[Ivy Matt]

Are you saying that NIF and ITER are/will be physically unable to produce Q > 1, or are you saying that such was not the primary intention behind the construction of NIF, and that that goal will be obsolete before construction of ITER is complete?

[Ivy Matt]

Well, any presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has read his Physics for future Presidents knows enough not make a fusion goal, because fusion power generation is too far away for him to be able to take credit for it before his one or two terms expire. Really, I just don’t think the political will is there for any president or congress to devote a more significant portion of the budget to fusion research. Until someone announces net gain from fusion and politicians start scrambling to see how they can take credit for the success, I don’t see the state of things changing.

[Ivy Matt]

Congratulations! It’s nice to see a new confinement concept come into operation, especially one as pretty (and small) as this. I’m looking forward to your results with deuterium.

I can’t help wondering what would happen if you aimed two of those at each other, with a dilithium crystal in between….

[Ivy Matt]

Whoa, check this out. Scroll to the bottom of the page.

[Ivy Matt]

All right, I’ve read the thread on fusor.net, watched the video, and read/skimmed the patent application. I look forward to the results of your experiment. I don’t consider myself qualified to offer a critique on your invention, but I do have a question: According to your patent application, the preferred embodiment of your invention uses deuterium fuel. Is there any particular reason deuterium is preferred, apart from the relative ease of fusing deuterium as opposed to heavier elements?

[Ivy Matt]

Well, the good news is that I’m making money now. The bad news is that it’s not in U.S. dollars. I realize that’s not a show-stopper, but I haven’t yet decided the best way to go about getting the money across.

I think I understand what you’re asking now. Every month the FFS will be sending out a newsletter that will include a link to the LPP update, but should also include some other stuff not directly related to LPP research. Correct? In that case, I think the thing I would be most interested in is news from other fusion projects, including but not limited to such mainstream projects as ITER and NIF. I guess the big question is how to filter what is newsworthy and what isn’t. Is it worth mentioning that Tri Alpha is looking to hire a computer programmer with a degree in either computer science or plasma physics?

Regarding my list of figures, unfortunately I haven’t maintained it for a number of months, but I’ll see what I can do to get it updated to the end of January, 2012. Looking at the last few updates, I will probably need to add some new categories.

[Ivy Matt]

Maurice Ward died in May of last year. If he managed to file a patent application before his death, it should be published before the end of this year.

However, if the article is correct, this would not be a case of an inventor taking his secrets to his grave, because the formula has been written down, and close family members know it.

[Ivy Matt]

I don’t know about themes. I’d imagine the themes ought to be determined by the issues or successes that crop up during the month’s research. One thing I would like to see is some continuity between updates. As it is, it seems that various figures (e.g. pinch voltage, neutron counts, energy output in joules, ion temperatures, electron temperatures) are mentioned in one month’s update and then ignored for the next few months. I realize that part of the reason for that is likely due to the delays caused by various mechanical issues, and maybe it doesn’t make sense to give new figures when they haven’t changed lately. Still, I’ve found it helpful to keep my own list of figures (based on largely on the milestones) and update it according to the information given in the monthly updates.

I am not currently a dues-paying member, but I have no problem with the dues-paying members receiving the updates a bit early. Plus, it gives me a bit of incentive to become a dues-paying member.

I’ve signed up for most of the mailing list categories, just to see what it’s like. If the volume is too great (something I don’t anticipate for now) I will probably unsubscribe from some of them.

Also, according to the January update most readers thought last year’s year-end report was too detailed? o_O Who are these people?

[Ivy Matt]

Well, that’s one area where some people feel the Widom-Larsen hypothesis falls down: the neutrons are supposed to be formed from a proton and an electron. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to happen, but I can’t say that I’ve studied the hypothesis carefully (or intend to at this point).

I’m not sure who you mean by “they”. There are numerous actors in the LENR/cold fusion field, and they don’t always agree among themselves. There are a number of hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the phenomena that Fleischmann & Pons and other researchers have claimed to observe, and “D+D->4He” is just one—the first one, really. If you were reacting to Zawodny’s slide presentation, I can tell you that, although it may not be perfectly clear from the context, slide #10 is is actually dismissing the validity of the “D+D->4He” hypothesis. Like I said, Zawodny is a proponent of the Widom-Larsen hypothesis (slides #12 and #13).

[Ivy Matt]

A little background:

http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/

There have been arguments as to whether he is backpedalling in his blog post, or merely explaining himself in a manner that a brief video doesn’t allow. I think I will just let him speak for himself.

You can find a copy of Zawodny’s patent application here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZawodnyJmethodforp.pdf

And here is his presentation from a recent NASA workshop on cold fusion:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Zawodny-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf

Zawodny favors the Widom-Larsen hypothesis, according to which the phenomena associated with “cold fusion” are not really fusion, but a different type of nuclear process known as neutron capture. Those who favor the Widom-Larsen hypothesis also favor the term “LENR” (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) over “cold fusion”; however, not all who use the term “LENR” are Widom-Larsen devotees.

[Ivy Matt]

I take it 400-keV electrons is a good thing, but is there a significant difference between 400-keV electrons and, say, 100-keV ions, as reported a year ago?

Anyway, best wishes for the coming year and the move beyond deuterium.

[Ivy Matt]

Yes, the House bill being referred to is H.R.2930. The Senate bill that has been introduced, but hasn’t yet been voted on, is S.1791.

[Ivy Matt]

Hm, I don’t remember any pictures. At least, not of the alleged reactor.

[Ivy Matt]

Any ideas about what this might possibly mean?:

But this company’s fusion reaction, fueled by deuterium and tritium, isn’t nearly as high temperature, our source claims, and is more “rooted in nature.” Specifically, the reaction is said not to require the high temperature, high pressure or accelerated particles of others’ approaches. “The key is not how many neutron hits you generate, but how you sustain them, how well you can control them.”

In some ways it reminds me of Star Scientific Limited, which is researching muon-catalyzed fusion. They’ve been generating some buzz recently due to some YouTube videos and their chairman’s blog, but have been pretty close-mouthed about any specific breakthroughs they might have made.

Whoever they are, they claim to be generating a megawatt of power from 40 watts of input power. That’s scientific breakeven at least, even if they aren’t generating electricity yet, but I’d like some assurance this is not another Huemul or ZETA before I congratulate them.

[Ivy Matt]

Congratulations! Onward and upward. I was a bit surprised to see that LPP is taking the FF-1 to 120 kV. I didn’t know that was in the cards. I’m looking forward to hearing that the shorter cathodes have been put in place.

[Author]

Posts