Reply To: "bird cage" plasmoid

[Breakable]

Copying the reply from the comments below the article:
>Dr. Hopkins’ analysis misses the whole point of our July 2012 paper, which was about our demonstrating record-breaking temperatures in our confined plasma. Hopkins complained that we had not demonstrated record-breaking fusion yields. But yields depend not only on temperature but on densities as well and we were not claiming any superior density or yield. The paper was about the record temperatures. It was demonstrating that this temperature—sufficient to ignite hydrogen-boron fuel, was indeed confined in a small plasmoid that made our paper the most-read one of 2012 in Physics of Plasma, the leading journal in our field. Evidently a lot of our colleagues got the point, even if Dr. Hopkins missed it. As to densities, we expect to greatly improve them and achieve record fusion yields as well in our next series of experiments.”

This video has some slides from their camera documenting plasmoid formation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abvdXZfUHIg&feature=youtu.be

AFAIK they also have tested the fusion yields with without angular magnetic field which is theorised to help with plasmoid formation and saw an improvement.
Not sure if this is this paper (I haven’t read it to be fair)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1770673_Advances_towards_pB11_Fusion_with_the_Dense_Plasma_Focus

Now as far as I am aware LPPFusion is focusing on fusion yield rather than validation of plasmoid existence especially since while they were able to achieve single dimensional simulations, multi-dimensional physical simulations proved to far from reach based on the resources available to them.

I am not sure whether better theoretical evidence would help with attracting more investors or whether they would like greater control of the company than is currently offered.