Reply To: Wealth of Nations, and Economics of Abundance

[Glenn Millam]

TheTeacher wrote: No plasma over about 4,000 deg K can be confined by material walls; there has to be electric field or magnetic field containment. As such, the plasma must be 100% ionized. Symmetric electrical field containment is intrinsically unstable; hence the Farnsworth fusion generator constantly produces emitted jets of plasma through the confinement electric field, effectively reducing the ability of the unit to maintain constant over-unity power generation. Similarly, magnetic field containment, as exemplified by Tokomak type fusion reactors, suffers from inability of long-term (i.e more than 3 seconds) containment due both to instabilities in the magnetic field and instabilities in the plasma itself.

Hence the plasma focus approach in using naturally-occurring magnetic containment.

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_reactor/#dpf

TheTeacher wrote: The trick then, is to create a specific engineered surface, which is attractive to heavy hydrogen nuclei, and which will provide a sufficient electron field to shield two adjacent nuclei to let fusion occur. Calculations show that this is possible with a specific type of charged nanoengineered surface. This is the approach to be taken to actually create a heavy hydrogen fusion generator.

What is your estimate on the time frame of finding such a surface, that can provide significantly better than break-even performance? Is it any better than what we are hearing from ITER and other fusion researchers? What is the theoretical output of such a device? What would its remnants and wastes be? What fuels are you proposing to use?

I have followed cold fusion, catalytic fusion, and sonofusion for the last decade or so, and, not to be too pessimistic, but I have heard a lot of hopeful talk and just-around-the-corner speeches, but have seen no significant working devices that have produced real breakthroughs. One of the things I like about this project is that they have done significant science; the temperature breakthrough at Texas A&M;is repeatable and real, and points to a real solution (in fact a better solution in that non-radioactive Hydrogen-Boron fuel can now be realistically looked at). This project has more than hope; it has direction, and a realistic goal based on good theory and experimental results.

Perhaps doing what you say will bring about a way to produce fusion energy using means that do not produce the kinds of heat and x-rays that PFF does, even though it seems to need radioactive fuel, and will probably produce a lot of radioactive byproducts in comparison to focus fusion. I just wonder about the timing. Will it be there when we need it? Can it be there when we need it? The time is running short.