Lightning comes from Space

[Erich]

Dear Folks:

I have been researching alturnative approaches to fusion power and started a correspondance with Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems involving fusion power a few months ago.

 

A new thread has evolved,one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the may issue of Scientific American,

 

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

 

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/KW hr, 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.sciencenews.org/articles/20020209/bob8.asp

 

Clint sent Joe and I his new paper on a lightning charge transport model of cloud to ground lightning (If your interested I'll send it,he did not want me to post it to the web yet). Joe was supportive and suggested some other papers and Clint is now in re-write.

 

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

http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/main.html

 

 

And may also explain the spiral 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 J. Knight

[DV8 2XL]

Thanks for a nice set of links!

 

The relationship between lighning and fusion is a tenuous one to be sure but evocative nevertheless.

[jutntog1]

yeah thanks a lot this is very intresting

[Erich]

Dear folks:

 

This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm '

is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . I sent it to Clint Seward and here's his reply:

 

"There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.

It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event. (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this). I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.

The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."

 

 

 

Also:

Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

 

He's referring to a power point presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion . 1.) Prometheus II , 2.) Field Revered Configuration, and 3.) Focus Fusion http://www.focusfusion.org/about.html

 

It's by Vincent Page a technology officer at GE.

Email me and I'll send the pdf to anyone interested.

 

 

from : Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,

| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075

| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ -;* http://www.neoteric-research.org/

| http://www.prometheus2.net/%A0%A0%A0------ mailtopmk@plasmak.com

 

 

"Erich,

Thanks for your update,

 

A friend of mine, Bruce Pittman, who is a member of the AIAA, recently sent me a copy of the attached paper by Vincent Page of GE. Please keep in mind that I have never communicated with Vincent, but he found our concept to have the highest probability of success for achieving a commercial fusion power plant of any that he examined.

 

A program manager at DARPA submitted a POM for sizeable funding of extended research on our concept, both here and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, it didn't stay above this year's cut line for the budget funding priorities.

 

BTW, I agree with Cox that the analysis done by Chen does not fit the criteria of the EST plasmoid that Clint produces. The poloidal component of current in his toroid dominates his topology, which means that the corresponding toroidal field, which is only produced within the torus, also dominates. Consequently, the outward pressure on the EST current shell must be balanced by some external inward force. The toroidal component of current is weak and cannot produce the external poloidal magnetic pressure that would bring the toroid into stable equilibrium. If the plasmoid lasts for .6 seconds without change of shape or brightness level, then it must be continuously formed with his electron beam source. Otherwise, the plasma would decompose within microseconds.

 

By comparison, our PLASMAK magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) have negligible change in shape, size or luminosity over a period of one or two hundred milliseconds after the initial tens of microseconds impulse that forms them has ceased. That may not sound like much of a lifetime, but compare that to the decomposition of Lawrence Livermore's spheromak plasma within 60 microseconds. The other interesting thing is that we have recently produced PMKs of 40 cm diameter (under work sponsored by DOD), and with the installation of our new, additional fast rise capacitors, we expect to obtain lifetimes of seconds.

 

Cheers,

Paul "

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Erich

[Erich]

Dear Folks:

 

Clint Seward just sent this update of their progress at http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ , A very nice time frame, if Clint can find the funding:

 

"Hi All,

 

The following is the annual update to the EPS progress toward a clean energy solution to replace fossil fuels. Below is a brief summary of where we are. Attached is an updated copy of the manuscript describing our project.

 

It remains clear that we have made and patented a new discovery in physics: a plasma toroid the remains stable without external magnetic fields. This is so far beyond the experience and understanding of plasma scientists today that, to say the least, we are having trouble convincing reviewers. We have completed the design of an improved neutron tube. This is what we have to build to demonstrate a clean energy source, and I plan to do the first steps in 2006, with a first demo in 2007 if all goes well.

 

Clint Seward, EPS

 

Chapter 27. Colliding EST Spheromak Neutron Tube

 

In 2005 we completed a detailed design of the apparatus we need for the first demonstration. This is possible because of two things. First, we understand the EST is really just a special case of a spheromak, a plasma ring that is being studied by others, except that the EST is high density spheromak, which will overcome the limitations of spheromaks for the clean energy application. Secondly, we can adapt the EST Spheromak to the well known neutron tube, by applying all of the pieces we have developed over the years.

 

We plan to do this by making a new, high energy neutron tube. There are several thousand neutron tubes in use in the US today that safely collide hydrogen ions to produce neutrons, which in turn are used for explosives detection, industrial process control, and medical testing. Figure 1 shows the neutron tube schematically. An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to 110 kV, then directed to hit the target (also deuterium), a process which produces neutrons (see reference below).

