[kingkong]

Aha, by simulation …! Even worse, an extrapolation of simulation results!
No real experiment or measurement at all ???
As well known in the art, the result of a simulation fully depends on the skill
as well as the sense of responsibility of the person who conducts the simulation.
Therefore my question: is the paper cited above already published in a refereed
journal? I understand very well, publication in a refereed journal is not a guarantee
of acceptance or correctness. But if it fails to get published, it really means something,
i.e., it is incredible. Why? Most probably because it contains a lot of mistakes, either
mathematical or conceptual, most probably both. As to the sense of responsibility,
if a person is possessed by greed either for money or for fame, or both, the result
of his simulation would rather reflect his own wishful thinking, rather than the truth.
So, the paper you showed me does not lend any credibility at all. Sorry ….
😉 🙄 :bug:

[kingkong]

I have worked on both plasma focus machine and Tokamak during my graduate study.
I do not have any doubt that the machine is capable of achieving high temperatures
sufficient to induce fusion reaction. Even the small machine I have worked with
produced a lot of fusion neutrons out of a H/D/T plasma. However, I am
skeptical as to the claim that it could generate power more than it consumes.
The reasons are well known, and are similar to the problems faced by Tokamaks:

(a) The loss is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature. This explains the
huge loss in X-ray Bremmstrahlung. One way to compensate the loss is by making
the volume large. That explains why LLP needs to build a large machine.

(b) The problem of ALL fusion machines is NOT ONLY to achieve fusion temperatures.
That temperature alone has been achieved in Tokamaks since many decades, also
in the plasma focus machine and Tokamak I have worked with. The main problem
is to satisfy the Lawson criterion, i.e., that the power output has to be larger than
the power input, otherwise the device will never work as power generator, but only
as a power consumer. In this respect the plasma focus machine is inferior to Tokamak,
because the focus plasma is a very small filament on the order several microns, as
compared to Tokamaks that has volumes on the magntoude order of LITERS. Until
LLP can show his overall power balance, I would not give the machine my benefit of
the dount. While the power produced is proportional to the volume, the main power
loss (e.g., the radiated power ~T^4) is proprtional to the surafce area. Thus, small
volumes radiates more than it can produce.

(c) Is the article “Advances Towards PB11 Fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus” ever
published in a REFEREED journal? If not, the article is practically worthless. A quick
scan over its content does not give any hint about the overall power balance, which
takes account on the overall power output from the fusion plasma VOLUME as
compared to the input power necessary to generate the fusion temperature. The paper
seems to be more directed to show that fusion temperature can be achieved. About
that, I donot have any doubt: plasma focus machines have achieved fusion temperatures
since at least 30 years ago!

(d) Also, the article does not take account for many other problems caused by the
extremely high temperatures and the particles kinetics as well known in Tokamaks.
For example, how many hours is the lifetime of the machine? Thus, LLP’s plasma focus
fusion machine is really a very immature concept.

Can anybody, including Eric Lerner himself, give me satisfactory answer or explanation
to my doubts?

😉 😉 😉

[Author]

Posts