Erich

Dear Folks: I sent youall some of my correspondance involving fusion power a few months ago. A new thread has evolved, the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in this months Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...414B7FFE9F Sorry that the Sciam article was a tease, here's the meaty stuff: http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu...marays.pdf and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at EPS, Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . He proposes applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons. And also provides a theoretic base for ball lightning: Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems....lained.pdf Clint sent me his new paper on a lightning charge transport model of clould to ground lightning (If your interested I'll send it,he did not want me to post it to the web yet) and if Joe concurs with it's theory it could mean big press for EPS. It may also explain Elves, blue jets, sprites and red sprites, plasmas that appear above thunder storms. After a little searching, this seemed to have the best hard numbers on the observations of sprites. Dr. Mark A. Stanley's Dissertation And may also explain the sprial twist of fulgurites, hollow fused sand tubes found in the ground at lightning strikes. Not to blow my own horn, but I got them talking with my E-mail inquires! Erich Knight shengar@aol.com Sorry about those bad links..........here's the good stuff Sciam article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00032CE5-13B7-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F Dwyer's paper: http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf Ball lightning: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020209/bob8.asp Sprite paper: http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/main.html -------------------- Erich J. Knight

Thought this may interest you guys: http://www.economist.com/science/displaySt...tory_id=3764508 And: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/3/16 The Economist article was such a grand convergence. I found the articles looking for theoretical support for the p-B11 toroid fusion theorist of my previous posts. So many threads seemed to be coming together. Seward's ball lighting claim, the recent discovery of X and Gama-rays in lighting bolts at USF, I so wanted to see this progressive delineation of how toroids are expressed with the escalation of energy and scales. After reading Greyber's paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9704/9704283.pdf I was starting to see toroidal phenomena in a nonlinear way, a bifurcation or tipping point in the evolution of galaxies and stars. I've come across some folks who think that atoms themselves have a plasmid structure. Atoms, ball lightning, vortexes, mushroom clouds, solar flares, planetary disks and rings, stars, Pulsars, Quasars, black holes, and galaxies all the result of a conspiracy of angular momentum, matter and energy. I think the public can get their brains around this with a proper presentation. I hoped the new space probes that will spot gama-ray burst in near real time would also lead to supportive observations. However the "dark messengers" article put things in a whole new light. This is another example of convergence, which I' m always on the look out for. This may not be your interest, but please send it to any chemist you know: Feat of experimental acrobatics leads to first synthesis of ultracold molecules University of Chicago 04.04.2005 Feat of experimental acrobatics leads to first synthesis of ultracold molecules Achievement could benefit fields of superchemistry, quantum computing A research team that in 2003 created an exotic new form of matter has now shown for the first time how to arrange that matter into complex molecules. The experiments--conducted by Cheng Chin, now at the University of Chicago, and his colleagues under the leadership of Rudolf Grimm at Innsbruck University in Austria--may lead to a better scientific understanding of superconductivity and advance a growing new field called superchemistry. In the long term, they may also provide a strategy that could aid the development of quantum computers. "In this field, it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen, because none of this was possible before 2003," said Chin, an Assistant Professor in Physics. Chin, Grimm and five colleagues will report their findings in a future issue of journal Physical Review Letters. The new form of matter that the Innsbruck University team produced in 2003 is called a Fermion superfluid, which exists only at temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero. Superfluids exhibit characteristics distinctively different from the solids, liquids and gases that dominate everyday life. Most notably, superfluids can flow ceaselessly without any energy loss whatsoever. Science magazine named this work one of the top 10 breakthroughs of 2004. In creating the Fermion superfluid, the team extended the work that earned the Nobel Prize in Physics for Eric Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle and Carl Wieman in 2001. Those scientists had succeeded in creating the first Bose-Einstein condensate. Building on the work of Satyendra Nath Bose, Albert Einstein predicted in the 1920s that a special state of matter would form when a group of atoms collapsed into their lowest energy state. In this state now named for them, all of the atoms behave as if they are all one giant atom. Cornell, Ketterle and Wieman created their Bose-Einstein condensate out of bosons, one of the two major categories of subatomic particles. Bosons carry force, while the other category of particles, fermions, comprise matter. Chin and the Innsbruck team showed in 2003 that, with some difficulty, fermions--in this case, lithium atoms--also can be coaxed into a Bose-Einstein condensate. "Atoms themselves cannot become condensed. They are not bosons," Chin said. "But