the reactor.
If these particles are that energetic it seems to make sense that they could be used to heat the plasma if they could be controlled. No idea if they are energetic enough to be used alone though.
That magnetic reconnection thingy is also what causes the northern lights.
The correct response to this article is,
v let?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000406000001000216000001& idtype=cvips&gifs=yes/
R L&_udi=B6TVM-3WN77X7-19&_coverDate=06%2F17%2F1996& _alid=331683658&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_ cdi=5538&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version= 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fad383390465b806fd1 b90abff541fee/
(a) yes, H-B fusion (aneutronic) is possible, but...
(b) it requires very high temperatures, and suffers from a variety of energy loss mechanisms which make getting usable energy from it difficult. This is similar to when I was in grad-school, and everyone was whispering about Muon-catalyzed fusion, which turned out to be impractical for energy extraction as well.
IANA(N/P)P (i am not a nuclear/plasma physicist), but the papers I skimmed suggest that you could use this method, mixed with a conventional Deuterium/tritium mixture, to get cleaner fusion and better burn rates. Of course, not being a physicist, it's possible that the journals I found the citations in are the physics equivalent of Journal of Pointless Chemistry.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsSer
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU
Probable Translation: Another backyard inventor who can read enough of the literature to be encouraged, but not enough to admit the drawbacks.
Secondary Translation: I canna' change the laws of physics, Captain.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
I suspect he is a crock. I don't know enough physics to prove or disprove him wrong. For a present day physicist he doesn't have that much stuff published in scientific journals. I checked his publications on arXiv.org and he only has his paper talking about his new reactor and the other one how the universe is not expanding and some other one. Also claiming to build a "new" "clean" and "cheap" energy source that other scientists just couldn't figure out just sounds a little suspicious, if you know what I mean...
Wow Baldrson this must only be what, the 500th time you've posted this nothing letter here as being something that "blows the doors off" the government's past projects in fusion energy? Goodness, are you perhaps hoping to get a better response here this time than you did when you posted nearly the exact same nuttery to the hyper-racist "Stormfront.org" where you apparently tried to tie the "inhibition of pioneering culture in the US" to..... wait for it.... yep THE JEWS!? Hat's off to you! You truly are a first rate interweb whackjob!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
As a scientist I'm dismayed by the number of people who always believe in science conspiracies (like here where he says the only reason he didn't get funding was the tokomak). It's hard to decide how useful this method really is from the article as it's not a science article, but I have some doubts.
What people need to realize about science like this is that if he can make this work he will be lauded and made very rich. Although science does make mistakes, occasionally supporting wrong theories and such, overall it progresses by natural selection (and those who are correct get high end jobs because of it). I would love to disprove dark matter or dark energy because that would make me really well known. But yet I read about how the entire field of astronomy is so stuck on it that they won't look at other possibilities (but we do and they don't work with what we know).
If this guy is correct he should be able to convince most other scientists in his field (which he hasn't been able to do). This isn't always due to science (some people can't communicate and sometime politics plays a role) but generally it is.
I wonder how many theories have been posted on slashdot now that are just like this. Slashdot has been around long enough that someone could go back and look at the current state of these theories. How many are still, "waiting for that big moment" even after they go some funding. More importantly, I think slashdot should make more of an effort to put up articles when they show something has been disproved (like that article a few weeks ago arguing against dark matter in galaxies which used the wrong gravitational potential). Somebody with a science background should at least edit the original slashdot post so that people could get a better background before deciding that the future of energy production is safe.
The neat thing is that the reaction ejects beta radiation (electrons) in all directions, but ejects the alpha particles with the plasma in one direction. The actual fusion generator is the size of a refrigerator, with the coffee can near one end. The larger device captures the beta radiation with a shell around the reactor and has a target at the other end to collect the alpha radiation. The result - fusion reaction produces current directly! The next refinement *decelerates* the speeding alpha particles through a magnetic field, converting their kinetic energy to electricity before it heats up the target. That is the "reverse particle accelerator" aspect. Beta radiation ejected in the same direction as the alpha beam is "lost" and becomes heat at the target. Future refinements will make the alpha beam as narrow as possible so as to minimize the number of beta particles it takes with it.
