Reply To: What are the top Alternative Fusion candidates?

[AaronB]

Kingkong, your skepticism is normal. I am skeptical too, and always will be until it actually works. Nobody is claiming that it has produced more energy than it has consumed. The proof of concept will come in the current set of experiments. Simulations are only as good as the assumptions and modeling that go into them. The real test will come after the tests are complete, the correct parameters are determined, and a prototype is constructed. That won’t happen for at least a couple of years. This technology has been around for a long time, as you are well aware, and there is a lot of work still to do. That is the way science and technology progresses. If you are interested in the paper being peer reviewed, and you are experienced in the field and with an actual device, why don’t you review it for us?
One thing to remember is the importance of ratios. We know that a lot of power must be pumped into the device. The key is to get a higher ratio of the energy converted into the formation, compression, and heating of the plasmoid. Then there must be a low proportion of energy given off by wasted radiation. Then there must be a high ratio of energy captured from the final products. Each of these important elements are being tested now. The formation of the plasmoid will hopefully be improved by the injected angular momentum, the radiation lessened by the magnetic field effect, and the conversion into usable energy by the x-ray capture device and the coil. If the ratio of typical losses in each of these steps can be reduced enough, then the combined ratios will leave us with net positive energy. That is the goal. Now that you hopefully understand the process, which part would you like to help us improve upon?