Hydrogen-boron Fusion Power

Dear Sirs:

I am re-posting this because no one has replied.

I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response.

Can you be of assistance?

I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing.


In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion.

Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges.
The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium?
I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site.


You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have.

Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source.


"Hi Erich,

I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address
the fusion application. A few points:

1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be
crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is
happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to
understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t
seem to use many other than the photos.

2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to
errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to
say the least.

3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not
fully trust it.

3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net
fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he
also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they
hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit
each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick
together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the
collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only
have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm
across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles
fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of
3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed
by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ--
a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either
you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids
stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any
experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that
much longer confinement times will happen.

Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than
focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some
theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically
that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory,
published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably
reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good
diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also
extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the
dense plasma focus.

Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But
they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break
even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they
claim.

I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to
answer questions on focus fusion when you get them.

Eric"



And Clint's response:



"Dear Erich,

Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points.

1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions.

NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see.

2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work.

3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website.

3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents.

3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest.

3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary.

Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus.

Hopefully this helps.

Clint Seward"



Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi.....Wow!



"An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our
technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a
draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their
having talked with our technology partners.

Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have
copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review.

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors).

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
compositions."

Please let me klnow what you think.

Clint


Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting
group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004

Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons
(KEWs)

Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass.

Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an
STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for
reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called
"electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST
electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient
to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel
laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning,
are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without
requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be
accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g.,
600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic
acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab
and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although
these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter
long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak"
fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must
then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast,
EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate
high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6
seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest
from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a
major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion
reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long
"neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision.

Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale)
EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or
projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor
penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers
in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600
km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's
extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum.

Metrics:
- Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities
(defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
- Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS
estimate)
- Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary
(officially defined as 62 miles)
- Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose
initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate
its ESTs.

Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).

Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor)
- appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for
Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY
2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support),
but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5)
within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with
visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners
(agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power)
could accelerate this.
-MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least
$2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by
development of an integratable engineering package.

TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with
Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both
agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable.
MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing
their work.

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
compositions."




It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants ,NIST grants etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. I can go into their histories if you are interested

I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc.

Been sending my posted questions to academics, science magazines, and forums, not a whole lot of responses.

Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter.
Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a few months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as the paramount problem of our time.
The New York Times> Search> Abstract

Thank you for your attention

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA, 22840
(540) 289-9750

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nobody wants to read all taht crap, thats why they didn't reply. =] just kidding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your probably right, Take a look at the links in this reply i got from Science A Go GO another forum. I was pissed and lol at the same time.

Uncle Al
Junior Member
Member # 9

Rate Member posted October 30, 2004 11:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Append three lines to my other reply to you:

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

--------------------
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear Folks:

After posting to several Science, physics and Energy forums I collected up comments (none from here! ) and questions and asked Clint Seward , president of Electron Power Systems, to respond:

"Your most important point was that others have suggested that I should be
able to demonstrate a collision of EST's and even a level of fusion with a
few hundred thousand dollars and about a year. I agree. Here is what I
need to do:

1. Capture the EST in a way that I can measure them. I have designed a
method in the last two months that will do this.
2. Measure the density of the EST. This requirement is something everyone
is asking for, and will enable me to get serious funding from sponsors.
3. Collide two EST's. I have found a simple way to do this based on the
TRISOPS work by Wells.
4. Consulting work by Chen to verify the physics I have outlined for the
density.
5. Make and measure an EST based on Deuterium.
6. Collide two Deuterium EST's.

Each of these requires some cash outlays, so I am working them as I can get
resources. Several people, including yourself, are considering helpful
investments of $5k to $10k to 25K to 50K to 100k. Work will progress with
any investment, no matter how small. Capturing an EST is a $5k investment.

Your second most important point is that more people want to see more data
and even a video. I have many of these, but have not published them yet. I
have concentrated on the physics, which I feel I now know completely, and
can get confirmed. This is a smaller effort, about $15k.

You suggested an article from the SF Chronicle that you might send. Please
do.

Again, thanks for the call.

Clint Seward"



Also Eric Lerner of Focus Fusion sent this report on his progress:



"Dear friend of Focus Fusion,

<>Thanks for your support of and interest in Focus Fusion. <>

I’m writing you to update you on our Focus Fusion project and to ask for your help. As you may know from our website or newsletter, this year we came very close to winning a $2 million grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), US Dept. of Commerce. The grant is to develop the dense plasma focus as a powerful x-ray source for infrastructure inspection, but the research involved is essentially the same as that required to reach fusion break-even. While NIST gave us high marks for the technical proposals and we passed Gate 1 of their procedure, we failed Gate 2, which judged the financial side of the plan. In the de-briefing, the NIST representatives assured us that we had an excellent chance of getting the grant in 2005 if we corrected some problems in our business submission.
First, they said we needed more proof that we had tried to raise the $2 million privately and from other government agencies and were unable to. Second, since they will not fund facility rent, considering this an indirect expense, they needed to see pledges from investors that they would cover this cost for at least the first year, in the event the grant was awarded. We estimate that this will involve a maximum of $100,000. In addition, they wanted more evidence that state departments of transportation and other final customers would actually want the x-ray scanner if we succeed. (We have already started to receive these assurances. I’ve attached one from the California DOT.)