After the proof of concept, engineering challenges include materials to collect beta radiation without becoming dangerously radioactive, materials to collect alpha radiation (hopefully low speed after magnetic decceleration) without becoming dangerously radioactive, and shielding to stop the occasional neutrons (from impurities, and the random nature of nuclear reactions). Will also need to store energy to "crack the magnetic whip" to drive the reaction, and meter precise amounts of ionized fuel. I'm not convinced that too much fuel won't be dangerous.
For a start, this is on opensourceenergy.org, which also hosts a number of articles on electromagnetic over-unity devices, i.e. the 'free energy' crowd. Not good company to keep if you want to be taken seriously.
In addition, Eric Lerner is a believer in the plasma universe theory; he wrote a book on the matter called 'the Big Bang Never Happened', which apparently makes him popular with the evolution-denier crowd. Again, questionable associations.
He's also criticised the peer-review scientific process, calling it open to fraud. Just unfortunate that peer-review has not been kind to his own research, I imagine.
I'm no physicist, but it seems his process passes a short, extremely high current from a coffee-can sized copper electrode through a low-pressure hydrogen-boron mix.
The current's magnetic field forms a small hot ball of plasma, a plasmoid, (without external magnets) and when the current's magnetic field collapses it induces an electric field that heats the plasmoid so much, it ignites fusion reactions that create more electrons & ions, which can be converted back into electricity via an advanced transformer that converts an ion stream to electricity.
So basically, pass an electric current though low-density hydrogen-boron in a coffee can, and you get spontaneous fusion - so much so, you get over-unity? Somehow, it strikes me as a little too easy to be true.
Shockingly enough, Lerner has yet to demonstrate over-unity, but that's because the government is so in bed with the oil-companies, they won't give him any money. NASA gave him some money, looked at his results, and dropped him.
I won't call him a junk-scientist, but I think I'd like to see some peer-reviewed and repeated evidence of his results before I lend his theories much credence.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I'm not smart enough to explain it, but I can give you some examples that show it's not totally insane. The inside of a CRT is something like 100,000F. But it doesn't melt the glass and then 3 nanoseconds later the faces of everyone watching it.
The only question to be asked is: "Can Lerner's fusion method be verified, and is it viable?"
If it were free, sure.
If it costs millions of dollars to verify, then there are additional questions to be asked to establish whether that investment is worth it in the first place when it could go to other research studies as well.
FTA "Imagine! At the flip of a switch, going from room temperature (or from the temperature of boiling water in the case of the liquid decaborane fuel), all the way up to a billion degrees, and then up to 6 billion degrees, all in a fraction of a second; then with another flip of the switch, when you are done, going back down to ambient temperature. And in the interim, you have produced excess energy from fusion -- safely, cleanly."
A Billion Degrees! Are you kidding me. Alright, lets use the good old First Law of thermo. Now remember a Tokamak Fusion reactor reaches temperatures of 100 Million degrees C. Now I haven't crunched numbers but its obvious that the energy needed to raise the temperature of Hydrogen to 1 Billion degrees is a lot greater than the energy needed to raise the temperature to 100 Million degrees.
Another problem from the above quote is the heat transfer. Now it was difficult enough to build a Tokamak that could withstand 100 million C but the article doesn't mention how a focus fusor will survive a temperature an order of magnitude higher.
Another heat transfer issue from the quote is that apparantly they will fire this thing up for such a small fraction of a second that that the fusor can cool from 6 Billion degrees C to room temperature in no time flat. Yeah ok whatever you say. How much energy could you possibly produce in such a sort time. Not enough to breakeven I suspect. The power requirements to heat something to 1 billion degrees in less than a second must be greater than astronomical. What conductor could they possibly be using?
