[AaronB]

While the blueprints may not be on the table, the idea of using the dense plasma focus (the reactor for focus fusion) for space propulsion is not new. See https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/university_of_illinois_space_propulsion/. Focus fusion would work for propulsion, but you need a big power source for it. If we can get the fusion reactor to produce net energy, then you could use one reactor to generate electricity, and another one as the rocket, or some sort of setup like that.

[AaronB]

With regard to unlimited energy for all, there are two aspects to that statement. Unlimited energy may be the case if this works, but capital investment and distribution will still have an effect on who gets it. Although I’m hopeful for a Utopia out of this, human history tends to chronicle an unequal distribution of available resources, with the strong and selfish taking more than their fair share. However, without the resources in the first place, the rest of the distribution argument is pointless. That’s what worries me about the world’s current energy situation, and why this technology is so important. If it works, there will be a seismic shift in technologies that will migrate toward the storage and use of electricity instead of coal, oil, and gas. This will spawn new industries, infrastructure, and challenges. Cara mentioned the issue of who has the “right” to use the energy. I’m not aware of any innate entitlement to a share of the world’s energy right now. It’s kind of “first come, first served” for those who can afford it, and I doubt that this would change. What would change is the amount of energy available, and according to the law of supply and demand, greater availability would lower the cost, which would then make it more accessible to more of the have-nots. I believe this might qualify as the near Utopian “social effects” that Transmute mentioned.

[AaronB]

Peak Oil is a long-term problem that most people are not aware of and feel powerless to do anything about. However, when I learned about the potential of Focus Fusion, I decided that it was the only solution that could solve the problems of replacing the gross energy output of all fossil fuels, without the harmful emissions, without taking up thousands of square miles of land, etc. Alternative energy is great, and I think Focus Fusion is the best of them all. The challenge will be to develop and refine the technology before the consequences of Peak Oil become too pronounced.

[AaronB]

Claudio,

Your idea is very interesting. Since I was a small boy, when I first heard of perpetual motion, I have been trying to come up with ways to do it. In the process, I have learned about many theories, designs, and hoaxes. I have come to believe it is not possible to take more energy out of a closed system than you put into it. From what I understand of your idea, and as you state, “the sum of energy that is recuperated during the ascent and descent is more than what would be needed to compress the air.” If the volume, temperature, and pressure of air remained the same at the top and the bottom of the chamber, you certainly would be able to extract energy out of the system. However, the air within each float is under different pressures at the top versus at the bottom of the chamber, due to the weight of the liquid. Volume, pressure and temperature are all related. You must include all three in your equations. I think that when you take into account the differences at the top and bottom of the cycle, you will find that the energy output will equal the energy input, not counting losses.

Focus fusion is not a free energy, nor is it a perpetual motion machine since it consumes nuclear fuel.

[AaronB]

This may be a generic answer to the previous thoughts, but bear with me. Fusion energy is a lot like powered flight in the 1800s. Scientists back then understood the principles of thrust, drag, lift, and gravity, but it took a couple of bicycle mechanics with a vision, a plan, and some crude components to achieve the first successful powered flight. Nowadays, we understand the principles of fusion, electromagnetics, x-ray radiation, and electromechanical acceleration. The dense plasma focus has been around for many years, with a long track record, just like unpowered gliders had a track record in the 1800s. Materials science has now brought us better anodes, better capacitors, better high-capacity switches, etc. Computers have brought us modeling and simulation. The necessary pieces are in place for serious experimentation and progress to begin.

Are there reasons for doubt? Are untested technologies likely to fail or have complications? Of course! That’s part of the process. The first airplane was a flying deathtrap. It was slow and hard to steer. It was unstable and lacked good landing gear. So what? It worked, and since that time, the different components have been refined and improved. Speed and stability have improved. Safety and comfort have improved. Powered, heavier-than-air flight is commonplace. That was not the case a century ago. Fusion power will probably be the same way 100 years from now.

