Slashdot Mirror
Focus Fusion On Google Tech Talks
Henning Burdack writes "Eric Lerner talks on Google Tech Talks about Focus Fusion, which would be a much cheaper and more feasible technology as a fusion energy source than any other current approach, based upon the dense plasma focus device. The technology will use hydrogen-boron fusion with direct induction of ion energy and photovoltaic conversion of x-ray emission, obviating the need of a steam-cycle and thus resulting in higher efficiencies. High temperatures of 1 billion Kelvin (100 keV) have been reached years ago. It only needs $2 million in funding and two years of research for a proof of concept, and maybe four more years for a prototype with positive energy output. In contrast to other fusion efforts it utilizes the natural instabilities of plasma instead of fighting them. Focus Fusion has been discussed on Slashdot before, and a patent application is also available, going a bit more into detail."
I looked at the wiki history page on aneuronic fusion, and found that wiki poster 'elerner' had been banned from further edits.
Now here he is introducing a project that requires millions of dollars in funding.
Ok, I'm a bit cynical, but this does look like a possible conflict of interest to me.
This has got to be one of the first times I have seen a fusion energy prediction that was estimated to be less than 10-20+ years from being practical.
That's not a conflict of interest.
It would be a conflict of interest if he were investing in a company developing the technology, while simultaneously sitting as part of a committee deciding whether or not to give funding for such research.
This is just a case of somebody advocating an idea, and advocating the funding of further research. Sure, he may benefit from such funding, but that in itself shows no conflict of interest.
The wiki banning you mention is irrelevant. It's probably just stupid wiki politics at play. If anything, that may be where the conflict of interest arises: in the person or persons who banned him from that wiki. What he's saying may harm them financially (or egotistically), hence they use their power in another area (the wiki) to limit his ability to express those ideas which are disliked.
Kelvin (K) =/= kilo electron volts (keV)
Being banned from Wiki meant he did something. So, what gets you banned from Wiki? It could be innocent or it could be someone who is trying to control what information makes it onto Wiki. Someone who is trying to censor something makes me wonder what he's trying to censor.
Bottom line: maybe being banned doesn't reflect on his scientific credentials but it does make me worry about his credibility.
is doing a demonstration project, but $2 million doesn't by crap these days. It takes more than $2million just for the power supplies.
Google for "Tri-Alpha Energy"
I don't know about this guy's background, but so far (still watching) he hasn't said anything crazy that signifies obvious crack-pottery. There's been o zero-point energy nonsense, and he's using standard terminology to explain things in a way that would make sense to someone with a little background in the subject. The new bit seems to be clever use of plasma instability to get the energy density required to initiate fusion. I'm not a plasma physicist (just particle physics), so I can't critically evaluate the details of the method. So far I'd believe this is plausible, but I don't know enough to be willing to give this guy any money.
And for gosh-sakes, fix the article summary. keV = kilo electron volts, not Kelvin!
Don't give up on your dreams! You'll get that "first post" someday. I haven't lowered my expectations of you. You are good enough, fast enough, and doggone it, people love you. Keep shooting for the stars, early post man.
This is one of a number of devices that can produce some fusion, but don't put out more energy than is put in. Forty years ago, this idea looked more promising. There was a fusion demo of a "plasma pinch" fusion system at the General Electric pavilion of the 1964 World's Fair. So far, no variation on this scheme has come even close to breakeven.
Great! In a few years I can use this to power my flying car with built in Phantom games console running Duke Nukem Forever!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
In a proper and decent world, men like Robert Bussard would be heroes to our children, and household names that have high schools named after them... his concept of a fusion ramjet, the Bussard Ramjet, from Known Space and other places... is still the only realistically viable idea for intersteller travel...
IANANP... would love someone who is to break this video and it's ideas down... would it work?
peace
Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
I am not a physicist, but does anyone other than myself see the next "Perpetual Motion Machine" coming to rise? If $2M isn't enough to buy even the cheapest of power supply plants, then I highly doubt that you can build yourself a plasma-generating machine on that money alone.
