Reply To: Computational resources available from the DOE

[Lerner]

AI, you are an old enough hand to know that fusion researchers are actually not usual very kind to concepts other than their own, so the committee’s enthusiasm alone is significant. Why are they enthusiastic? Because they think the concept is theoretically possible, as they say explicitly in the report. They accept as fact that the DPF is capable of containing 150 keV ions, something that prior to our publication of that result, was not accepted by a majority of DPF researchers, let alone the rest of the fusion community. They accept our approach is in principle plausible, which given the high rewards they point out for the approach, is justification for their endorsement of expanded investment.
On the specific points they say repeatedly that our theoretical conclusion are possible and, if verified, advantageous. Our approaches, in their view, are reasonable. And the result of success would be an economically viable energy source (something that can definitely NOT be said, for example, of the tokamak). Of course some of our predictions remain to be experimentally verified. I would disagree with the committee only on one point–that the smaller electrode size is partially verified by our results, which are superior to those of machines with large electrodes. But for complete verification, we have to demonstrate that the superiority in yield continues to higher peak currents, which we have not yet done.
So overall, the committee had quite adequately stated why they urge greater support for our approach, without making the as-yet unverified claim that it will definitely work.