once they are paired they become bosons, and you can go to this superfluid state." The laws of quantum mechanics forbid fermions from condensing. Chin and his colleagues used a technique called Feshbach resonance to bind two atoms into a simple molecule that behaves like a boson. The process is carried out in a magnetic field and resembles the type of electron pairing that causes superconductivity--the unimpeded flow of electricity at temperatures near absolute zero (minus 459.6 degrees Fahrenheit)--in solids. This type of electron pairing is called Cooper pairing. Cooper pairings are the long-distance marriages of the subatomic world, where electrons are bonded at distances far greater than usual. "We have discovered a handle to adjust the interactions between atoms and between molecules, which allows us to synthesize complex quantum objects," Chin said. Approximately two years ago, the Innsbruck scientists found a deep and unexpected connection between Bose-Einstein condensates and the bonding of Cooper pairs. They learned that they could use a pair of atoms to simulate the electrons of a Cooper pair. And more importantly, they could control the interactions of the atoms. In their latest achievement, Chin and his colleagues have learned how to use Feshbach resonance as the control that binds the simple molecules made of cesium atoms into even larger clusters at temperatures near absolute zero. "Since 2003, the controlled synthesis of simple molecules made of two atoms has opened up new frontiers in the field of ultracold quantum gases," said Rudolf Grimm, a professor of experimental physics at Innsbruck University and a co-author of the Letters article. Their present work now shows that ultracold simple molecules can be merged to form more complex objects consisting of four atoms, he said. An important feature of this synthesis process is its tenability, Chin said. "In a magnetic field you can experimentally adjust it to any value, so we can control the process." The synthesis of ultracold molecules is so new, it is difficult to predict potential applications, Chin said. But it puts a new field called superchemistry on a firm experimental footing. In superchemistry, scientists are able to precisely control the pairings and interactions of the atoms and molecules in Bose-Einstein condensates. "We are physicists, but now our field’s starting to overlap with chemistry," Chin said. As ultracold molecules are synthesized into complex quantum objects, phenomena hidden at the subatomic scale will now become visible almost to the naked eye. "These objects may open up completely new possibilities to study the rich quantum physics of few-body objects, including chemical reactions in the quantum world," Grimm said. Control of quantum objects may ultimately lead to the realization of a quantum computer, Chin said. Although possibly still decades from fruition, a quantum computer would work much faster than today’s computers. The idea would be to use atoms in ultracold gas as bits, the basic units of information storage on a computer, with Feshbach resonance controlling their interactions to perform computations. Chin now is setting up his laboratory at the University of Chicago and plans to continue studying quantum manipulation and computation based on cold atoms and molecules in collaboration with Grimm’s Innsbruck team. "Based on the speed of progress in this field, I think there probably will be more surprises," Chin said. More information: www.uchicago.edu" Cheers, erich

Dear Folks: I had my chat with Rodney Cox, he is very self assured, when I tried to get a cost figure for C&Pchips he said cost was not a factor. Inferring that his cost of power production is so low that as an original equipment manufacturer the world will come to him and he will charge what the energy market bears and make a lot of money. I could not pin him down on a date for production, he did say they were still having trouble with the final production process, but they were buying more fabrication companies to keep all production in house. When I asked about the number of companies that had placed orders and their applications all he would say was he had a had a half dozen, no names or applications. He did mention the military has shown great interest in cool chips but asked that I not share the applications , but I'm sure you all can guess. I asked about government funding and his response was highly negative because the acceptance of DARPA funding involved too much control over the technology. About the $ 90,000 fees and NDA for development kits, again I got the argument that he has the technology and he can ask whatever he wants. On the Boeing patent he said that Boeing's people had worked with his development team and "should have known better " than to apply for that patent. When I asked about his contract with Boeing for Chorus motor drives he said Boeing came to him with the deal. That the market will be huge with all the CEO's of the airlines wanting to retrofit their planes. The largest cost savings being not sucking up turtles off the tarmac. When I asked if the Boeing work was of an in the hub type design he would not confirm, or comment. On the development of their Thermionic car patent he said they plan to do it in house in about two years using off the shelf components from the independent car part companies, Chorus drives and Power Chips. His response to the Nextreme super lattice technology was that there too many steps in their production process to be any competition to Power Chips. When I brought up the various calls for a Manhattan project for clean energy, the implications of China's oil thirst, etc., and how I thought his technology could save the world he laughed and reminded me that Borealis was an original equipment manufacturer, no licensing of their technology and was out to make money. I did my best, This guy is playing very close to the vest. Thanks to you all for the feed back, and hope to see more. erich