<>Finally, they did say that they expected to see at least some small technical progress during the period since our last application in January, even though they realized that this would be limited by available funding. <>

So I am writing you to ask you to do one of three things, any of which would be helpful to us. First, I would like to ask you to consider investing in Lawrenecville Plasma Physics, Inc.(LPP)’s x-ray source project. (NIST rules require this money go to a for-profit, rather than not-for-profit entity, so we applied on behlaf of LPP, not Focus Fusion Society). I’ve attached a summary of the project. This project contributes immensely to the development of focus fusion, but it also has a lower risk, and a faster prospect of financial return. Your investment will contribute in three ways: first, it will help to finance the small new simulation we will carry out to optimize x-ray production, increasing our chances of winning the NIST grant. Second, in the event we do win the NIST grant, it will aid us in accomplishing the project. While we believe we can succeed with $2 million, unexpected contingencies are always possible in research and more money is useful. Third, this money can go toward the $100,000 that we need for the first year’s facility rent. You can see LPP's overall business plan at our website, www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com. <>

Investments can be made by purchasing LPP non-voting shares at $120 a share in minimum blocks of 25 shares. By SEC regulations, to make this investment you must be an “accredited investor” which means that you have one million dollars in net worth (house included) or an income of $200,000 dollars year. <>

If you can not make an investment in this project now, I would very much appreciate your sending me a letter, on your letterhead, explaining very briefly why you can’t do this (too high risk, insufficient funds available, not an accredited investor, etc.) We can use these letters as proof that we can’t raise $2 million from private sources in our next NIST application, so they are very important. You can send these letters either as hard copy to our new address: LPP, 11 Calvin Terrace, West Orange NJ 07052, or to my email address as a PDF file. This will only take you a few minutes, but is going to be invaluable to us. <>

Third, you can make a contractual pledge to provide all or part of the $100,000 that we need to cover our first year facility rent in the event that we are awarded the NIST grant. This money will only be due IF we get the $ 2 million grant and are thus assured the funds we need to do the job. Again, this investment will be in the form of the purchase of LPP shares and will be subject to the same “accredited investor” restriction. <>

I hope that you will be able to help us in one of these three ways. I look forward to your response. Feel free to contact me by email or at 973-736-0522. <>

Warm regards, Eric J. Lerner <>
President
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. "

 

I can’t be of assistance…

Your first expert it pretty much dead on… broad cautious generalizations.

After looking at the EPS white paper I immediately see a glaring hole, which is their maximum interaction energy value. This number can never be reached so I will not believe evidence based upon it. I could accept that three years ago at the time of the review maybe they did not have their models correctly flushed out, but if they do have a practical model now then it must provide some useful results.

A hundred percent fusion rate will NEVER happen.
So maybe their marketing department went wild and threw out these figures to impress us.

------

Upon seeing the LPP site, I see material of greater relevance.
“Towards advanced-fuel fusion: Electron, ion energy >100keV in dense plasma.”

Two major claims are made immediately in the paper with no practical evidence to back them up. It states HB11 is “extremely attractive energy source,” and it will “allow direct conversion of charged particle energy to electric power.” The tests conducted were limited to deuterium and helium mixes. There is no data provided on anything else. BH3 gas could have provided data regarding the practicality of the proposal but that was not done. No method for direct electrical conversion was provided. If it has existed or been tested the reader is not informed of the results.


“demonstrated electron and ion energies over 100 keV”
If 100keV electrons were produced -a corresponding a tripling of the maximum acceleration potential used, 35kV- then due to the conservation of momentum the deuterons would have an average energy of:
p^2=2mE [this is at classical energies]
E proton = E electron (m electron / m proton) [or ~5.44x10^-4 : 1]


The independent measurement of the plasmoid density is critical in developing models and understanding the underlying processes. Of the three mentioned I would estimate CO2 laser scattering to be the most objective, unless it was made using the same experimental apparatus some analysis and comparison if its results should have been shown. The documentation on this point fails to include a paper title either. (If someone would find this paper I could see a comparison. See: 12) Personally “heavy ion fusion”, and “x-ray line intensities” do not seem independent enough.

The paper states that previous experiments have not provided any conclusive evidence of the radiation generation and plasma temperature. So naturally one would expect this paper to provide that evidence without relying on their obviously insufficient evidence.

Let me reiterate the experimental setup. Two concentric metal cylinders accelerate electrons from the outer cylinder to strike the inner one. The potential between the cylinders was initially at the moment of discharge at 30 or 35 kV (with no distinction made between the two) powered by a capacitor.
[It would be useful to show the discharge potential plotted against the results.]

With regard to the gamma/xray detection, they attempted to filter the results using lead and beryllium. The arrangement of these filters is not explained. I would need to see some evidence like a comparison of in vacuum test where presumably no plasma signal would be produced to standardize the shielding effectiveness.