 

Neutron tubes today are limited by the low density of the hydrogen ions. We plan to overcome this limitation by adapting the EST Spheromak to increase the ion density to produce a high output neutron tube. The EST Spheromak is patented jointly by EPS Inc. and MIT scientists who also have published papers confirming the physics and data. Since each part of the development has been done by others or by EPS, we anticipate that this will be an engineering project to produce a proof of concept lab demo in two years, with modest funding.

 

The major application is a high output neutron tube for clean energy applications. The high output neutron tube can be thought of as a heat generator to replace a furnace and/or generate electricity. Fuel costs for energy will 20:1 less than fossil fuel costs. Ultimately we plan to use the hydrogen/boron process to produce clean energy without neutrons.

 

The development is a scale up of work completed to date. We make EST Spheromaks in the lab and accelerate them. Each step has been shown to work individually, and we plan to adapt them to produce a lab demo in two years. Milestones:

 

1. Defining Patent: (Note: co-inventors are MIT scientists). 2000

 

2. Spheromak acceleration: 2001

 

3. Spheromak capture in a magnetic trap: 2006

 

4. Spheromak collision for a lab proof of concept demonstration: 2007

 

5. First neutron tube commercial prototype: 2008

 

6. First commercial product: 2009

 

Our best estimate at this time (December 2005) is that we will need 24 months and approximately $500,000 to demonstrate a colliding EST fusion process.

 

Reference: Chichester, D. L., Simpson, and J. D. “Compact accelerator neutron generators.” The Industrial Physicist. American Institute of Physics. http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html. December, 2003."

 

 

 

Also:

 

I am glad to see the interest in Vincent Page's presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion in other forums, (Below Is an excerpt). Vincent Page is a technology officer at GE!!

 

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:

 

 

"for larger plant sizes

Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale

Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:

Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)

Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%

Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%

 

Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities

• Research & development is also needed in

the area of computing power.

• Many fusion researchers of necessity still

use MHD theory to validate their designs.

• MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism

and perfect conductance.

• These qualities may not always exist in the

real world, particularly during continuous operation.

• More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory

such as the Vlasov equations.

• ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.

• Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the

limits of the available computing power.

• Governments need to fund these efforts."

 

I sent this to Dr. Eastlund, one of the top guys in atmospheric plasmas,( father of HAARP) and he sent a most supportive reply, had worked with Paul Koloc at U of MD in the seventies.

 

 

I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

 

You may have seen my efforts with my "Manhattan Project" article, which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will soon run an article on these companies efforts toward aneutronic fusion.

 

About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.

My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.

I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.

 

I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.

http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm

 

This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.

My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.

 

Thanks for any help

 

__________________

Erich J. Knight

"Religion Is Bunk " T. A. Edison

[patcalhoun]

So when do we get to the part where you ask me to write a check?

[Erich]

I was so impressed at the cost relitive to ITER and other efforts , My hope is that GE will write the check

[patcalhoun]

I was so impressed at the cost relitive to ITER and other efforts , My hope is that GE will write the check

 

That's incredible. I see you've posted this exact same letter over at Naked Scientists, and you've been promoting EPS around USEnet. I'm not the industrial behemoth GE is, but are you sure you don't want to take some of my money? I can promise you more if you throw in a few more fancy examples of your correspondence with Seward.

[mrblond5311]

I was so impressed at the cost relitive to ITER and other efforts , My hope is that GE will write the check

 

 

 

Seems to me like you would get better results by asking several large companies. Sort of like an alliance for cleaner air energy; but don't just limit it to energy companies. Get as many "big money" companies involved as possible. I'm sure most of them would love the publicity and definently would love the outcome. I know some people at Nestle' (worth over 100 billion dollars) that would be able to talk to the right people. Would you know how to propose such a thing to several big companies? I'm not really knowledgeable on this stuff I would just like to see more publicity about it so we can get something started before it's too late. Let me know if there's anyway I can help.

[Erich]

I have sent emails to Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, General Atomics, Scaled Composites, and many others I thought would have an interest. I have recieved no replies.

 

Eps sells stock to qualified investors, if any are interested contact Clint Seward (978) 263 3871 for the details of their offering.

 

If I had an extra few thousand $ I would , The Odds of success look well worth the gamble and the upside so tremendous that if I were one of these space dreaming millionaires I'd be there with bells on.

 

I've been at this one year now, and have not received any rebuttals from the may academic physicist and others in the field I have posted to. These aneutronic fusion guys are not proposing the "free energy, zero point energy, Tesla motor, Hydrino perpetual motion machines" one sees plastered all over online. They all pass the http://scholar.google.com/ test!!

 

Thanks for your interest