This Austin company may have the future of computing: no more hard drives KXAN.com - Nano Chip Research In Austin http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.as...34&nav=0s3dWBSJ Applied Nanotech Inc. has signed a research and development agreement with Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. in April of 04. Applied Nanotech also conducts research on carbon nanotubes. Austin-based SI Diamond Technology [OTC BB: SIDT] is a holding company for Applied Nanotech and for Austin's Electronic Billboard Technology Inc., which develops electronic signs. And here is a much broader discussionof NNPP (formaly SIDT): Nano-Proprietary Inc - OTC BB: NNPP http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=11 regards, Erich

Dear Folks: After seeing this Nano-tech forum... Nanalyze Forums - Direct conversion of heat to electricity http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1006੾ I sent a post to Rodney Cox president of Borealis http://www.powerchips.gi/ (I also asked him about Boeing's patent, and he did not reply to that. ) Could You please help me separate the wheat from the chaff? You should also read this speech given by Rodney Cox to IBM, it will give you a chuckle, shades of "too cheap to meter" http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf "Dear Mr. Cox, Were you aware of this patent application? Does it conflict with your device? View topic - 95 percent Carnot Efficiency--Is it a Joke... Regards, Erich J. Knight" And his reply: "Erich We know Kumar very well. He is using tips that may be 1 micron across. He is trying very hard to work around out patents. His device is not an 8" wafer or even a 1 cm2 wafer He is probably 95% of Carnot at the ends of the tips he is using. The geometry is very interesting-I suppose he is 5% of carnot for maybe 5 to 10% of the surface area if he is very lucky and very clever. IMMHO Kumar's device just does not cut it. rtc" And when I got home today, he called!! So now I'm getting my ducks in a row so when I call him back he won't think I'm an idiot. So if you look over his technology, and have any questions or comments that you would like to see addressed, please email me. Or, please send this on to anyone you know in the field who could provide any comments or questions. I'm so antsy, this guy is president of a multi million dollar corporation, and I want to get it right. I got into this doing nano-tech research, discovering and investing in Borealis. Their other technology includes Chorus Motors, an electric drive that overcomes harmonic drag, and produces 300% greater torque at an equal load. They just recently got a contract from Boeing for in the hub motors for airliner ground propulsion. And of course Power Chips and Cool Chips. shengar@aol.com

Ooh I'm sorry, Only Darren Garnier of the levitated Dipole experiement,review is new. I will be more careful in the future. Erich

Dear Tycho, This is all new information, reviews and responses from my investigations. Positive and negative, yes Clint is looking for money, I' m looking for informed people to help me understand if the technology is viable. Informed discussion, isn't that what a forum is for? Regards, Erich