Hell, if that were possible, it would have definintely been done already. Some executives in this world can shake that much pocket change out of their pants. Daily.
These people invariably claim that their research has been suppressed. If we've learned one thing from magnetic fusion research in the 20th century, it's this: Fusion is Difficult. Believing that it's easy just leads to disappointment.
One factor of many: plasmas are prone to a host of instabilities, and 'stability' usually involves tradeoffs between one type of instability and another. So when somebody tells you "my plasma is stable", it should set off warning bells. The honest man will tell you the limits of stability.
As Artsimovich put it so eloquently in 1961, "Initial belief that the doors to the desired region would open smoothly at the first powerful pressure exerted by the creative energy of physicists has proved as unfounded as the sinner's hope of entering Paradise without passing through Purgatory. We do not know how long we will be in Purgatory."
We got into the Space Age by way of the Cold War, but what will push us into the Fusion Age?
This article is a bit over my head, but I get the feeling it's similar to using a magnifying glass to make ants explode.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
He said it was crackpot. I didn't try to get him to go into details, but he basically mentioned the same stuff you did - stellarators, etc. What's more, there is the crack-pottery in the clip about how all the people in the field are in a conspiracy to deny his idea funding. I know these people - you might find some or even a majority who would be so unscrupulous, but nowhere near enough to maintain such a conspiracy. So, I would tend to think that you're right.
Basically, this guy is probably guilty of exactly what he accuses the rest of the fusion community of - he's fixated on his idea. He apparently won funding from the navy, so there's a chance his group could prove me wrong, and I hope that they do, but I doubt it.
Why are the majority of Eric Lerner's supporters posting as ACs?
Is that you, Eric?
Low enough that someone might come up with the amount and a "hey, what if it works?...". If he had asked for $2 billion, the financiers would insist on a very tightly controlled cash management. $2 million is low enough that he might be left controlling the purse strings.
If a proof of concept can be done with $2 million, then he should do first a basic prototype in his hobby shop. After all, people have built Farnsworth fusors for decades, and still no one would claim they could build a viable proof of concept within two years for $2 million using a Farnsworth fusor.
High temperatures is not the problem, D-T fusion only requires some 16keV, and this is easily achievable using rather cheap voltage source. However, to get more energy out than you get in, you must ensure that this energy stays in the plasma and causes fusion, rather than just radiating right out of it again. In practice this means you need a high density and large confinement time ( basically a measure of how rapidly the plasma loses energy ).
Now, the issue with fusion using fuels with higher atomic number than hydrogen is that the plasma will contain much more electrons, and this dramatically increases the amount of energy lost as bremsstrahlung when the electrons collide with the nuclei (the increased mass of the nuclei also plays a part ). Direct conversion of X-rays could theoretically help alleviate this as it would allow you to feed the lost energy back into the plasma, problem is, photo-voltaics have nowhere close to 100% efficiency.
Aneutronic fusion has advantages. You don't have to worry about neutron damage to the reactor vessel. However, when you look a bit closer at it, this isn't such a large advantage after all, because the neutrons are actually quite useful in that they deposit the energy over a quite large volume when they are being absorbed, reducing the stress caused by heating in the device. If it wasn't for the neutrons you would see most of the heat deposited in a comparably thin layer of the plasma-facing compounds. The counter for this is that aneutronic fusion releases the energy as charged particles, potentially allowing for directly converting the energy into electricity.
Basically, what this whole thing boils down to, is if you are able to achieve sufficiently good direct-conversion efficiency to counteract the increased X-ray losses due to the higher atomic numbers associated with aneutronic fusion. This is why you often see claims of breakthroughs in aneutronic fusion together with claims of either a non-maxwellian velocity distribution or some other remarkable way to reduce X-ray losses. A plasma with a maxwellian velocity distribution cannot sustain aneutronic fusion without being either very large and dense (to re-capture the X-rays) or by somehow capturing the lost X-rays after they leave the plasma and feeding the energy back into it.
