Hydrogen-boron Fusion Update

[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

[Sayonara]

You'd probably get a better response if you didn't start by stating that you are spamming this all over the web.

 

It would be more appropriate to display this on a personal blog or project web site of your own, rather than posting it unsolicited on different forums. I also have to wonder if you have permision to duplicate those emails in the public arena.

[[Tycho?]]

This has already been posted here, I dont think anybody replied the first time.

[TimeTraveler]

In laymans terms what exactly would this do? how would it be benificial? how dangerous is it? What amount of resources would be needed and spent?

[Erich]

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

[Superskunk]

The problem to overcome will be the MHD's, it's the same as it was in the early 60's and nothing has changed. Clint's concept could be improved if microwaves were utilized rather than massive batteries.

Regards,

Mark