Well thats what this AC has to say about that. This Idea is BS
calling "whack jobs" people who have done real work
no one ever called you a person who has done real work.
The inside of a CRT is something like 100,000F. But it doesn't melt the glass and then 3 nanoseconds later the faces of everyone watching it.
It's like walking on coals. Coals get red-hot at about 600 degrees Farenheit, due to black body radiation. People can walk on them, though, because human flesh is much denser. (It also helps if you do it right after the morning dew, and it's a bad idea to linger.) The coals are hot but the total amount of energy isn't that high.
It's a bit like having a very high voltage but a low amperage in a circuit. Another example of a plasma having a very high temperature but very low total energy is the temperature of interstellar space: it can be millions of degrees hot, but have a handful of atoms per cubic meter.
While it is unsurprising that someone who thinks "intelligent design" is a relevant criticism of real science also thinks the Big Bang is "just a theory" (said as if it had been merely dreamt up by a drunk on his way home from the bar last night), it is a huge HUGE tipoff to nuttery when a supposed astrophysicst rejects one of the most successful theories ever devised in all of cosmology. And when respected UCLA physicists start pointing out the glaringly obvious mistakes in said anti-big bang theories, well, that's pretty much when the house of cards comes tumbling down isn't it? No your comment is not insigtful in the least. Rather, it is an appeal to ignorance. Though if you realy do require a specific refutation of this focus fusion bullshit (and that's what it is so why mince words) you need only look to this 1995 doctoral thesis by Todd Rider which effectively kills off any possiblity of nonequilibrium fusion reactions (such as Fusors and pyroelectric fusion devieces) of ever producing net energy. The Focus Fusion device even if it actually DID achieve the temperatures claimed (and no, it does not) would belong to this class of non-starters.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
A teeny bit of fact checking is in order.
The glowing praise in the article comes from the Integrity Research Institute,
which doesn't even have its own domain name: http://users.erols.com/iri/>
The web site lists three directors:
Director 1: (also President and Chairman) Dr. Thomas Valone
Physics, engineering, and teaching background
Sounds good.
Inventer of the Photonic Rejuvenation Energizing Machine and
Immunizing Electrification Radiator
what the fuck?
Director 2: Jacqueline Panting Valone
General Manager of M.A.M.S.I., a representative of several suppliers of
microwave components and subsystems to OEM, military and commercial
companies.
Could have a solid technical background.
Ms. Valone is also a strong advocate of holistic health, including
electromagnetic medicine and is responsible for the Health programs
of our Institute.
Holistic health seems respectable. I am more than my symptoms.
But "electromagnetic medicine?" Give me Maxwells Equations,
not new-agey energy-fields-surround-us.
In her spare time, she volunteered for The Hospice Program of Broward
County where she assisted patients in their transition and helped family
members cope with their loss.
Very important work. She sounds like a good person.
Ms. Valone is a doctorate candidate of Naturopathy at Trinity College of
Natural Health and is certified through the College of Natural Health
Professionals, CNHP.
Never heard of them. What does this have to do with physics?
Director 3: Wendy Nicholas
EDUCATION
2001 Johns Hopkins University Rockville, MD
* Continuing Education student in Telecommunications
May be a wonderful, capable person. Why is she on the board of directors?
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
This guy is a quack.
Here's a hint:
1. Publication-by-press-release
2. Few to none serious scientific citations
3. Brilliant technology that would change the world but for government conspiracy to keep him down
4. known nutjob that is ignored by the scientific community
We have a winner! He's a nutjob!
I'm dying to see a working commercial fusion reactor too, but let's try to keep a healthy sense of scientific skepticism.
speaking of poisons... boron is a fission inhibitor by virtue of being a newutron absorber... aka a reaction poison.
