Reply To: Plan B for Focus Fusion

[asymmetric_implosion]

balsysr wrote:

I think the same kind of problem exists today, all the money is spent of research that backs the existing paradigmns, and only ridicule is spent on other ideas. A case in point is the work on focus fusion. The big money is all on gravitational fusion based sun models that have consumed billions of research dollars for little results. Approaches like focus fusion are relegated to “fringe” science and not funded as the money is all being spent elsewhere. A better approach in funding research would be to allocate a reasonable pool to non-mainstream ideas that have a reasonable scientific basis (like focus fusion).

Cheers,

Science has problems; no doubt. It isn’t a problem of conspiracy; it’s a problem of human nature. We have these feelings that screw with our analytic minds. Feelings connect us to people and concepts. One can love an idea as much as a person and this is the problem. People fall in love. You fight to protect what you love and some use their positions and knowledge to protect their beloved ideas. It’s not evil, but it is not proper science.

There seems to be a misconception about fringe science and mainstream science. As a researcher, I reserve ridicule for a select few; they usually earn it without anyone helping them or putting them down. I doubt a great deal. There is a significant difference. Doubt (skepticism) is a driving force behind science. One that doubts simply wants proof. The doubter is asking a question (occasionally rudely). All the skeptic wants is proof i.e. data. When the skeptic gets data they want to know how the data was collected in detail. So-called main stream folks know how to play by these rules. So called fringe science tends not to meet the burden of proof or the result cannot be reproduced. As I posted elsewhere, FoFu-1 just caught up to other plasma focus devices of the same current level in terms of fusion energy release. It’s not mean spirited or doubting, it’s a comparison between LPP’s Sept report and published literature. All the results to date fit into the existing framework. The new theory remains unproven while the old theory holds true. That may change in 2012. Time will tell.

DOE funded innovative confinement concepts for the last decade. Key problem with that program was none of the concepts showed any significant progress in that time. I remember going to meetings and seeing the same poster year after year by one group in that program. It was a waste. FoFu does not fall under the innovative concepts domain. The plasma focus was examined as a fusion system some forty years ago; it came up far short. A new theory exists claiming other people did it wrong. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn’t. Don’t know. Way before my time. The LPP approach to fusion was tested with gov’t funding some time ago. What were the results? I don’t know but I take it those funding the experiments were not impressed. Perhaps the reasons are described somewhere with suggested improvements that were implemented in FoFu-1. I don’t know.

In the current funding framework, FoFu falls under the high energy density physics area. DOE is funding grants in this area. They have gone so far as to release a report calling high energy density physics the X-games of physics. The next solicitation comes out in summer or fall 2012 last thing I heard. These grants are on-line all the time, people just have to apply. The grants are reviewed and a few are selected for award. Some are conventional/mainstream while others are really out there on the fringe. The rules for the last year grants are likely still on-line (I’d post the file but it is too large even in PDF). This could be a reason fringe science doesn’t get funding; it doesn’t apply for the money. Check out a website called grants.gov for a list of potential funding sources. I’m pretty sure the next call of consequence will not be until the high energy density physics solicitation next year. If LPP wants gov’t funding at the $200K to $1M/year level all they need to do is apply and write a good proposal.