For a non-maxwellian velocity distribution your problem is that even at optimal energies a collision is much more likely to scatter the ions than it is to cause fusion, and restoring the non-maxwellian velocity distribution will require energy (no, you don't get to violate the second law of thermodynamics I'm afraid ). For capturing X-rays your problem is to achieve a good enough conversion efficiency to make up for the dramatically increased X-ray losses.
With the exception of a few unconfirmed claims, nobody has been able to resolve the above problems (thou Bussard was quite vocal about his polywell device ) and this is pretty much why modern fusion power research uses D-T fusion. It gives the highest amount of energy for the lowest temperature and X-ray losses, at a maxwellian velocity distribution.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster powered by fusion energy.
In that case I'll call my own miraculous energy device the Taurus Escape.
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
Notice the ppl who are trying to control this article. They are not even physicists. One of them is a software engineer (and in this day and age, everybody who is in the software world claims to be a software engineer, even though the majority have CIS degrees).
Personally, I am starting to think that he is getting a bit of a bum rap on this. It makes me wonder what is true on wiki. While I like that wiki is taking time to check things, perhaps, it is time for wiki to have subject matter experts do the reviews.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
factor 966971: 966971
Why even now, there are companies that are trying to produce jets that cost 1/2 of the comparable jet from the big players. And even more amazing, is that companies like Spacex is producing a rocket for about 1/3 of the launch cost of something similar by Boeing AND l-mart. And now, there is a company who is claiming to produce SPACE station at a fraction of the costs of the ISS.
Yes, when ppl and companies come along claiming to do something at a fraction of the price, you KNOW they must be fleecing. BTW, I have some hair die that I would like to sell you. It will only cost you 100.00, so it is of the same price as all the others.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Here are some pictures of the focus fusion as it occurs. There is even a 2-second video of some tests.
(It would a lot funnier without this:)
People are so optimistic and positive here! I'm so impressed! smilez for everyone!
contribute at wikademia
Hydrogen-boron fusion? Boron is fairly rare; the holy grail won't come until we get pure hydrogen fusion working (and even then, if it's deuterium-tritium we'll have a tritium problem).
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have no idea whether there's any chance focus fusion could work. But I do believe it has probably been a terrible mistake to have put all our eggs in the tokamak basket for all these years. When you don't know how to solve a problem, it's critical to keep exploring alternative approaches, especially if they're radically different. I would love to see substantially more funding for focus fusion, electrostatic confinement fusion, sonofusion, and even good old Pons and Fleischmann style cold fusion. The total would still be small compared to tokamak funding -- and who knows, maybe one of them would work out, or maybe we would learn something that turned out to be useful in the tokamak.
While there certainly are crackpots out there, I think we're too quick to dismiss ideas outside the mainstream, too eager to congratulate ourselves for knowing the truth already when we clearly don't know all of it. We need to cultivate more humility in the face of the mystery of the unknown.
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
No, Focus Fusion isn't based on Polywell. They are two different competing ideas. They both claim to be able to use p-B11 as fuel.
The idea behind Polywell is to magnetically concentrate electrons at the center of a spherical vacuum chamber, so they can attract positively charged fuel ions that will fuse at the center.
Focus Fusion also uses electric charges to create fusion butm (IIUC) the fusion supposedly takes place in zones called plasmids - tiny unstable regions of plasma.
