Fusion we can believe in?

Joe Strout, Fort Collins, CO — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:50:22 GMT

Wow! Thank you for the news, Alan! Another well-written report about a very important topic.

I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but it's very encouraging -- if this does pan out, it's going to be a serious game-changer the whole world.

Fusion we can believe in?

Jim Nordblom, Mapleton, Oregon — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:15:47 GMT

Actually, low cost fusion is easy to achieve. All you have to do is (oops, excuse me, the phone)

Fusion we can believe in?

Jager Ludmilin, White Rock — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:42:33 GMT

Big thanks on the update, I've been following these developments in a lot of detail and everything appears to be accurate. I'm very happy to see this research getting more mainstream attention.

What fascinates me most about this project is that fact that it appears to be working despite the fact that the teams budget is roughly 1/10,000th of the government-funded projects and is still making more headway.

Fusion we can believe in?

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:23:02 GMT

Hi Alan

Polywell fusion could be the Big One for energy, but even if it doesn't work out, the laser-driven inertial confinement systems look promising too. And in spite of all the panning that ITER gets the fact remains that the thing will generate more energy than is inputted - that's a given. The current round of Tokamaks make as much fusion energy as energy that's inputted. What hasn't been done - and might be intractable - is coupling the fusion energy output to some kind of heat engine that will last long enough to recoup the initial costs of building the damn thing. Not even ITER will do that. A demo fusion reactor is hoped for by 2031 and a commercial machine by 2048!

By then - hopefully - Polywell fusors will either dominate energy supplies, or be disproven as net-energy machines so some new design can be dreamt up. Maybe the optical nano-antenna solar cells will be converting sun-power at 80% efficiency by then too? ITER and its descendent will be an irrelevance either way. Four decades is too long to wait.

Fusion we can believe in?

Stephen Jackson, Dallas, TX — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:38:35 GMT

I am completely fascinated with this research, and have no trouble understanding why its development has been so long in coming. Should fusion power become cheap and frreely available, it would, to some extent, turn the current utility model on its head. A multi-billion dollar super sized monster reactor is easy to control. 10,000 little ones become impossible. Imagine a world where energy, becomes, not free, but uncontrollable by any cartel, oil, coal, uranium or otherwise. Now imagine such a thing becoming public domain. I suspect there are interests who might not at all like this idea. I certainly do like it. It presents us a future we have so far not considered seriously ... a better one.

Fusion we can believe in?

Dr. Matthew Miller — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:19:59 GMT

"There's nothing in there that says it won't work." Of course, the comeback to an empty statement such as this is the fact that yet again nothing has been presented in the way of published results that says it might work.

Dr. Nebel: If you are truly "restricted" from talking about your work to the point where you will not, or cannot publish your results in the mainstream scientific community, why is it that you seem more than willing to discuss details of your research with amateurs and non-experts over at sites such as Talk-Polwell and MSNBC Cosmic Log?

I am quite certain that the future energy secretary (Dr. Chu) would appreciate a critical review of your work by the international fusion research community. I wholeheartedly encourage you to bring your work out into the mainstream physics community, where others may attempt to replicate your efforts and lend credibility IEC research.

Fusion we can believe in?

Samuel — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:28:08 GMT

If Chu is open minded about this that's great. Scientists can be as pig-headed as anybody else, unfortunately. Specialists in a field can be very set in their positions and inflexible about game changing things. Let's hope he is not one of those. Maybe he will even cough up some real cash for this project.

Fusion we can believe in?

frege — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:53:33 GMT

Articles like this are why short selling must always be legal. If this were a public company, a lot of innocent readers would bid the stock up. When the company fails because of the laws of the universe, the money either ends up in the hands of the charlatans or the Cassandras. I vote for the Cassandras.

Fusion we can believe in?

Lance Houghton, Occoquan Virginia — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:48:03 GMT

I wonder does way this process works have any relationship on the the unexplained apparent energy generation described in this article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11732814/from/ET/

"One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma’s ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions.

Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines theorizes that some unknown energy source is involved, which is providing the machine with an extra jolt of energy just as the plasma ions are beginning to slow down."

If not related I was wondering if there has been any follow up to this experiment.

Keep up the good work!

Fusion we can believe in?

Bill Woods, Redwood City, Calif. — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:20:09 GMT

Another potential big deal is the thorium breeder reactor. For one presentation see a Google Tech Talk: "The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted to Be". http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/thorium-google-talk-and-jim-hansen-now.html

Fusion we can believe in?