After posting to several Science, physics and Energy forums I collected up comments and questions and asked Clint Seward , president of Electron Power Systems, to respond: "Your most important point was that others have suggested that I should be able to demonstrate a collision of EST's and even a level of fusion with a few hundred thousand dollars and about a year. I agree. Here is what I need to do: 1. Capture the EST in a way that I can measure them. I have designed a method in the last two months that will do this. 2. Measure the density of the EST. This requirement is something everyone is asking for, and will enable me to get serious funding from sponsors. 3. Collide two EST's. I have found a simple way to do this based on the TRISOPS work by Wells. 4. Consulting work by Chen to verify the physics I have outlined for the density. 5. Make and measure an EST based on Deuterium. 6. Collide two Deuterium EST's. Each of these requires some cash outlays, so I am working them as I can get resources. Several people, including yourself, are considering helpful investments of $5k to $10k to 25K to 50K to 100k. Work will progress with any investment, no matter how small. Capturing an EST is a $5k investment. Your second most important point is that more people want to see more data and even a video. I have many of these, but have not published them yet. I have concentrated on the physics, which I feel I now know completely, and can get confirmed. This is a smaller effort, about $15k. You suggested an article from the SF Chronicle that you might send. Please do. Again, thanks for the call. Clint Seward" Also, Darren Garnier of the levitated Dipole experiement: MIT, Columbia begin new 'hot' fusion experiment - MIT News Office Had this to say about the p-B11 efforts: "I, like most of my colleagues in fusion research, are hesitant to comment about this work. Mainly because when we do, we often end up being accused of having motives other than that of furthering scientific understanding. That said, I'll give you my understanding and my opinion. Many years ago, I was interested in Koloc's Prometheus... it sounded exciting, and at the time I was a first year graduate student. (You probably can google me on it.) Anyhow, my conclusion at the time was it was an unverified theory with significant holes in it. In the meantime, I've learned a lot of plasma physics, a lot about building experiments and diagnosing them, and about "alternative concepts". Many of which are pursued at a serious level through funding by the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Research. (Like my own experiment, the Levitated Dipole Experiment). Here's what I've learned. Concepts similar to these "toroid" plasmas have been and are still being researched. There are at least 3 spheromak experiments that can think of off the top of my head in the US. (They are not surrounded by atmospheric gases though). There are 2 experiments currently being pursued that are try to collide two spheromaks together to form (possibly) a "field reversed configuration" or FRC. The investigators working on these projects, I'm sure, would tell you that a lot of work still needs to be done to even determine if one of these devices could reach ignition, let alone 0.0005 cents/kW-hr. As far as p-B11 as a fuel goes, this is even harder to consider. Sure its an available fuel, but there have been significant efforts to determine its cross-section and it doesn't look feasible. Technically, the temperatures required would likely make synchrotron radiation of the boron snuff out the fusion fire. (That's why on LDX, which we hope to have minimal neutron radiation, we hope to have a "catalysed D-D" reaction.... But, I'll tell you, it ain't happening in the next 10 years, and won't be put into cars). About the quote from the DOD review. I can't speak for "MIT", but I and I would guess most of the scientists working at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, would not agree. Speaking for myself, I can say only this. In general I support research in "alternative concepts". However, I'm very wary of proponents who promise too much too soon. The fusion community burned itself badly 40 years ago when its said that, in just a few years fusion energy plants will produce electricity that is too cheap to meter. In the end, very proposal for research should be well presented with respect to prior work and reviewed so that claims by the proponents can be evaluated in the course of the research. Cheers, Darren." This technology is so green (only by product helium) and solves such a panoply of world problems, if it is as viable as the Department of Defense feels it is, it is the fuel of the American dream. Thank you for your Attention. Erich J. Knight

I am just trying to generate debate and discussion, to get the answers I seek Yes ,both Clint Seward and Eric lerner are aware of my postings of their material. erich

