An Industry Emerges

An Industry Emerges

“We’re here to put a dent in the universe, otherwise why else even be here?” – Steve Jobs

     ITER is expensive.  Nobody knows how much.  It could be 16, 21 or 50 billion dollars [9-12].  It is not going to be commercial at that price.  Moreover, ITER will never make energy.  That was fine, when it was the only path to fusion power.  But that is not true anymore.

    NIF has failed.  It cannot get ignition [17].  Even if it could, would it be commercial?  The machine is complex.  It is expensive and inefficient.  Heaps of taxpayer dollars were spent on this.  The public should be furious.   Someone needs to be held accountable. 

    These efforts have stalled.  Their future looks dim.  But, we cannot wait fifty years for fusion power.  Climate change will not allow us. Young fusioneers realize this.  They are not joining ITER or NIF.  They are joining a new breed of companies.  Together, they are building an entirely new fusion industry.  Their collective hope, is to put a dent in the universe. 


      This work examines alternative fusion as a fledgling industry.  Fusion and climate news from July to November 2014 is summarized.  An argument for alternatives over the laser or tokamak family of concepts is made.  Alternative fusion includes: polywells, fusors, dense plasma focus, beam fusion, field reversed configurations and cusp confinement.  It is estimated that this industry has ~450 million invested and engages ~330 people across ~12 organizations.  These companies suffer from the classic first-mover problems: training talent, attracting capital and technical hurdles.  Designs are compared using their neutron rates, shot time and energy extraction methods.  The implications of the energy balance on conduction loss, radiation and efficiency is mentioned.  Four new principals for fusion power are presented.  These are: avoiding a thermalized ion cloud, electric heating, cusp confinement and direct conversion.  The post ends with a discussion of the implications and potential of these changes.


     In July, both Science and Nature reported on alternative fusion [31, 32].  This was a major milestone.  It put a new spotlight on researchers who had been laboring away in obscurity.  Natures’ article was more critical - covering Tri Alpha, Helion and General Fusion.  The Science work was longer and upbeat.  It detailed General Fusion, focus fusion, Tri Alpha and the polywell.  The author, Daniel Clery was just publishing a great new book on fusion [38].  

       In August, Phoenix Nuclear Labs announced it could churn out 100 billion neutrons a second, for an entire day [34, 35].  Wow.  That is 24 hours of constant fusion.  This hints at what is possible when you use an electric field to heat ions to fusion conditions.   Also in August, the US  government finally moved into alternative fusion.  ARPA-E started a program named alpha.  The budget of 30 million should fund about ten projects [13].  ARPA-E sees only two paths to fusion power.  Laser fusion makes a high density plasma, while tokamaks makes a low density plasma.  They want a third, middle range, high repetition option.  By middle densities, they mean 1E18 to 1E23 ions per cubic centimeter [14].   Dr. Bussards’ polywell got there (1E19) but Dr. Park’s did not (1E16) [18, 3].  This request says much more about the governments’ antiquated thinking.  First, these new devices do not all pulse.  Fusors can run continuously.  Secondly, many schemes have no need for ‘drivers’ and ‘targets’.  General Fusion and Tri Alpha are notable exceptions [19,20].   But, the polywell, the dynamak and Lockheeds’ designs do not work this way [21, 1, 27, 28].    

       In September, a fifth paper was published by the University of Sydney [29].  Their old papers have been covered on this blog [39 - 45].  Their new polywell has better electron injectors and is ten times stronger.  The team also built a new capacitance probe.  Validating this probe was hard.  This was used to measure the voltage in the polywell, under different conditions.  This work is illustrated below.

The coil made electrons that were attracted to the positive rings.  As they approached the magnetic field overpowered, drawing the electrons into the trap.  The probe measured the amount trapped.  The team found that trapping increased when more electrons were emitted.  It also got stronger as the magnetic field rose.  This is not surprising.  Of the two variables, emission was more powerful.  Trapping was connected to these variables with some rough math.  You should read the paper yourself [39].  