The Duke of Mobile — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:51:45 GMT

lets keep dumping all the radiation waste in South Carolina, maybe it will get the U.of Soth Carolina football team going! they sure could use it!GO Bama!This science needs to be in area 51 so we don't have another Khan taking tech from canada to Pakistan for nuclear weapons.NSA all the way.

Fusion we can believe in?

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:06:30 GMT

Thanks for the mention!

Let us hope the funds are soon forthcoming for the next step in the research. What ever happens we are going to learn something. Maybe even something useful.

Fusion we can believe in?

George McKinney — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:06:44 GMT

For all the naysayers here: look at the lack of success of the conventional approaches. There are MANY scientists and researchers who have highly vested interests (careers and tenure) in the standard models. It will be an article of faith for them that unconventional methods cannot work. But the basic rule of nature is to try many approaches, most of which are dead ends, but some will be viable. The Polywell may or not work - but how much does it cost to make a feasibility model? The "accepted" approaches are like dinosaurs - big, clumsy, adapted to a specialized environment, and with a voracious appetite for food (money and energy).

Sooner or later, a meteor strike will wipe out both breeds.

Fusion we can believe in?

Bruce O, Wallingford, CT — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:33:04 GMT

You laymen can get a course in basic fusor technology on fusor.com Then go visit the website at EMC2 fusion Corp and you can also do a search on Bussard. That will give you some insight into what they are trying. If you want a more involved course in fusion magnetic confinement technology, go visit UK's Jet Fusion facility website. The main difference between the fusor approach and tokamak aoproach is that a tokamak is confining the positive charged ions (nuclei) of hydrogen using magnets and the fusor uses an electic field. To achieve fusion,the nuclei must overcome the charge repulsion (two positive charged nuclei will repel each other) to get close enough to fuse. When the nuclei get within a certain distance of each other there is another force that kicks in and the nuclei are "sucked" together and fusion occurs. The electic repulsion is very strong and hard to overcome. In a star, gravity does the job. In a hydrogen bomb, a shock wave does the job. In the laboratory, particle accelerators can do it on a small scale. Molecular/electro magnetic fusion in the lab has also been achieved at Stanford using electro sensitive metals. No lab methods generate net energy gains. In the tokamak, a magnetic field does this but there are many problems - the ions find many ways to get out, so it is an engineering marathon at the moment to find designs that minimize this long enough for the fusion to reach a sustainable and energy positive level. In the inertial confinement method, lasers create a shock wave (similar to the bomb but on a small scale)to do this, but that approach also suffers from ions escaping. The fusor approach is a somewhat different, but similar approach to a tokamak. In a fusor, both the positive ions and negative electrons remain in a contained "ionic" cloud or plasma cloud. The shape and design of the EMC2 experiments is directed at increasing the size, density and stability of this cloud. When the electrons are present, their negative charge cancels out the positive charge of the nuclei and this allows the nuclei to come close enough to fuse (that is the theory). The precise geometry and mathematical shapes used by Bussards team, I am not familiar with enough to discuss, but it is a promising approach and if it creates net energy, would be easier and cheaper than any tokamak or inertial confiment system designs out there today. More people need to understand this technology because it is so promising and America needs something like this to get out from under the weight of the worlds oil driven politics.

Fusion we can believe in?

Galileo2100 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:36:46 GMT

We need all the abundant clean energy we can get. I recommend bumping up federal funding of space-based solar power research at least to the level of fusion.

Fusion we can believe in?

Michael Davis MS, Richmond, Virginia — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:17:38 GMT

The world is spending Billions of dollars on Fusion test facilities using the Tokamak design with full knowledge that they will never reach break even. While alternate designs like Dr. Bussards Polywell are starved for funding or actively suppressed.

The facts are that the Polywell Fusion devices have higher sustained fusion and have achieved steady state fusion consistently so giving them enough money to build WB-7 (under 500 Million dollars)is a good way to spend research money.

Why
Simple,
Polywell's can reach fusion with a number of elements and are not limited to the typical H,D,He seen in Tokamaks, The power required to reach fusion is below that used by the typical Enterprise Data Center and the residual radiation from the fusion process literally is zero for the appropriate choice of fusion elements.

Also, you don't need a large support facility for Polywell designs as the maximum energy output scales as the 7th power of the radius meaning that a device the size of a few railroad boxcars will exceed break even and produce enough power to replace the typical gas or coal fired powerplant.