Ever since i saw the polywell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell/ 6 months ago, i have spent every waking moment researching these new approaches to fusion. Plasmas found in fusion typically display a maxwellian particle distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution/ This basically states that there are different numbers of particles containing a different amount of energy. The fact there are so many particles moving at different energies gives rise to a phenomena called Bremstrahlung radiation (german for braking)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung_radiation/ this is when particles collide with electrons giving up energy. Bremstrahlung and synchrotron radiation are two main energy loss mechanisms in fusion power schemes. Focus fusion is maxwellian and suffers from the above. Sadly the inventor of the polywell Dr. Robert W Bussard passed away on the 06/10/07. He was dearly mourned by the fusion community. In many of his papers and in his final interview http://www.americanantigravity.com/graphics/interviews/Robert-Bussard-Interview.wma/ he stated that only non maxwellian fusion regimes can hope to achieve above break even power. Tri alpha energy recieved 40million in venture capitol for its idea. Focus fusion are rallying for support, and the polywell has finally recieved some limited investment from the navy to repeat WB 6's results of 10^9 neutrons per second. The polywell is non maxwellian fusion regime that is basically a 150kev particle accelerator utilizing a virtual cathode. It is in my opinion the only machine that will achieve beyond break even power, yet despite this it has suffered from an crippling lack of investment and interest. As we speak now WB 7 is being constucted and should have results by May next year. If all goes well in the next few months expect big things. We are about to witness another Manhattan Project !
I had made the mistaken assumption that /. was repeating itself and that Lerner was just Bussard's replacement at the head of his project.
Lerner doesn't go into as great a detail about the DOE denying funding as Bussard, but he does definitely accuse them of only being interested in few huge projects.
So, basically, the same criticism applies to Bussard and Lerner with the same punch-line: I really hope they're right, but I really doubt it.
Is this a legitimate concern, or if someone has a working D-T reactor, one can breed enough tritium soon enough that one can launch a D-T reactor economy?
The other quesiton I have about D-T is since this produces lots of fast neutrons, will an industrial-scale reactor be an even bigger plutonium-breeding proliferation concern than fission power? Or are the neutrons the wrong energy for making plutonium? Or will the D-T reactors be so high tech that "other countries" wanting one will require so much support and supervision that breeding Pu on the QT is not a concern?
all my links have (foolishly) / at the end. Please remove them so they can be viewed. thanks.
A layman's explanation is that focus fusion creates a long strand of plasma via initial energy input. Then, the strand is magnetically "cracked" like a whip, initiating a collapse from one end. A wave of magnetically confined plasma moves down the strand, gaining energy and getting smaller - just like a whip. If you do it right, the confined area reaches fusion temperature and density before it gets to the end of the strand - just like a whip goes supersonic before the snap reaches the end - the "crack" you hear is the sonic boom from the tip of the whip. The elegant part of this scheme is that electrons go sideways as beta radiation (losing some energy in xray radiation), and the newly created alpha particles all go in the same direction as the "snap" (since they were all moving that direction with the plasma pocket. So a good deal of the fusion energy is converted directly to electricity by providing nice targets for the electrons at the side and alpha particles at one end. The problems are getting the plasma whip to "crack" consistently, and not losing too much energy to the xrays.
This story makes reference to a slashdot story about Focus Fusion I submitted a couple of years ago.
Unfortunately, the website (I'm no longer associated with it) referenced in that article is not in good shape, and that link is now dead.
The identical story, which was composed by myself, was also published at PESN.
Whoever has the necessary access might want to update the link at Slashdot.
I might point out that the Slashdot community gernally belittled to story. I take some satisfaction in seeing that two years later the subject is featured at Google Tech Talks.
Focus Fusion is the first technology we reviewed when I founded the New Energy Congress a couple of years ago. It has remained in our top 100 since that time. See our feature page: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Focus_Fusion (second return for a Google search on 'focus fusion'.)
Tomorrow's news yesterday -- the bleeding, visionary edge.