Dear Folks, Here's my original question and updated responses: I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response. I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing. In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion. Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges. The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium? I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site. There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. EPS seems the strongest. Electron Power Systems Home Page Clint Seward recently sent me this response to the few questions raised by folks on the 22 forums I have posted questions to: "Your most important point was that others have suggested that I should be able to demonstrate a collision of EST's and even a level of fusion with a few hundred thousand dollars and about a year. I agree. Here is what I need to do: 1. Capture the EST in a way that I can measure them. I have designed a method in the last two months that will do this. 2. Measure the density of the EST. This requirement is something everyone is asking for, and will enable me to get serious funding from sponsors. 3. Collide two EST's. I have found a simple way to do this based on the TRISOPS work by Wells. 4. Consulting work by Chen to verify the physics I have outlined for the density. 5. Make and measure an EST based on Deuterium. 6. Collide two Deuterium EST's. Each of these requires some cash outlays, so I am working them as I can get resources. Several people, including yourself, are considering helpful investments of $5k to $10k to 25K to 50K to 100k. Work will progress with any investment, no matter how small. Capturing an EST is a $5k investment. Your second most important point is that more people want to see more data and even a video. I have many of these, but have not published them yet. I have concentrated on the physics, which I feel I now know completely, and can get confirmed. This is a smaller effort, about $15k. You suggested an article from the SF Chronicle that you might send. Please do. Again, thanks for the call." He is also working with Paul Bellan : Spheromak Formation - Paul Bellan You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have. Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source. "Hi Erich, I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address the fusion application. A few points: 1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t seem to use many other than the photos. 2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to say the least. 3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not fully trust it. 3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of 3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ-- a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that much longer confinement times will happen. Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory, published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the dense plasma focus. Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they claim. I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to answer questions on focus fusion when you get them. Eric" And Clint's response: "Dear Erich, Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points. 1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions. NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see. 2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work. 3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website. 3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents. 3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest. 3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary. Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus. Hopefully this helps. Clint Seward" Here's an up date from Eric Lerner on his progress with Focus Fusion: ""Dear friend of Focus Fusion, <>Thanks for your support of and interest in Focus Fusion. <> I'm writing you to update you on our Focus Fusion project and to ask for your help. As you may know from our website or newsletter, this year we came very close to winning a $2 million grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), US Dept. of Commerce. The grant is to develop the dense plasma focus as a powerful x-ray source for infrastructure inspection, but the research involved is essentially the same as that required to reach fusion break-even. While NIST gave us high marks for the technical proposals and we passed Gate 1 of their procedure, we failed Gate 2, which judged the financial side of the plan. In the de-briefing, the NIST representatives assured us that we had an excellent chance of getting the grant in 2005 if we corrected some problems in our business submission. First, they said we needed more proof that we had tried to raise the $2 million privately and from other government agencies and were unable to. Second, since they will not fund facility rent, considering this an indirect expense, they needed to see pledges from investors that they would cover this cost for at least the first year, in the event the grant was awarded. We estimate that this will involve a maximum of $100,000. In addition, they wanted more evidence that state departments of transportation and other final customers would actually want the x-ray scanner if we succeed. (We have already started to receive these assurances. I’ve attached one from the California DOT.) <>Finally, they did say that they expected to see at least some small technical progress during the period since our last application in January, even though they realized that this would be limited by available funding. <> So I am writing you to ask you to do one of three things, any of which would be helpful to us. First, I would like to ask you to consider investing in Lawrenecville Plasma Physics, Inc.(LPP)’s x-ray source project. (NIST rules require this money go to a for-profit, rather than not-for-profit entity, so we applied on behlaf of LPP, not Focus Fusion Society). I’ve attached a summary of the project. This project contributes immensely to the development of focus fusion, but it also has a lower risk, and a faster prospect of financial return. Your investment will contribute in three ways: first, it will help to finance the small new simulation we will carry out to optimize x-ray production, increasing our chances of winning the NIST grant. Second, in the event we do win the NIST grant, it will aid us in accomplishing the project. While we believe we can succeed with $2 million, unexpected contingencies are always possible in research and more money is useful. Third, this money can go toward the $100,000 that we need for the first year’s facility rent. You can see LPP's overall business plan at our website, http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/. <> Investments can be made by purchasing LPP non-voting shares at $120 a share in minimum blocks of 25 shares. By SEC regulations, to make this investment you must be an “accredited investor” which means that you have one million dollars in net worth (house included) or an income of $200,000 dollars year. <> If you can not make an investment in this project now, I would very much appreciate your sending me a letter, on your letterhead, explaining very briefly why you can’t do this (too high risk, insufficient funds available, not an accredited investor, etc.) We can use these letters as proof that we can’t raise $2 million from private sources in our next NIST application, so they are very important. You can send these letters either as hard copy to our new address: LPP, 11 Calvin Terrace, West Orange NJ 07052, or to my email address as a PDF file. This will only take you a few minutes, but is going to be invaluable to us. <> Third, you can make a contractual pledge to provide all or part of the $100,000 that we need to cover our first year facility rent in the event that we are awarded the NIST grant. This money will only be due IF we get the $ 2 million grant and are thus assured the funds we need to do the job. Again, this investment will be in the form of the purchase of LPP shares and will be subject to the same “accredited investor” restriction. <> I hope that you will be able to help us in one of these three ways. I look forward to your response. Feel free to contact me by email or at 973-736-0522. <> Warm regards, Eric J. Lerner <> President Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. " Paul Koloc has been working in this field the longest. One interesting point about his approach is that His lawyers have put up the money for his patent application. Comparison between PLASMAKä BL Model and Formed PMKs All these guys are scouring the government and private investor for support of their next experiment to demonstrate the viability of their respective approaches. This is such a specialized area of plasma physics very few people, even in the field, feel confident to respond to my posted questions. Although These postings have intrigued many, over 3000 viewing, with only two dozen replies, I feel that this technology needs to be presented to a wider audience. I have sent this info to several science magazines, the only one that showed an interest was Popular Mechanics (the yellowish journal of technology) how ever they have millions of readers. That was a month ago, I hope it pans out. This technology is so green (only by product helium) and solves such a panoply of world problems, if it is viable, it is the fuel of the American dream. I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc. Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter. Thanks for your attention. Erich J. Knight Shenandoah Gardens E-mail: shengar@aol.com (540) 289-9750