Lastly, Dr. Bussard based his polywell design on existing Inertial Fusor designs which used grids and not electromagnets to create teh electron well hence the US does not own a lock on alternative designs exploiting electron wells based on alternate confinement designs. If we dont move forward to establish the validity of the polywell, we can be confident that someone will advance an alternative design to completion, achieve fusion and the loss will be ours.

Fusion we can believe in?

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:24:40 GMT

Report on the IEC 2008 Conference:

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/12/iec-2008-kyoto.html

Fusion we can believe in?

Eric, Salinas, CA — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:46:31 GMT

Great article Alan! It sure is a pity that so little money is being invested in the Polywell Fusion system considering how much is being invested in other forms. It would be stupid not to put more money into this form of fusion research to make sure it wither works or doesn't. It will be so good to have a president who believes in real science and will listen to real scientists!

We are behind the eightball on fusion power research and we need to invest in this future technology now so that our future generations can enjoy the benefits later.

Fusion we can believe in?

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. (that's what they said to put in) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:00:53 GMT

Chu is an idiot. The ocean temps aren't going up, and the frequency of hurricanes is NOT going up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurricane-frequency-and-global-warming-not-the-cause-of-increased-destruction/
There is NO correlation.
Same for tornado activity...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3850
And what the h@ll is a "mosquito belt?!!!" Is he unaware that the reason malaria is a problem because DDT was banned? Is he unaware that one of the worst outbreaks of malaria was in SIBERIA?!!
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=330
And why does he always slur his words? He's not a heavy drinker, is he?

Fusion we can believe in?

yonason — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:24:20 GMT

All right, I've calmed down now, and removed the inappropriate things I said about Dr. Chu. But he's still way out in the Twilight Zone on that YouTube video you posted here.

He said the ocean temps were going up They are not. Not only that but the warmers are even manipulating data to fit their models!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/

He said that hurricanes were getting worse. They are not.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurricane-frequency-and-global-warming-not-the-cause-of-increased-destruction/

Nor is tornado activity.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3850

He used the term "mosquito belt." What that is, I have no clue. There is no such thing, and malaria carrying mosquitos are quite capable of spreading disease in the North. One of the worst outbreaks was in Siberia.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=330

Malaria was a problem for colonists even as far as New Egland, as was yellow fever.
http://www.answers.com/topic/epidemics

The real reason for rise is malaria is that we are not allowed to use DDT.

If Dr. Chu can't get simple facts that everyone has access to straight, it's not likely he'll be able to solve complex problems.

The Bussard reactor sounds promising, and should at least be explored because even if it doesn't work, there's a high probability that's it is at least a step in the right direction.

Fusion we can believe in?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:24:24 GMT

Adam, Brisbane, Australia (12/16, 2023) said, “And in spite of all the panning that ITER gets the fact remains that the thing will generate more energy than is inputted - that's a given.”
How is that a given? I would accept that the reaction releases more energy than is needed for the final step to instigate that reaction. But what about all the energy needed to set the conditions for that final step. Our most obvious example of a fusion reactor is the sun. It certainly outputs more energy than is input. The most problematic conditions for solar fusion are provided by gravity, not an input but a catalyst. Setting those conditions has an energy cost that must be taken into consideration before such broad, sweeping statements are made. As the saying goes, “It’s not the 100th strike that cuts the granite but the 99 before.” If all you look at is the last step then that 100th strike seems to have an awful lot of effect. If you look only at the energy needed to start a log burning vs. the energy a burning log releases then your statement makes sense. If you look at all the energy that went into growing the log then it doesn’t. A burning log releases far less than the solar energy that went into producing that log. The smaller scale a fusion experiment is conducted on the higher relative energy consumption to set the conditions. The larger the scale any of the ITER experiments are run on the (exponentially) more power is needed to achieve experimental conditions in the reaction area. I haven’t tallied all the output energy, but really I’m not very concerned (for this purpose) with deadly ionizing radiation so much as the convertible energy. And we can’t seem to convert all of that.

Alan, Dr. Miller (12/16, 2119) implied that Dr. Nebel discussed details of his research with you. If that’s the case I certainly think you should share some of that information. It definitely wasn’t in this article. I don’t know where Dr. Miller gets his information but, well, he’s a prestigious doctor. I’m sure a respectable PhD wouldn’t fire off a bunch of BS, that would be irresponsible and petty.

And Jager called you mainstream.

We can produce a fusion reaction any time we want with a bomb. Safe, useable, continuous energy from man-made fusion, however, …

Fusion we can believe in?