:)
modern reactor emergency shutdown systems are usualy designed to drown the reactor core in boron to end the chain reaction immediately in the event of an "un-requested fission surplus"
random fact for the day & Obligatory Simpsons quote all in one
XML - A clever joke would be here if
The world economy could *not* handle unlimited cheap energy. Just as it could not handle unlimited cheap food. We are well on our way to a "service" economy, and there are very vested interests that want to see it happen.
Not all "services" can be economically automated, even with unlimited cheap energy. Without centralized control of life's necessities (energy, food, housing, etc.) there would be no incentive for anyone to participate in the "service" economy. Without limits on those necessities, there would be no centralized control.
It would even be difficult to get people to work on automating any "services" that are truly necessary. Unnecessary services, (the type that the ultra-wealthy enjoy), would simply disappear. No more waiters, chefs, strip clubs, massages, nurses, plastic surgeons. Anything that couldn't be automated, or people wouldn't do for free, simply wouldn't get done.
Even though the living standards of most people would go up, the living standards of the extremely wealthy would go down. Not by much, but they would go down.
Of course, I don't believe all of this to be true. But it's what a majority of those in wealth and power believe. And until they are either convinced otherwise or deposed, they will fight to maintain their illusions.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
This is the second article posted from "Open Source Energy". It is nothing but junk science.
STOP POSTING THIS CRAP.
This isn't news - or anything it's just junk science written up by people who manage to take other people's money and waste it in the name "science".
Pretending like 40 billion dollars for a renewable, non-polluting, cheap energy source is a lot is silly. The fact is that we (America, at least) hardly put any money into fusion research. Annually we spend 13 billion dollars on oil subsidies and research, several billion on coal, but not even 1 billion on fusion power. This is one reason why fusion is alway so far off (and the other being that early predictions on how far off it was were overly optimistic). If we only diverted 3 billion from oil funding to fusion, we'd massively increase our research into fusion. As it is now we might see fusion reactors in 40 years or so, but if we spent a lot more funding on it we could probably cut that down to 20--considering the threat of global warming and other such concerns sooner is much, much better than later.
Sad to say we are a small contributor to the international fusion effort too. Hopefully the next administration will be more forward-thinking.
Ahhh! Somebody has to shoot those worse than useless science teachers or imbecile media from which people get these ideas. There are an overabundance of people who think a theory is a concept that somebody came up with and a fact (or truth) is a theory that has been proven to be true. This is garbage. Science doesn't deal in facts. It's all models of how reality works. Newton wasn't wrong. His model works and works well for most things we'd normally encounter. Relativity improved upon it where Newton's model breaks down. But even relativity and quantum mechanics are in conflict so neither is a perfect model.
"Theory" is not, I repeat not, and idea or concept. "Theory" is a description of the principles behind the model of how things work. I've studied gas turbine theory, for instance. Does anybody believe gas turbines don't exist? A thought up idea or concept to explain things is an hypothesis. Some will argue this is symantics; that "theory" is used by laypersons to mean what scientists would refer to as an hypothesis. Fine, except that the two meanings of "theory" are getting mixed. Big Bang theory is a description of the big bang model, not a reference that it is merely an hypothesis. Evolution theory is a description of the model of how evolution works, not a reference to it just being an hypothesis (which it isn't).
Models always have flaws, and models get better. But none are ever meant to describe a fact or truth. The same results can occur from a Big Bang progressing forwards, or an intelligent designer creating all things a few thousand years ago to look exactly as if they had been produced by the Big Bang. The latter case is irrelevant to science because it can neither be examined, tested, or provide predictive results. The former case can do all of them. Note that this says intelligent design, for example, is possible but cannot be scientific nor can it be a required explanation. That it is internally inconsistent (and has been since the argument was formulated centeries ago) and doesn't do a thing for explaining where we came from also means it's not even intellectually useful.
That thesis you quoted is powerful stuff and seems to rule such methods out completely. However how does this apply to, say a thermonuclear weapon in which the fusion fuel is inertially confined whilst fusion reactions take place. I seem to recall some hairbrained scheme for generating power from 'bombs' by letting them off underground and using the resulting heat to generate electricity. There was also Daedalus which was supposed to travel to the stars using just such a method.