With that said, you will probably understand why an accurate answer is difficult to give to the specific questions about the design and efficiency of the reactor and x-ray converter. That’s like asking the Wright brothers how fast, how far, and how high they could fly before they even put their plane together. Focus fusion is on the cutting edge of technology. We’ve got a theory. We have plans and calculations. We’re testing the components now, but it won’t be until we have the prototype built that all of these performance questions will be answered. This may be worrisome in the present, especially to investors who are looking for short-term gains. I, on the other hand, think controlled fusion is possible and inevitable. I believe we have the necessary theory, parts, and personnel. I’m optimistically confident that we can pull this off in the next five years. The challenge is exciting. The possibility of success is exciting. The potential effects of clean energy on a world-wide scale is exciting. That’s the vision. Now we are testing the parts. Then we assemble the prototype, and only then will we see if this thing will fly. It may not be pretty, or compact, or highly efficient at first, but so what? If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, we’ll tweak it until it does. If we burn out a part, we’ll figure out the problem, replace the part, and press on. Nuclear power is real. Fusion is real and powerful. The exact design and look of the machine that will eventually harnass that power is still unknown, and whether or not Focus Fusion can do it is still unknown, but it will happen. I’m confident of that. This machine, applying Lerner’s theories, using state-of-the-art components, being tested by some of the smartest plasma physicists on the planet… stands a reasonable chance of succeeding. That’s why I’m along for the ride.

[AaronB]

Elling,

It sounds like you are looking for more technical details and a defined timeline. I’ll defer to Eric to decide how much detail to give out at this time, but keep a couple things in mind. The patent application was sent in about a year ago, and it usually takes a year and a half to two years for the patent to be issued. As much as we would like to speed up that process, we can’t. When it is issued sometime in the next year, you’ll be able to read through it online. As far as the testing goes, we are at the mercy of the Chilean Nuclear Commission, their personnel, and equipment. Progress is being made, but without our own lab and equipment, it is impossible to set any scheduled milestones. As test results come back, we will keep everyone appropriately informed.

If anyone has special talents, interest or equipment in the area of x-ray technology, and wants to help develop the x-ray capture device, we would love to have you pitch in and help. That’s what the Focus Fusion Society is all about.

[AaronB]

Bremsstrahlung (x-ray) losses have traditionally been one of the big obstacles of maintaining a fusion reaction. To overcome those losses, we are trying to take advantage of the magentic field effect, which will reduce the amount of x-rays generated, as described above. To do this, we are playing with the shape and size ratios of the anode/cathode. This ratio, as well as the timing and size of the current pulse, should produce the large magnetic fields that are needed in the plasmoid. However, there will still be x-rays produced, which would be lost energy if it couldn’t be captured and converted into useful energy. The third part of the patent application is related to this. https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/lpp_submits_patent_application/ The magnetic field effect will be tested and refined as part of the collaboration with the Chilean Nuclear Commission over the next three years. https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/lpp_cchen_collaboration_announcement/

[AaronB]

Duke,

Now that’s the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that we need!

[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?

[AaronB]

Can I get a smaller yellow peace sign (4 inch diameter) on the front-left breast of the black shirt? If so, I’ll place my order. Thanks.

[AaronB]

What exactly is Andy Technology? I have seen this posted all over the internet, but with no specifics. Please be specific.

[AaronB]

Looks great Glenn. I’ll take 5 mediums and 5 larges on a black cotton T-shirt! I want a yellow peace sign.

[AaronB]

I’m always intuitively open to new ideas, but then I run them through a logic filter. Focus Fusion passes my tests, and actual experimental tests have backed up the theory. Is there any sort of experimental evidence or a working device that supports any of your claims? The dense plasma focus has been around for 50 years. It has a track record. Does yours, or does it only work in the laboratory of sweet imagination? I’d take one working prototype over a million cool ideas any day.

[Author]

Posts