Dave, Amherst, Massachusetts — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:46:53 GMT

Perhaps those who doubt the technical feasibility of the Polywell concept might go to www.talk-polywell.org to learn some more from the community there. They have a pretty good handle on the scientific issues at a deeper level than one might expect.

This is far beyond the "cold fusion" stage, one might say; they're into scaling factors, confinement regimes, synchrotron/brem losses, etc. There are scientific questions as to feasibility--there are always such questions--but who knows...it might work--not probably will work--but it MIGHT.

All I know is that the much-promised Tokamak with a Q > 1 has been 20 years off for the past 50 years. An inquiry into other technologies while not putting all our eggs into one basket, so to speak, might be a good idea at this point. Of course, ITER should go forth unchanged, but perhaps additional funding partners could be found in the world.

Simple risk/reward ratios dictate that if we can spend hundreds of millions each year, year after year on the Tokamak, assuming ITER has an 80% chance of success is a good, low risk investment, like a blue-chip corporate bond.

But investing the same amount of money each year into innovative, alternative scientifically-supported confinement regimes that each have 10%-20% chances of success--that, if they succeed--will have orders of magnitude lower cost--is the way one becomes rich, if the concept succeeds.

Fusion we can believe in?

focus, fusion, OR — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:50:53 GMT

www.focusfusion.org

Fusion we can believe in?

Michael, Denver, CO — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:56:54 GMT

Dr. Bussard worked on this for years before his death. The details have been posted on the Internet and have been replicated in high school science experiments. The only problem was figuring out how to create a net gain in energy production, so that's what we're waiting to see. I strongly feel this deserves much more attention and peer review.

Fusion we can believe in?

Alan Boyle — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:45:48 GMT

Nebel didn't fill me in on the details, and I have a feeling I wouldn't be able to evaluate them even if I did. He did indicate that the effect is no "slam-dunk," and that it's not certain that it can get to the break-even point. It sounds as if the scale of the experiment is such that you have to calibrate what you're seeing in terms of output, and they need additional data points at higher energies to really get a sense about the workability of the design.

There's a cautionary tale about unorthodox energy technologies in the story of Blacklight Power. My colleague at CASW, Paul Raeburn, has written about this for the Columbia Journalism Review's Observatory blog:

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/weird_science_reporting.php

It's tempting to be taken in by the promises of energy breakthroughs, but there does need to be a reality check. In the past, I've checked with folks in the ITER program (Ned Sauthoff) as well as the fusion research community (Gerald Kulcinski) about the Polywell approach ... and they've taken a wait-and-see, show-me-the-data approach, which is the reasonable way to proceed.

Nebel's team is providing the data from their experiment to their Navy funders, and for now, it's up to the Navy to decide what they're going to release.

Fusion we can believe in?

Jed Rothwell, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:06:15 GMT

There is nothing "notorious" about cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). It was replicated by more than 200 world-class laboratories such as Los Alamos and Mitsubishi, and these replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. You will find a bibliography of over 3,000 papers and the full text from over 500 papers here:

http://lenr-canr.org

Before commenting on this, or any research, please check the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Fusion we can believe in?

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:43:07 GMT

If it were to work, then there would be no need for coal or oil. We could have electric cars that could be charged all over assuming that the infrastructure can be put it. It wouldn't matter how long the batteries could last... Well, okay within reason

Fusion we can believe in?

Norm — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:40:29 GMT

If EMC2 can perform meaningful research with just 1.5 million dollars, then it would seem that they could fund their next round of experiments with a donation link on their website. Apparently the president-elect raised 300 million dollars that way. I'm sure EMC2 could raise a couple of million.

Edison did find 2000 ways how not to make a light bulb. It stands to reason that it will take quite a few attempts to make something as complicated as controlled fusion to work.

Fusion we can believe in?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:06:21 GMT

"Actually, low cost fusion is easy to achieve. All you have to do is (oops, excuse me, the phone)"

What, no sound of strangualtion or gunshot...? :)

Fusion we can believe in?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:37:52 GMT

"We need all the abundant clean energy we can get. I recommend bumping up federal funding of space-based solar power research at least to the level of fusion."

Space solar power is hopeless, at least until there's cheap access to space (an extremely desirable goal for a hundred other reasons*) including all the way to geostationary orbit. There's simply no business case, if it costs you thousands of dollars per pound to get materials and assemblers up there.