Dear Sirs: I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response. Can you be of assistance? I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing. In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion. Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges. The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium? I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site. You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have. Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source. "Hi Erich, I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address the fusion application. A few points: 1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t seem to use many other than the photos. 2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to say the least. 3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not fully trust it. 3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of 3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ-- a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that much longer confinement times will happen. Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory, published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the dense plasma focus. Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they claim. I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to answer questions on focus fusion when you get them. Eric" And Clint's response: "Dear Erich, Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points. 1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions. NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see. 2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work. 3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website. 3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents. 3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest. 3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary. Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus. Hopefully this helps. Clint Seward" Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi.....Wow! "An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their having talked with our technology partners. Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review. "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General Motors). Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and compositions." Please let me klnow what you think. Clint Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004 Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons (KEWs) Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass. Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called "electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning, are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g., 600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak" fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast, EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6 seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long "neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision. Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale) EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600 km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum. Metrics: - Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities (defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets) - Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS estimate) - Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary (officially defined as 62 miles) - Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate its ESTs. Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices). Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor) - appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY 2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support), but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5) within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners (agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power) could accelerate this. -MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least $2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by development of an integratable engineering package. TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their work. Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and compositions." It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants ,NIST grants etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating. There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. I can go into their histories if you are interested I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc. Been sending my posted questions to academics, science magazines, and forums, not a whole lot of responses. Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter. Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a few months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as the paramount problem of our time. The New York Times> Search> Abstract Thank you for your attention Erich J. Knight Shenandoah Gardens 1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA, 22840 (540) 289-9750

Dear Sirs: I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response. Can you be of assistance? I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing. In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion. Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges. The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium? I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site. You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have. Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source. "Hi Erich, I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address the fusion application. A few points: 1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t seem to use many other than the photos. 2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to say the least. 3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not fully trust it. 3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of 3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ-- a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that much longer confinement times will happen. Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory, published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the dense plasma focus. Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they claim. I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to answer questions on focus fusion when you get them. Eric" And Clint's response: "Dear Erich, Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points. 1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions. NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see. 2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work. 3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website. 3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents. 3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest. 3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary. Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus. Hopefully this helps. Clint Seward" Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi.....Wow! "An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their having talked with our technology partners. Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review. "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General Motors). Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and compositions." Please let me klnow what you think. Clint Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004 Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons (KEWs) Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass. Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called "electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning, are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g., 600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak" fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast, EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6 seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long "neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision. Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale) EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600 km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum. Metrics: - Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities (defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets) - Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS estimate) - Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary (officially defined as 62 miles) - Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate its ESTs. Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices). Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor) - appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY 2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support), but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5) within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners (agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power) could accelerate this. -MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least $2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by development of an integratable engineering package. TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their work. Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and compositions." It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants ,NIST grants etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating. There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. I can go into their histories if you are interested I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc. Been sending my posted questions to academics, science magazines, and forums, not a whole lot of responses. Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter. Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a few months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as the paramount problem of our time. The New York Times> Search> Abstract Thank you for your attention Erich J. Knight Shenandoah Gardens 1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA, 22840 (540) 289-9750