http://documentaryheaven.com/an-experiment-to-save-the-world-nuclear-fusion/
TLDR:
Basically what he did, is publish a paper in the most prestigious journal without having definitive evidence. Someone tried to reproduce and got no results.
Then after a few years he tried to produce definitive evidence afterwords, but none cared to reproduce the experiment anymore.
And then afterward a team put together by journalist did give a (pretty weak) “try”, he did not cooperate.
Also the Fusion field is mentioned as very competitive.

Lesion:
First time counts the most.

I just hope I wont see a documentary about FF in a few decades, when ITER will be just 25 years away…

Sounds a lot like the Cold Fusion fiasco. Eric’s method and reasoning behind it seem to have avoiding such a similar fiasco as the prime directive.

Aeronaut - 16 March 2010 11:41 AM

Eric’s method and reasoning behind it seem to have avoiding such a similar fiasco as the prime directive.

A very sensible approach; Think long term. State nothing you can’t prove. Make no promises. (A bit like politics.)

Phil’s Dad - 18 March 2010 05:09 PM

Aeronaut - 16 March 2010 11:41 AM

Eric’s method and reasoning behind it seem to have avoiding such a similar fiasco as the prime directive.

A very sensible approach; Think long term. State nothing you can’t prove. Make no promises. (A bit like politics.)

Nor does it hurt to have a secondary justification such as X-ray lithography. (Just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s)