* And something that these exotic fusion approaches might help enable if they work, BTW:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AIPC..746.1339F

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMHYP06_1276/PV2006_8100.pdf

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Support_Craft/SSTO_hypersonic_craft

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/11/fusion-propulsion-if-bussard-iec-fusion.html

Fusion we can believe in?

a p garcia — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:40:27 GMT

My only problem with Dr. Chu is that he feels that we should pay about the same price for gas as the Europeans that is about $6.00/gal.

Fusion we can believe in?

Freddy, Lansing, Michigan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:36:46 GMT

Funny -- I wonder if we would have viable Polywell fusion if we would have invested $548 billion into the research. WAIT -- that's what we spent on that great Iraq investment. And that only bought us a housing, financial, and credit crisis! I can't wait to get some people with some real brains running things. Do you realize how little of a problem Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela become if oil is a non-issue? I guarantee you that China and Japan have already read this article and have assigned nuclear engineers to the Polywell project.

Fusion we can believe in?

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:15:45 GMT

Hi All

Tim, ITER is the next generation of fusion machines based on tokamaks and the current generation can hit break-even. However to get NET energy out of the thing - via neutron heating of a lithium jacket run through a heat-exchanger - a tokamak reactor needs to produce ~10 times the break-even level. That's why ITER is gargantuan - because the only way to make it work is to make it bigger.

Personally I think next generation fission - i.e. FAST reactors - is a better energy solution than ITER-style fusion machines. But fusion is better in the long run if it can be made economical and that is an engineering problem that is yet to be demonstrated.

Fusion we can believe in?

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:59:52 GMT

Freddy, Lansing Michigan,

Take a look at the IEC 2008 Conference

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/12/iec-2008-kyoto.html

It was held in Kyoto Japan. About 2/3ds of the presenters were Japanese. The rest Americans. Especially have a look at the University of Wisconsin presenters. And Joel Rogers who I singled out in my article is in contact with Dr. Nebel and a host of others in the field and is working to get Canada involved in IEC Fusion.

The most serious question is: why isn't Europe/Britain doing anything? No matter. Between the USA and Japan if the technology is workable it will be done.

The next obvious step is a continuous operation reactor (seconds to minutes) about the size of the WB-7.

Also a lot could be learned from simple fusor experiments at a cost of $100,000 to $200,000 each for off the shelf parts. Scrounged parts would reduce that to about $10,000 or less. Every technical college in America could be working on this.

Now fusors would never lead to net energy. What they can provide is information. A commodity in serious short supply in this field.

Fusion we can believe in?

Bruce O. Wallingford, CT — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:27:29 GMT

Part 2. The main problem with all of the fusion devices is maintaining adequate confinement. As noted above, keeping ions within the reaction device long enough to achieve fusion is the goal. In a tokamak, the theory and data suggests that as the radius of the chamber (radius of the tube that forms the donut, not the radius of the donut itself) increases, the amount of stray ions hitting the tokamak vessal, and thus loosing energy, will decrease. This happens because there is a longer time for the magnetic field to act on these particles and bring them back into the central plasma field. That is a reason why ITER is so big. Interesting, the EMC2 experiments had similar problems, only it was electron confinment that caused the problems. Bussards design is such that the electrons get trapped in a series of magnetic wells inside the device. These negative charged wells then attract the positive nuclei, nuetralize the net charge and create fusion. However, the electrons find ways to siphon off through induced magnetic fields in certain sections of the device and can also arc (like lighting) to metal surfaces of the device. Various methods are used to compensate for this, but according to EMC2's results, the most promising way to control this would be to make it bigger - apparently that solves both problems via geometry without any fancy engineering tricks or special materials. As it gets bigger, it gets more expensive. Hence it would appear that tokamaks and polywells both require some minimum size and expense.

Fusion we can believe in?

Mr. Fusion, Hill Valley, CA. — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:02:18 GMT

It's only a matter of time before we drive fusion powered cars!

Fusion we can believe in?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:06:35 GMT

Adam,
That's sort of the point. When they're small the external energy requirement is large. The bigger they get the more energy it takes to maintain a field of adequate strength. Twice as big doesn't produce twice break even, it pushes break even up. Internal geometry may provide for a great increase in output at some point, as in a weapon. Not that this would be a weapon, just a reference to critical mass. Or other types of containment may work, or some other science fiction enhancements that may become science fact next month. But for now, or at least as of about two years ago when I last looked at this in any depth, increasing output requires a greater increase in input. Negative returns. As noted by others there's still a lot of knowledge to be gained. I say make 'em bigger for the pure science aspects. When has more knowledge ever hurt anybody? Okay, well, I take that back.