Let me highlight the areas that I have a problem with. First from the Daedalus article.
Daedalus would be propelled by a fusion rocket using pellets of deuterium/helium-3 mix that would be ignited in the reaction chamber by inertial confinement using electron beams. 250 pellets would be detonated per second, and the resulting plasma would be directed by a magnetic nozzle.
From page 122 of Todd Riders thesis:
Transient nonequilibrium burning systems [are ruled out] which try to produce enough fusion power before the partible distributions equiligrate (eg. ICF, bombs, and pulsed beam methods).
Essentially Lerners device is not in thermodynamic equilibrium it is effectively a small fusion bomb in which fresh fuel is confined and fired 1000 times per second. It doesn't recycle the errant particles back into the fusion reaction it allow the reaction to quench and starts another quickly afterwards.
This is the second time Mr. Allan has made a self-advertizing submission, and actually had it blindly accepted, in as many weeks. Remember "Wilma the Capacitor and Particle Accelerator"?
This is Mr. Allan's personal website. If the story itself isn't enough, you can judge Mr. Allan's credibility by looking at some the other websites he's founded and administers.
This is truly shameful.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
"Transient nonequilibrium burning systems [are ruled out] which try to produce enough fusion power before the particle distributions equiligrate (eg. ICF, bombs, and pulsed beam methods)."
That is bizzare. I'm really at a loss to explain such a statement, though, IANAP. Obviously fusion bombs work and DO produce far more energy than they consume and ICF is capable of doing the same or this would not be currently under construction. I can't understand what he may have meant by such a statement. weird.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Why is it that slashdot's editorial process is so bad?
* "The Tokamak project" - a tokamak is a type of reactor, not a specific project. The specific project is ITER.
* "Open Source Energy Network". Yeah, that's either A) a prestegious indedpendent journal, or B) a news source that has reviewed such a journal.
Fusion is a very complex topic, and this article doesn't even begin to discuss it. Currently, fusion research projects are divided between the "big guys", such as ITER and NIF, and the "little guys" such as sonofusion, focus fusion, and interial electrostatic confinement. The "little guys" are jealous (somewhat rightfully) that the big-ticket items get funding, and their more long-shot but cheaper concepts don't get the little money that they need.
Lets back up a bit and discuss the basics. The critical forces that we're dealing with are electrostatic force and the strong force. Since you're trying to ram nuclei together, the electrostatic forces between the protons in the nuclei are going to make it incredibly difficult for you. Once you get close enough, however, the strong force (which only acts over short distances) takes over, and dominates. Thus, there is an energy barrier that you have to get over - the coulomb barrier. If your particles aren't moving fast enough, or are angled incorrectly, you just bounce off, or worse.
Worse? Well, we're not just talking about nuclei - there are electrons, too. The longer you spend in the vicinity of electrons, the more likely you are to hit them. A high energy particle that hits an electron wastes its energy as bremsstrahlung. It's also possible to lose energy from the core through synchrotron radiation.
By the numbers, it looks like it'd be almost impossible to do. Thankfully, you have to big things working to help you out. One, particles in the core do not all share the same energy level; in fact, they'll vary by orders of magnitude from each other. So, while most of your core will be well below the required energy level, a few particles will be very energetic. The other thing that helps you out is quantum uncertainty - basically, since the positions can be uncertain, you can effectively tunnel past the coulomb barrier.
Even still, it's an incredibly difficult problem. Stars cheat - they have gravitational confinement, making the problem quite easy to keep a tight, hot core. However, for us, all of the energy of the particles (and new energy released by fusion reactions) is incredibly hard to keep close together.
The energy barrier depends on what reaction your looking at. Dt-Dt fusion is pretty low; so is Dt-T. Fusion involving helium takes a lot more energy, and wonderful fusion methods like B11-P (you can capture almost all of the energy released) take a huge amount of activation energy.
