Former US Fusion Energy Chief, Senior Researchers Say Start-up’s Fusion Program Merits Much Higher Level of Investment

[DerekShannon]

We’ve just posted the news about an independent scientific review that was very favorable to Focus Fusion. I’m starting this thread for discussion and questions.

And yes! We’ve released the full report. Direct link.

[asymmetric_implosion]

OK. Devil’s advocate time.

1. Leading fusion researchers reviewed the LPP concept. From a purely technical standpoint this seems like a good idea, but fusion is far from purely technical. All reviewers are proponents of fusion so would they turn down any fusion concept in the experimental stage? This seems unlikely given their budgets are not impacted. Shouldn’t a technically knowledgeable fusion hater be on the panel. If you think they don’t exist, they do.

2. The technical evaluation largely says that none of the key metrics are met and data doesn’t support them. We support this idea because of….our warm fuzzy feeling about fusion?!?

—

OK. To be fair:

1. The concept of superior compression with higher Z elements is a pretty common belief with some data supporting it already. I don’t know if anyone has compared this fairly on the same machine, but the literature strongly hints at it. Small DPF machines with high Z gases in small concentrations perform better than machines without high Z gases. This is not fully understood but there is experimental supporting that high Z makes life better.

2. Ions hotter than electrons in a pinch is largely proven. It may not be at the level required by LPP but it is possible.

[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.

[asymmetric_implosion]

There is some truth in people loving their own concept but these days it seems the MCF approaches are banded together as have the ICF approaches in the broader sense e.g. Sandia supporting the NIF “breakeven”.

I’m not saying things are not possible or wrong. I think the progress is significant for the funding, but I believe the true test is receiving the funding. I’ve had many folks claim support for proposals when it was someone else paying. “Great idea and it would be nice…if they pay for it.” Results drive larger budget which drives results… should be the approach to all science. Sadly politics gets in the middle. My point is that the independent review could be taken in a negative light very easily.

I like independent review and the results that come from it when people use it as intended. The Devil’s advocate is truly intended as that. I believe any technologist must be his/her harshest critic while being being the biggest advocate. It’s a bit sick in a way but I believe that drives success in the long run.

[meemoe_uk]

Sooo, what happens next?
I see they are influential people whose support has been gained, which will be useful for any government assessments in the future.
But…
Did that committee also control funds?
Are they working as assessors, who report back to a government funding agency?

Your title says ” An independent scientific review “
independent in the ” we’re not biased ” sense, or independent in the ” we’re not government ” sense? If the latter, were they a private consultancy agency hired by the government and are now reporting back?

Is there a timetable of events that should trigger from this report?

[Breakable]

Personally I believe for something good to happen in this area a person has to lead the outreach to government, non-profit and commercial organisations. Unfortunately there is no one doing that (seriously) at the moment as far as I know. It is a catch 22 as neither FFS or LPP has funding for a dedicated resource. I have only time to help with website and community maintenance. I got in touch with X-Prize foundation, and they were certainly interested, but am not able to persistently push any efforts in this area just due to lack of time. I am working full-time in biotech startup, studying in university for masters, have some business to manage as well as well as a large family and kids with disabilities. There is a huge opportunity for personal involvement and growth here which can benefit FFS, LPP and the rest of Fusion Community, which if not developed in full will go to waste.

[benf]

Breakable also contributes a lot as (volunteer) secretary of the board of directors and is instrumental in keeping us going. He’s expressing the similar feelings I have as well. It is such an uphill battle to advocate and promote this technology. But any assistance from the public is definitely welcome on any level and I believe that having supporters with a historical background at the center of fusion program development promoting Focus Fusion is a very positive step forward. I’d find it hard to believe that senior officials at the DOE’s Fusion Energy Science program wouldn’t take notice on some level as they think about their history of funding initiatives, which have been geared primarily to the sole paradigm of the tokamak.

The Focus Fusion Society is a nonprofit organization that at this point is all volunteer. It is hard for any of us to devote full time attention to the task of promoting our mission. Trying to provide leadership has it’s challenges given our circumstances. One way to exercise leadership is through networking. In the age of the internet it is one way to reach out to people to engage them with the issues of fusion energy. It can be very surprising to connect with other people on the subject. If they communicate back to us in a supportive way then we’ve had some success. Trying to reach out to and influence people who are in authority, with financial and political weight is also something we should try to do. They can keep doors closed but they can also open them. No that this is the only tactic we have, we’re also hoping to reach out to the broader public as with initiatives like the crowdfunding campaign.

This website also does a lot to network, to reach out to people and provide education around the issues of fusion as well as being a sounding board for advancing the research. Leadership comes in many forms, shapes and sizes. Overall it’s a good thing to have people with scientific backgrounds in fusion research weighing in on the subject of the viability of Focus Fusion.

[DerekShannon]

meemoe_uk2 wrote: Sooo, what happens next?
I see they are influential people whose support has been gained, which will be useful for any government assessments in the future.
But…
Did that committee also control funds?
Are they working as assessors, who report back to a government funding agency?

Your title says ” An independent scientific review “
independent in the ” we’re not biased ” sense, or independent in the ” we’re not government ” sense? If the latter, were they a private consultancy agency hired by the government and are now reporting back?

Is there a timetable of events that should trigger from this report?

They were independent in the sense that LPP did not have any control over the conclusions they wanted to put in the report. The committee members were also working as independent consultants, not part of any government or other official capacity. We hope to use this report to validate our work for non-technical people, but that’s up to us–and anyone who wants to help!

[Author]

Posts