Hydrogen-boron Fusion Update

From: erich (shengar_at_aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: 24 Nov 2004 00:28:03 -0600

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

*-----------------------*
        Posted at:
  www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY
    ... PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY ... differently along magnetic field lines than perpendicular ... fusion process needs enormous temperatures and pressures, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY
    ... PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY ... differently along magnetic field lines than perpendicular ... fusion process needs enormous temperatures and pressures, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY
    ... PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY ... differently along magnetic field lines than perpendicular ... fusion process needs enormous temperatures and pressures, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY
    ... PLASMA PHYSICS - A SHORT HISTORY ... differently along magnetic field lines than perpendicular ... fusion process needs enormous temperatures and pressures, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Noplasmafusion
    ... The construction of experimental appliances using hot plasma, ... transformation of kinetic energy of products of reactions into electric ... CONFINEMENT FUSION and SONOFUSION. ... I want to introduce a new concept of appliance for thermonuclear fusion ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)