Inertial confinement, like ITER, uses strong magnetic fields and fast-moving plasma. Charged particles moving through a magnetic field experience a force perpendicular to the direction of motion and the magnetic field, called Lorentz Force. The interesting thing about it is that it seems to scale up well; the downside is that scaling up means massive devices. Things like B11-P fusion are really right-out for now because of how much you'd have to scale up. But there's good confidence that it will work.
Inertial electrostatic confinement fusion involves spherical acceleration of ions in a near vaccuum. If they miss colliding with other ions, they just bounce outward then fall back inwards for another pass. There are few electrons in the fuel to waste through bremsstrahlung. The problems are getting density and stopping collisios with the inner coil that attracts the ions to the center. Whether it's possible to overcome is a big question. As a note, these are popular for amateurs to build - see "Farnsworth Fusor". Since the devices are inherently small, they would scale to B11-p fusion.
Focus fusion involves trying to get magnetic vortices that are incredibly intens
"He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
Except dark matter is a hypothesis, not a theory.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I'm replying to some of the hundred-odd posts on this topic. If you want to determine whether something is decent science or crackpot, there are right and wrong ways to go about it. A lot of these posts appeal to authority to determine if focus fusion is decent science, analyzing who I am, or even who people who talk about focus fusion are or who is on their board of directors. That's not the way to analyze scientific work. If it were, we'd still be back debating what the church says is the correct Aristotelian interpretation of Ptolemy--and we sure would not be doing it by Internet. The right way is to look at the scientific work and ask--does it make sense, and does it follow the scientific method? Sometimes that's difficult if the work is only presented in technical journals. But in this case, our work is both available in technical form (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401126) and in layman's terms (www.focusfusion.org). Look at this work and judge for yourselves. If you're also interested in the Big Bang controversy, you can judge the layman's version at www.bigbangneverhappened.org or get more technical information from the download articles accessible there. (The July 2 cover story of New Scientist is a good introduction, too.) People on this list who call me a crackpot or less complimentary names have the simple obligation to point to some specific scientific errors that they perceive in my work. Otherwise they are not engaging in any sort of scientific debate and deserve to be ignored. A couple of basic historical facts need correcting. NASA did not cut off our funding because they were dissatisfied with our results. The whole program that was funding our work and many others, Advanced Propulsion Technologies, was zeroed out by the administration. More or less simultaneously all NASA programs that fund any form of fusion were also terminated. So this had nothing to do with our work in particular, but did indicate a general hostility towards fusion by the administration. Also, it would be wrong to describe focus fusion as that controversial among fusion scientists. (Unlike my cosmology work, which is controversial). Many fusion scientists think that this work, along with other alternative fusion approaches, deserves funding. But scientists don't make decisions on what is funded, administrators do. I've been at conferences of top fusion researchers in which practically not a single one supported the ITER project or thought that it could work. Yet that is the project that, for political reasons, gets all the funding. Finally, I want to address two technical points that seem to come up frequently. First, the safety of the focus fusion derives in part from the extremely tiny amount of fuel that is burned in each shot. The speck that is raised to several billion degrees is only a few microns to tens of microns across. So even when all the fuel, or nearly all, is burned, the yield will be only about 20 or 30 kilojoules--the energy a 100 W light bulb burns in a few minutes. It is only by pulsing the device a thousand times a second do you get 20 MW out of it. The much-cited PhD thesis from '95 that sought to prove that all advanced fuels like hydrogen-boron are impossible makes a number of assumptions that are not true in all cases. In particular, the thesis ignores the magnetic effect that decreases x-ray emission at the very high magnetic fields attainable in the plasma focus. The effect has been known for 30 years and is widely applied in the study of neutron stars, so it is also not controversial. But it greatly improves the prospects of getting net energy from hydrogen boron. Anyway, I urge every one to look at the material we present at www.focusfusion.org and judge it for yourself. Don't rely on "authority". That's not the scientific way. Eric Lerner