Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum p-B11 Plasma Toroid Fusion Update

Hi Folks:
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.


Again, thanks for the call.

Clint Seward"

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

Bubble Fusion is more likely to work.

Dear Erich

You really should try establishing some kind of physical and logical connection with reality, get back on your medication, or seek out competent psychiatric support services.

Your post reads like a it was written by an 11 year old male whose only contact with science has been when it is preceeded by the word "fiction".

Kate ... Rose ... please trash this thread.

Interesting URL Count, thanks. What's your view on this bubble fusion Al?

The only problem with Al's numbers is that they are like statistics ... not revealing of the underlying reality.

I have a relative in the industry, deep in it, and what is being pumped these days is based on desparate measures required to keep the flow high while well known to decrease long-term output. The Saudi's don't increase their production for one very simple reason ... they can't. And these facts are well known to insiders and quantitative proof can be found as follows:

Coal?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=FDG&t=5y

Oil?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=FDG&t=5y

Oil Sands?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=COS-UN.TO&t=5y

Anyone that believes there is planety of this resource needs to take a basic class in supply and demand. Uncle Al needs to also take a good look at the following link:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bfddcfc4-78ac-11d9-9961-00000e2511c8.html

Perhaps he thinks the Chinese have suddenly gone daft.

Al's entitled to his opinion and his numbers ... but buying stocks based on the opposite assumption will make on rather happy.

Dear Folks,

Here's the most authoritative review I have so far on p-B11 efforts for fusion, from Dr. Garnier of the Dipole Experiment:


Erich,

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.

On Feb 1, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Shengar@aol.com wrote:

>
> Dear Dr. Garnier:
>
> I hope you would help me separate the wheat from the chaff in the
> following posts concerning alternative concepts for fusion power.
>
>
> I have posted these questions at many physics forums, and to academics
> in this field, with little response, I thought you may be interested.