Why are we taking such a public approach to the pursuit of fusion?  Several reasons.

Will it work?  In LPP’s case, can the Dense Plasma Focus, with modifications, get more energy out than it puts in with pB¹¹ fuel?  To answer this, LPP needs to conduct proof of concept research.

There’s a pun in here about “poisson” and “fission”, except we’re not promoting fission.  We’re for focus fusion.  So, apparently, is Jesus.

They say we might have fusion in 50 years. What’s the hold up? What are the barriers to developing fusion? There are many, but the most difficult ones are not so much technological as they are psychological.  These barriers exist in the fusion research establishment as well as in the general public. 

Pro Aneutronic Fusion bill introduced in New Jersey Legislature, thanks to volunteer Derek Shannon. 

Funding not assured for NIST-ATP grant proposals for 2006.

FFS Executive Director Eric J. Lerner is currently seeking NASA funding for focus fusion research.

The NIST Advanced Technology Program announced its grant awards for 2004. Focus fusion passed the first gate which was based on technical merit. Unfortunately, we did not receive an award at the second gate which was based on commercialization potential. The feedback from the program did not indicate that they felt there was no commercialization potential, just that we had not made a strong enough case in our grant proposal.

Research work on Focus Fusion included efforts to develop an Advanced Technology Program (ATP) grant application with GMU.  The application focused on the DPF as a source of X-rays.  The collaboration with GMU was necessary as university partners are an asset in applying for this type of grant.