First of all, the B11 + p reaction is no more free of nuclear waste than a D+T reaction (Deuterium+Tritium conventional fusion). However, it is a fact that B11 is much more plentiful than Tritium (or Deuterium for that matter, whereas single protons are everywhere; that's everyday hydrogen). Anyone who has taken an introductory Nuclear Physics course should be able to explain why B11 + p -> 3H4 is probably not a fusion reaction that is viable for energy production. In fact, anyone can make the theoretical calculation. H2 + H3 -> He4 + n Using the masses of the reactants and subtracting the masses of the products gives us a mass difference of about u=0.01888299 (yes, the masses have been measured to that accuracy, better than that accuracy in fact) Converting to electron-volts, Q = 17.590 MeV is the energy released by this reaction. This is carried off as kinetic energy for the He4 and the neutron (wikipedia source says 17.6MeV released). The neutron carries away the largest chunk of this energy. B11 + p -> 3He4 Do the math again and you get a mass difference of about u=0.00877247 Converting to electron-volts, Q = 8.1716 MeV is the energy released by this reaction (with the wikipedia source saying Q = 8.7MeV, source unknown). Again, this energy is kinetic energy carried by each helium nucleus, although it's split evenly between the three nuclei. At 100% efficiency, a focus fusion reactor would generate less than half of the energy provided by conventional fusion. The efforts being made for conventional fusion are there because it's probably the best chance we have for long-term fusion energy. Tritium production is currently low, allowing the author to make the claim that we would quickly run out of fuel. He obviously hasn't done his homework (or is intentionally misleading). Once fusion becomes a reliable and economically viable source of power, harvesting tritium from the surface of the moon (where it is relatively abundant) will be a streamlined process. Other advances in technology will allow unprecedented production of tritium. It's the same case that we've seen for oil a hundred times before; people continue claiming that we'll run out of supplies in the immediate future, and then a few technological breakthroughs bring greater access to oil reserves than ever before. Obviously this trend can't last forever, but by the time our local resources of tritium are depleted (the moon and whatever we produce on the earth) we'll be able to harvest it from other celestial bodies. And other users have pointed out the author's dubious background. It would be wise to ask why he never completed a PhD, and perhaps the wisest are asking whether he even passed his qualification exams (exams covering undergraduate Thermodynamics, Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and Electromagnetism to determine eligibility for a PhD program, taken sometime during the first or second year of graduate school). His lack of a PhD certainly does not mean he's stupid or untrustworthy, but I still can't take his research seriously. The best way to obtain research funding is by participating in a PhD program and then picking up a research position at any university. Everyone knows that, so why doesn't he? Asking for public donations is highly suspect. I don't trust him for this reason alone. The DoE is usually very willing to fund alternative energy research, even stuff that looks like it has little chance for success. He must have asked them for funding, and either received it and is trying to scam people into donations or they shot him down, implying that his research has even less credibility than I thought.
Oops, didn't hit preview that last time and then slashdot hit me with the 'ole "Wait a few minutes before replying" speech. Here it is again.
First of all, the B11 + p reaction is no more free of nuclear waste than a D+T reaction (Deuterium+Tritium conventional fusion). However, it is a fact that B11 is much more plentiful than Tritium (or Deuterium for that matter, whereas single protons are everywhere; that's everyday hydrogen).
Anyone who has taken an introductory Nuclear Physics course should be able to explain why B11 + p -> 3H4 is probably not a fusion reaction that is viable for energy production. In fact, anyone can make the theoretical calculation.
H2 + H3 -> He4 + n
Using the masses of the reactants and subtracting the masses of the products gives us a mass difference of about u=0.01888299 (yes, the masses have been measured to that accuracy, better than that accuracy in fact) Converting to electron-volts, Q = 17.590 MeV is the energy released by this reaction. This is carried off as kinetic energy for the He4 and the neutron (wikipedia source says 17.6MeV released). The neutron carries away the largest chunk of this energy.
B11 + p -> 3He4
Do the math again and you get a mass difference of about u=0.00877247 Converting to electron-volts, Q = 8.1716 MeV is the energy released by this reaction (with the wikipedia source saying Q = 8.7MeV, source unknown). Again, this energy is kinetic energy carried by each helium nucleus, although it's split evenly between the three nuclei.