Fusion we can believe in?

Dr. Matthew Miller — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:36:25 GMT

Tim Rommes -- I guess in your view our fusion scientists should forgo the scientific method from now on and instead rely on advice from those who manage motels for a living? Regardless, you are welcome to visit places like www.talk-polywell.com and read any one of the dozens of comments Dr. Nebel has provided regarding Polywell and his work.

Fusion we can believe in?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:29:18 GMT

Dr. Miller, where do you even get that? A little reference might work for me.

If we're playing a game. I guess, in your view, forest nymphs should be required to register for the draft and unicorns and fraggles should never be cross bred.

Obviously, I got that from nowhere, so I can't give you a reference to substantiate my comment. If you can, please do.

Fusion we can believe in?

James Bowery — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:29:54 GMT

Did I miss something? Why no mention of "neutrons"? That is what got Bussard so excited about the final results of his career!

Fusion we can believe in?

Rick Nebel — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:08:40 GMT

Dr. Miller:
First of all, our work has been peer reviewed. An independent panel of experts has looked at these results. I don’t believe that there was anyone on the panel who has less than 40 years experience working with magnetic confinement. It included senior professors and people who have managed the fusion program. We asked them for their honest opinions and that’s exactly what we got. We are proceeding with our program in line with their recommendations.
Secondly, the talk-polywell blog has a large variety of people who post there. There are Phd plasma physicists as well people from the general public. I think that’s a good thing. Science needs to be accessible to people.

Fusion we can believe in?

R Nebel — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:31:48 GMT

Mr. Bowery:
Yes, there are neutrons and the numbers are consistent with the plasmas we are measuring. However, neutrons can be deceptive. A lot of fusion researchers have gotten in trouble in the past by relying on these types of measurements. You need to know where they come from and that's difficult to measure.

Fusion we can believe in?

Dr. Matthew Miller — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:59:11 GMT

Dr. Nebel,

I am very pleased to hear this! I assume that your comment "science needs to be accessible to people" means that contrary to popular belief, you do not face any publishing restrictions and that a formal publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature will be forthcoming? I know your 2005 paper on POPS merited a Letter -- would your current results be of any lesser value to the physics community?

Fusion we can believe in?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:32:42 GMT

Dr. Miller seems to have a unique ability to interpret. His latest assumption seems to be that a personal conviction that science should be broadly accessible trumps military purview.

Fusion we can believe in?

TallDave — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:52:58 GMT

As one of the aforementioned people from the general public, I'd just like to say thanks for the update, both Rick and Alan, and for the explanations. Much appreciated.

Fusion we can believe in?

Roger — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:49:10 GMT

@ Freddy, Lansing, Michigan,

Japan already has an IEC program & a Chinese college is building either a fusor or a polywell as confirmed by the Chinese student who contacted me thru my U tube video, Fusion for Dummies v5.7 .

@ Galileo2100,

You'll end up using a polywell QED style rocket to get your components into space, sort of makes it pointless to use a polywell to power the ship that carries solar panels into orbit, so they can beam power back to earth.....

Dr Nebel..... thanks for staying in touch.

Fusion we can believe in?

steve collier — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:14:52 GMT

i'd like to know what type of energy did they used to turn the twin towers into dust with relatively little heat source released...steel beams turned to dust raher than the myth of them being shipped to china.Maybe 911 was a black technology experiment that tested the next new atomic weapon...some sort of directed energy .One to ponder on like dr judy wood www.drjudywood.com

Fusion we can believe in?

Mark, Italy, Brescia — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:27:59 GMT

New idea on nuclear fusion:

http://coseinteressanti.altervista.org/nuclear_fusion_mod.pdf

Fusion we can believe in?

Robert Dinse, Seattle, WA — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:41:51 GMT

The Bussard Polywell device is not a "Fusor", although the idea is derived from fusors. Fusor's can't produce practical amounts of energy because accelerated ions collide with the grids losing their energy and heating the grids. This limits efficiency because energy is lost to this mechanism and limits power levels because the grids melt at power levels of only a few watts.

The Bussard Polywell device eliminates both of these difficulties inherent in Fusors by replacing physical grids with "virtual grids", potential wells created by steering electrons with magnetic fields.

The Bussard reactor has has a distinct advantage over Tokamak's, Laser fusion, and other thermal systems in that instead of a bell shaped curve of energies, particles are accelerated to much more uniform energy levels through a controlled potential well.

