P-B11 Plasma Toroid Fusion

[erich]

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.

 

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems. A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as fallows:

 

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's

chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing

that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and

EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their

work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General

Motors)."

 

and

 

"Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid

formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment

remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this

technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the

automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of

functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at

Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices)."

 

EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.

 

It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid

 

 

The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

 

Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in last months 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

 

 

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!

 

 

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 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.

 

You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion integrityresinst.crosswin...oc42793577 , 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"

 

 

 

 

After posting to several Science, physics and Energy forums I collected up comments and questions and asked Clint Seward , 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.

 

You suggested an article from the SF Chronicle that you might send. Please

do.

 

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

Shenandoah Gardens

E-mail: [email protected]

(540) 289-9750

[UncleAl]

Contained hot fusion is hopeless. There are the insanities of needing/handling megacuries of tritium and placing deep cryogenic superconducting coils hard by million-degree plasma and hard radiation fields. There is the insanity of half the output energy being in 10 MeV neutrons. How are ya gonna make something useful out of that? But most of all there is the simple industrial rule of thumb:

 

Any production line that requires degreed personnel will fail.

 

Any process that requires an IQ in excess of 80 will not be commercially viable. There is nothing successfully manufactured anywhere in the world - from cast iron to CPUs to skyscrapers - that is not performed by Billy Bob and the boys. A fusion plant would be bursting with PhDs. The janitors would be degreed in radiation physics. It wouldn't have a chance in Hell of working.

[erich]

Contained hot fusion is hopeless. .

 

In this model it is not contained, the plasma is contained by the stable plasma toroid and the 1/2 cm toroids are acelerated into each other for the reaction.

 

What did you think of the Y-ray/ X-ray in lightning findings?

[Qfwfq]

What does this have to do with Astronomy and Cosmology?

 

In this model it is not contained

Yes it is. It is contained magnetically.

 

What did you think of the Y-ray/ X-ray in lightning findings?

Never heard of that.

[erich]

Dear Qfwfq:

 

What does this have to do with Astronomy and Cosmology?

 

Never heard of that.

 

The gist of my post is that lightning comes from space. ie. the Y-ray and X-ray research finding : http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

 

"Yes it is. It is contained magnetically."

 

It is not contained by a magnetic bottle, but in the dynamic's of the plasma toroid structure.

[erich]

Dear Folks:

This new finding of neutrons, in cloud to ground lightning by Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News

http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm

Also lends support to the theories of Clint Seward of EPS.

 

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

[erich]

Eric Lerner has recieved major support for his 1Billion C Focus Fusion device:

 

U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion

http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chilean_Nuclear_Commission/

[Harry Costas]

Thank you for the link on

http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chilean_Nuclear_Commission/

very interesting

 

my interest is on Ultra Dense Plasma and core of stars,,,,,,,,,,any info

[erich]

Hi Harry:

 

It's not star dense plasma but interesting:

 

This guy is also a lone inventor , but unlike most he has a product that has been analyzed by government research labs.

 

His first area of interest was fusion power, and is familiar with Eric Lerner's and others work, He could not find support for that application so is now focused on the spin-off technology of his device for the production of nano diamonds and an application for toxic waste disposal .

 

I've spoken with him twice on other issues in fusion energy and found his insights clarifying.

 

If this interest you, you should call him: Chris Arnold 603-953-9552

 

 

Pulsed Plasma Energy http://hometown.aol.com/hypercom59/index.html

 

Erich