At 100% efficiency, a focus fusion reactor would generate less than half of the energy provided by conventional fusion. The efforts being made for conventional fusion are there because it's probably the best chance we have for long-term fusion energy.
Tritium production is currently low, allowing the author to make the claim that we would quickly run out of fuel. He obviously hasn't done his homework (or is intentionally misleading). Once fusion becomes a reliable and economically viable source of power, harvesting tritium from the surface of the moon (where it is relatively abundant) will be a streamlined process. Other advances in technology will allow unprecedented production of tritium. It's the same case that we've seen for oil a hundred times before; people continue claiming that we'll run out of supplies in the immediate future, and then a few technological breakthroughs bring greater access to oil reserves than ever before. Obviously this trend can't last forever, but by the time our local resources of tritium are depleted (the moon and whatever we produce on the earth) we'll be able to harvest it from other celestial bodies.
Other users have pointed out the author's dubious background. It would be wise to ask why he never completed a PhD, and perhaps the wisest are asking whether he even passed his qualification exams (exams covering undergraduate Thermodynamics, Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and Electromagnetism to determine eligibility for a PhD program, taken sometime during the first or second year of graduate school).
His lack of a PhD certainly does not mean he's stupid or untrustworthy, but I still can't take his research seriously. The best way to obtain research funding is by participating in a PhD program and then picking up a research position at any university. Everyone knows that, so why doesn't he? Asking for public donations is highly suspect. I don't trust him for this reason alone. The DoE is usually very willing to fund alternative energy research, even stuff that looks like it has little chance for success. He must have asked them for funding, and either received it and is trying to scam people into donations or they shot him down, implying that his research has even less credibility than I thought.
In both Bussard and Lerner's talks, it does come off as a bit crack-potish when they complain about lack of funding. However, in both cases, if I remember correctly, they had military funding and that funding was cut due to the Iraq war. That isn't a conspiracy, it's consistent with my understanding of the current funding climate. The military just doesn't have the money to fight a war and do basic research on things that aren't going to be in immediately deployable products.
I'm not sure if their claims that the DOE is only willing to fund tokomak research is true, but it does seem at least plausible, and both Bussard and Lerner are saying the same thing, which lends at least a little bit of credibility to the accusation.
"First of all, the B11 + p reaction is no more free of nuclear waste than a D+T reaction (Deuterium+Tritium conventional fusion)." How is 3 positively charged alpha particles considered nuclear waste ? They have charge unlike neutrons, so you can deaccelerate them with a positive electric field and generate direct power and no nasties "Anyone who has taken an introductory Nuclear Physics course should be able to explain why B11 + p -> 3H4 is probably not a fusion reaction that is viable for energy production." if you look at its fusion cross section p+B11 has a peak @ around 125kev. This is what the polywell is aiming for. Yes the gain is not as much as say D-T but thats a price im willing to pay for no neutrons. When it comes to a reactor design utility companies would consider viable in $ per kw you dont want neutrons. How is a reactor going to be economically viable if you have to replace the core every couple of months ? "His lack of a PhD certainly does not mean he's stupid or untrustworthy, but I still can't take his research seriously. The best way to obtain research funding is by participating in a PhD program and then picking up a research position at any university. Everyone knows that, so why doesn't he?" I don't have a PhD. I wish i could find a university in this hemisphere that is interested in aneutronic non maxwellian inertial electrostatic confinement with virtual cathodes but im afraid it does'nt exist. Big science and academia have let us all down in this field over the past ten years. So much so with the narrowmindedness of ITER i would even postulate a conspiracy of some sort. Brave individuals at companies like focus fusion, tri alpha inc and EMC2 are going to start a revolution. With a Phd or not.
1 eV equals 11604 K, see good old Wikipedia.