This means energy is more efficiently directed at producing collisions with the optimum energy for fusion. While fusors share this particular characteristic, the physical grid limits power levels and efficiencies, where as the polywell reactor does not suffer from that limitation.

Fusion we can believe in?

Luis M — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:32:05 GMT

Another approach is to fund the experiment as an ION drive. Given that it only uses electricity & helium-3 it could theoretically be used to power ships to Mars & beyond helium-3 gives a better push than He, and if fusion dose produce more power than it consumes then once started, the drive only needs helium-3 to be self sustaining.

Fusion we can believe in?

Alan, Baltimore, MD — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:04:28 GMT

Peak oil will occur LONG before fusion power is realized (which may be never even IF peak oil were not going to happen).

Don't hold your breath waiting to drive a battery-powered car charged by a fusion-energized power-grid... you might as well count on riding a pink unicorn to work.

Fusion we can believe in?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:35:17 GMT

I can see you're a purist. I think in this "new age" of what we call "magnetism" for lack of a better word, the particular type of containments and acceleration isn't the really important issue, at least not on this blog.

In Texas, they say, your friend will ask if you want a coke. If you do he'll next ask what kind. A Dr. Pepper?

But good info and point taken.

Fusion we can believe in?

savaş oyunu — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:35:36 GMT

ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
In spite of my english trouale,I am trying to read and understand your writing.
And ı am following frequently.I hope that you will be with us together with much more scharings.
I hope that your success will go on.

Fusion we can believe in?

James Sloan, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:56:12 GMT

I worked in the Air Force Systems Command's Advanced Plans office with scientists such as Dr. Robert Forward and Max Hunter. I've seen innovations like Bussards fusion work sit for decades because it wasn't a part of the mainstream thinking. My own support staff seemed fine with giving me their opinion of projects rather than their analysis. I believe we as a nation have failed to implement innovation because we have come to rely on government to carry it out and with the deep pockets of government we tend to throw money at a problem instead of finding the best way of solving the problem. Success seems to be a matter of finding a person with a vision, a small group who believe in the vision, a lean budget that can't afford bureaucracy, and a government official who can keep the "government experts" from ruining the mix.

Fusion we can believe in?

R Nebel Santa Fe, NM — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:12:11 GMT

Alan:
I read Seife's book over Christmas. It's an interesting read. However, on the Polywell he is shooting from the hip. The physics is very different from the physics of fusors. The densities are orders of magnitude higher as are the effective grid transparencies in a Polywell compared to a fusor. The standard fusor objections of excessive grid losses and low average density aren't major issues for the Polywell.

Fusion we can believe in?

Clifford J. Wirth, State of Veracruz — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:34:35 GMT

All of the fusion energy we could ever want will not help, as electric power is not what we need.

The top story of the year is that global crude oil production peaked in 2008.

The media, governments, world leaders, and public should focus on this issue.

Global crude oil production had been rising briskly until 2004, then plateaued for four years. Because oil producers were extracting at maximum effort to profit from high oil prices, this plateau is a clear indication of Peak Oil.

Then in July and August of 2008 while oil prices were still very high, global crude oil production fell nearly one million barrels per day, clear evidence of Peak Oil (See Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of "Oil Watch Monthly," December 2008, page 1) http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_december_oilwatch_monthly.pdf.

Peak Oil is now.

Credit for accurate Peak Oil predictions (within a few years) goes to the following (projected year for peak given in parentheses):

* Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)

* Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008)

* Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst and Samuel Foucher, oil analyst (2008)

* Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)

* T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)

* Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell geologist (2005)

* Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)

* Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)

* Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)

* Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)

Oil production will now begin to decline terminally.

Within a year or two, it is likely that oil prices will skyrocket as supply falls below demand. OPEC cuts could exacerbate the gap between supply and demand and drive prices even higher.

Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. There is no plan nor capital for a so-called electric economy. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: “Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:”

"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."

With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.

It is time to focus on Peak Oil preparation and surviving Peak Oil.
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

Fusion we can believe in?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:41:38 GMT

Clifford J. Wirth,
You forgot to say we'll never reach the moon. But if you had you would have been 40 years too late. There are many alternatives in the works that show more than just promise. Advances are slow as we have oil. Pinch oil supply and efforts in alternative fields come to the fore. Cars that burn gas will become the fossils. Bio-diesel can be made from even scrub crops now. The cars and trucks you will continue to see on our roads will be electric for short travel and bio for long hauls. I'm sure our lifestyles will change, but no way it's back to horse and buggy. Cost for everything will go up. Especially fresh goods in the city. More gardens. It'll really suck to be in the third world.