Comparing the intensity of x-rays measured by a parallel array of detectors with different thickness copper filters derived the electron energy. The ratio of intensities was somehow converted to a measurement of energy and it resulted in a 20% calibration uncertainty in their result.
It mentions having to compensate for the Bremsstrahlung radiation, this should only be seen if one is looking at the electrode, because it requires a massive surface for the electrons kinetic energy to be transferred into photons and will not occur with free particles. This may be a further indication that the shielding placement was ineffective.
If there was a better uniformity between tests (because of electrode wear) then one could directly measure the energies of X-rays produced perhaps by varying the thickness of x-ray stopping layers over a much broader range and at least having some lower energy X-ray calibration tests. (still wondering how many attempts were made in total and their results)

Despite all of these problems, or rather nuisances, if the x-ray energies talked about in the paper, and neutron production occurred, then the device must be reaching incredible temperatures through current heating. But small size and small time frame, 10ns, for the reaction to occur wont be as beneficial to the desired break even point.

One old test result from the TFTR of Princeton generated 6MW with a confinement time of 1s and a plasma density of 10^20 particles per cubic meter. The Lawson criterion for sustained fusion referenced in the paper was designed to give an estimate of the break-even point. Its first parameter, density, is supposed to generally proportional to the power it takes to heat the plasma, the second, confinement time, is how long the high temperature and pressure conditions are maintained. The paper muddles the matter by throwing temperature into the mix as a direct proportion. Theses a sweet sport and it’s a function of the two. Super density and time but little temperature, and you have a brown dwarf. Super temperature but low density and you have a run of the mill particle accelerator. Neither is very good at producing practical fusion. (it even seems to state that “density-confinement time product is important” then do the calculation with energy, ie temperature, thrown directly in there.)
The last two paragraphs sum up the researchers expectations for improving the results. (And perhaps reasons for more funding.) The proton boron fusion is brought in to create “a large gap between ion and electron temperature” because of alpha particles preferentially heating boron atoms faster than electrons. One has to keep in mind that there will be at least five times as many electrons as boron atoms. We would need some cross section data. (Again I would really like a time for paper reference.)

“Our results show that neutron yield increases rapidly with increased sheath run-down velocity” Where’s a graph of that? (I care much more about neutron intensities than anything else, you could justify your funding right there.) [And yes neutron production is not a good feature for a production device, because it wastes energy and is a health hazard.]

It goes on to say “higher fill pressure”, well sure, you may get higher heat dissipation rather than better confinement, “small anode radius”, your just tempting greater wear and less surface area for electron current and plasma formation. (or is that a +)

As of the time of this paper publication the results I see the most economical solution to go back to the Texas AM device with improvements to the initial experimental setup before anything else is built.

The doubt is the remote possibility of these endothermic reactions producing neutrons.
e- + d -> p + n + e- (like photoneutron generation requires 2.2 MeV)
e- + p -> n + ve (.783 MeV)

Note no gamma was observed during the He shots. Suggests gamma production is nuclear and not temperature.
p + d -> 3He + gamma (unlikely considering the lack of protons in the experiment)
By what mechanism are they produced?

-------

Finally to throw defense systems into the mix is horrible. They are looking for reliable proven technology no matter the cost. The amount of money spent on it is sickening. Their doing a good job playing up the speed of intercept, which is important, but reliability and practical application are seemingly nonexistent. Their trying to aim for the same funding as kinetic approaches that is the wrong angle to go for; if only they would just find a different distinction. The funding comities may think that if the other works why bother continuing to fund it.

 

Dear Nano,

Thank you for your thought out points of concern, I've sent them on to Clint Seward and Eric Lerner. I hope they will respond to your satisfaction.

After sending these posts to 22 different science and physics forums yours is the most thoughtful and reasoned.

Again, thanks so much

Erich

 

So basically what I'm getting out of all this is that we're not even close to achieving practical fusion energy? Would saying that we're about two or three decades away sound like a realistic time frame?

 

To Weed: Eps is talking years not decades.

To Nano:Here's Clint Sewards and Eric Lerner's response to your post:

"Hi Erich,

I read the notes you referred to and there is one note from Nanotec that refers to EPS. I believe he has read our white paper incorrectly. He claims we require 100% interaction rate, which we do not. I can not further comment since he has not shown where he got this statement, but ask you and he to re-read it.

Nanotec note: After looking at the EPS white paper I immediately see a glaring hole, which is their maximum interaction energy value. This number can never be reached so I will not believe evidence based upon it. I could accept that three years ago at the time of the review maybe they did not have their models correctly flushed out, but if they do have a practical model now then it must provide some useful results.A hundred percent fusion rate will NEVER happen. So maybe their marketing department went wild and threw out these figures to impress us.

This statement is incorrect and we do not require 100% interaction.

Clint "



And Eric Lerner's:


"Dear Erich,

I am short on time right now as we are re-vamping our web site and preparing for the next round at NIST. I'd be happy to go over the comments with you by phone if you call, which takes me a lot shorter than writing. Your commentator is not very familiar with plasma physics, as evidenced by his ignoranceof the fact that Brem. radiation is routinely produced by hot plasmas, not just by beam-target interaction.
Eric"


I have not called Eric yet,I want to consolidate questions from other sources,but will soon.