..was enough to convince me this guy is a nutter. When a forum is filled with people congratulating themselves on how 'enlightened' they are because they don't believe in a theory which pretty much everyone who does this stuff for a living believes in, you are not looking at science, you are looking at crackpottery. This belongs up there with Intelligent Design and Flat Earthers.
If you require a revolution in physics for your engine to work -- you're selling snake oil. Rotsa Ruck to anyone dumb enough to invest in this yobbo.
I have 2 small kids here. Good schools (1 will go to Cherry Creek, my other is in douglas county; both good districts). Good area. Very family friendly. One good place is Ft. Collins (great town, family friendly, college town, but with bad police, though most college towns have that issue).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I watched the video and skimmed thru many of the posts. I'm a life long science junkie having 2 degrees with science majors - so while far from an expert I could somewhat follow his presentation. I am not a fusion fanatic.
My feeling is that anyone working on a "holy grail" technology like fusion is by necessity a bit quirky - driven - and true believer in the face of all the unknows / hype ( pro & con) around your research focus area. All of the aforementioned qualities are needed as long as they are balanced against good science --- doing the experiments - following the results - and most critically not "cooking the results".
The fact that he may or may not be rehashing older techonology / science is no issue for me. Something found not feasible or problematic 40yrs ago can become feasible with a new approach - new technology.
Lastly the approach of using the "inherent instability" of plasma to your advantage (rather than fighting to control it) also seems like a feasible and practical idea. And I can see where this would confuse people (bean counters) and seem counter intuitive.
From my limited knowledge I believe pulsed fusion will be the first step - perhaps in 50yrs we could have semi-stable continous ignition (just a longer pulse). I say give him 2 million and have an independant scientist and bean-counter monitor the monthly results.
Its not the years, its the mileage
This process has not been thought fully through: extraction of electrical current from an ion beam is difficult at best. I have some experience with laboratory experiments designed to prove the concept of a magnetically collimated ion beam produced from fission fragments (the experiments were all based on beams of alpha particles) and the conversion of the ion beam striking a target plate to electrical energy has not yet been acheived on a truly meaningful scale. We were only going for 1 MV of potential at microampere currents (less than 100 W of energy output) and that required a target assembly approximately 3 ft long to stand off and step down the high voltage. That was also under ultra-high vacuum, meaning the distance to standoff high voltage is smaller compared to whatever (much) higher pressure this machine would be working at. Based on the scaling up of this project from tens of mW to tens of W, the scale of this issue is at least proportional to the increase in beam energy, and this focus fusion idea would increase the beam energy by several orders of magnitude.
This is what I know most about, but there are so many other things that raise red flags about this guy. I hope he is not funded so that money can go to someone researching verifiable work in this field (and I am in the ion/solid interaction field, not fusion).
As a side note, I have not noticed any error bars and many of his graphs' axes lack units.
Later in the talk, he mentioned that x-ray cooling could be limited by raising the magnetic field to around 6 gigagauss. Isn't that a contradiction?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
If people are going to comment on a video, it is a good idea to watch it first. Anyone who did watch my presentation would have learned four things that many commenters here do not seem to know:
1) Focus fusion is not the same as Dr. Bussard's approach. I contrast the three main approaches to hydrogen-boron fusion--focus fusion is one, the IEC that the late Dr. Bussard worked on is another.
2) There is a quantum effect of very high magnetic fields that reduces the efficiency of heating of electrons by ions but not of ions by electrons. This leads to much lower electron temperatures than ion temperatures, and thus much lower x-ray emission. It does not rely on non-equilibrium plasma.
3) This effect is based on well-established physics and has received experimental confirmation in z-pinches.
4) The reason why the next focus fusion experiment could cost as little as $2 million is because all work with the plasma focus device is very economical. The device can be built for only a few hundred thousand dollars. That is why there are DPF research teams in many developing countries that could not afford a bigger fusion machine.
Eric Lerner