All that *IF* we've even come close to Peak Oil. As I understand it, Peak Oil is an oil thing. The current crisis has nothing to do with oil. This is a financial crisis based more on bad loaning practices. It's *possible* to have hit Peak Oil coincendent with an unrelated financial crisis, but not likely. Of course you can see it if you put your Peak Oil Doom and Gloom glasses on.

Fusion we can believe in?

Frederick C. Lee, Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:27:22 GMT

I've invested $ in KMSI (KMS Fusion, Inc., part of KMS Industries) back in the 1970s. Back then, they were working with inertial-confinement (using glass pellets containing Deuterium/Tritium mixture) for nuclear fusion via lasers.

I believe the company eventually went into bankrupcy. Nevertheless, I still have my shares and still hope for fusion success. The potential benefits are HUGE.

Thank about it!

Fusion we can believe in?

Richard Collette, Coventry, CT — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:31:11 GMT

It kills me that we spend something like 400 million on a satellite, strap it to a rocket and hope that it doesn't blow up. Why are we not taking the same risk with Polywell Fusion research when the potential benefits of success are far greater than any science we'll achieve with a satellite. All this money on NASA is putting the cart before the horse. In fact, why wouldn't NASA have an interest in this. The cost of fuel, production, etc. drops when you have limitless energy. It's time for Obama to make the same kind of commitment Kennedy did to go to the moon but for fusion. As an engineering problem primarily, the various components can be worked on in parallel and distributed throughout the country. The only way we're going to bring money into this economy is to develop new products that everyone wants, and who wouldn't want fusion. If we can build the A-bomb and go to the moon in 6-8 years, I see no reason why, with the proper commitment, we cannot do the same thing with fusion energy.

Fusion we can believe in?

Henry Gibson — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:38:15 GMT

The polywell device is an adaptation of the Farnsworth(TV)-Hirsch fusor which is a commercial source for neutrons. Net energy production is not yet possible for any form of fusion. When fusion is more available it will make neutrons less expensive and lead to the easy production of Plutonium bombs.

Some proposed fusion reactions rely upon the capture of neutrons in lithium to continue the cycle. If this neutron were captured in U235 for fission instead it would result in five to ten times the energy production and two more neutrons.

The radiation from fusion devices is no less dangerous than that from fission devices. Since the earth is naturally covered already with long term radioactive materials, the radioactive materials produced by fusion or fission reactors do not represent any real problem in control. All live creatures including humans have always had radioactive potassium built into them.

The Accelerator Driven Reactors are a much easier way than fusion to produce energy and to use all isotopes of thorium and elements with higher atomic numbers as fission fuel. Only fission products need ever leave an ADS reactor group. For a continuous output of 1,000,000 kilowatts, only less than 10 pounds of fission products a day are produced. This also means that only ten pounds a day of uranium of thorium needs to be delivered, and this means that it could be delivered by the postal service or UPS. The US neutron source is a working device that could be duplicated for a ADS prototype that would produce net energy. Abundant ADS fuel sits in the form of "Used" fuel rods at every power plant. The ADS is not even necessary to use this fuel as it can also be used without modification in heavy water reactors. It is not waste as it retains 95 percent of its original fission energy.

There is a known form of cold fusion that no one talks about in that context. It is called electron capture. The fusion of an electron with the nucleus. Some chemical compounds have be thought to slow down this type of nuclear decay or perhaps even speed it up. In the Pons-Fleischman experiments, a deuteron or even only the neutron from the deuteron could have fused with the paladium nucleus. In the latter case the net energy gain would be about 4 MEV. There are some alloys that can absorb more hydrogen than would be contained in a similar volume of liquid hydrogen.

There may be ways to fission uranium or thorium that do not involve neutrons. Deuterium is fissioned with gamma rays in heavy water reactors. Much of the money and people now being used for fusion research should be spent for building ADS systems. There is enough Uranium already mined for the next century of fission power.

Fusion we can believe in?

Germann — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:17:09 GMT

I shall afford will disagree with you

Fusion we can believe in?

Eric Dumont, Houston TX — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:21:31 GMT

Why bother with fusion or cold fusion when simple Hydrogen Chemistry discoveries by Randal Mills and
being commercialized by BlackLight Power http://blacklightpower.com
will revolutionize the way we use energy! Why no news on the recently confirmed existance of the Hydrino through not only independant expermination but also for the first time direct spectral observation of transitions of hydrogen to form hydrinos as published in the Central European Journal of Physics