      In October, Lockheed Martin revealed its fusion technology.  This got international press [46 - 52].  Lockheed failed to give any data.  They opted for a dreamy video and three patents [27, 28, 52].  This is unacceptable.   We are building the case for fusion power.  This is a long term effort.  It can only be sustained by a community.  A community of teachers, engineers, investors, policy makers, academics and businessmen.  Everyone has a role here.  The community needs to hear the newest data, presented in a clear manner.   When this system breaks down – bad things happen.  Lockheed should have done a paper before issuing a press release. Finally, the 16th IEC conference was held at University of Wisconsin Madison.  The polywell had a big impact this year.  Dr. Park gave a polywell keynote and Dr. Santarius discussed his modeling efforts [53].  Devlin Baker premiered his excellent modeling code and George Miley discussed the IEC family of technologies.  Dr. Hirsch predicted that ITER funding would fall and IEC research could rise in its’ place [53].  It was a good conference.

      As 2014 came to an end, the IPCC issued its’ most damning climate change report to date [138].  The atmosphere and oceans have already warmed.  The snow and ice packs have already melted.  The sea has already risen.  Carbon dioxide has reached levels not seen in the last 800,000 years [137].  Ban Ki-moons’ words were unequivocal: “Science has spoken. Time is not on our side.  Leaders must act” [136].   Will leaders act?  They have failed so far.  Money seems to be the main obstacle.  If you do not think money runs the world: ask someone with a job.  Burning things for energy, is just so damn cheap.  Fusion power could all change that.  We are here to try for that solution.  We must act, even if our leaders fail to do so.  We are running out of time.   

“If you can’t fly, then run, if you can’t run, then walk, if you can’t walk, then crawl, but by all means keep moving” – Martin Luther King


Old ideas are ending:

        Traditionally, fusion has focused on any idea in the laser or tokamak family.  Laser fusion means inertial confinement fusion.  This includes: direct drive or indirect drive, fast ignition or magneto-inertial fusion [54].  Basically, any time you are squashing stuff with a laser.  This set of ideas has received over 12 billion in US funding in its’ fifty year lifespan [36].  Currently, it has a poor outlook.  The flagship machine, NIF, was costly and complex.  It was also a colossal failure [55].  The other family of ideas revolves around the tokamak.  The tokamak family covers: spheromaks, the levitating dipole and all the stellerator designs [56, 57].  Basically anytime plasma is raced around in a loop.  Over 177 tokamaks have been built, designed or operated.  The newest version, ITER is very expensive, complex and behind schedule [64].  Things are not going well.  

      Even attempts to commercialize the tokamak are not succeeding.   Tokamak Energy is a British startup doing just that.  It was founded in 2009 [98].  But, after spending 10 million, the company is little more than a diversion for retired scientists.   The staffs’ average age is over 60 [58 - 63].  They speculate about using the Tokamak as a neutron source.  If this is their business model - they are going to get killed.  Phoenix Nuclear Labs has already commercialized a smaller, cheaper and better neutron source.  Their technology is based on fusors a much simpler path to fusion plasmas [35].  Bottom line: tokamaks and lasers are on their way out.

    This is a historic.  For decades, our focus has been on just “getting there”.  Merely getting fusion.  This meant holding a hotter plasma with a higher density for longer.  This is known in the field, as the triple product (density, temperature and confinement time).  People ran roughshod over price, scalability, efficiency or size.  No one cared: they built massive, expensive and complex machines.  But today; we have arrived.  We can do fusion - continuously - for thousands of hours, and for thousands of dollars [35, 22].  We are done with “getting there”.  The next step is commercialization.

An alternative fusion industry:

    Since 2000, a dozen fusion companies have been founded [73-105].  Together, they represent a fledgling new industry.  The alternative fusion industry.  What does this industry look like?  I estimate that as of December 2014, it has roughly 450 million in total investment [73-105].  It also engages roughly 330 people [73-105].  These people are spread across a dozen organizations.  A summary of some of the relevant groups is given below [73-105].

These firms are expanding several root technologies simultaneously.  These are: polywells, fusors, dense plasma focus, beam fusion, field reversed configurations and cusp confinement.  There is plenty of overlap.  For example: general fusion has a hybrid between a field reversed configuration and a laser fusion style implosion [33].  Because it is so new - the industry suffers the classic “first-mover” disadvantages.  They have to find a way to get funding, train talent and solve incredible technical problems.  The groups have plenty in common: determined founders, failures and funding issues.  The collective goal is fusion energy - but there are differing views on how get there.

Paths to fusion power:

         All these concepts work with plasma.  This is a soup of electrons and ions.  The goal for every idea is to make the ions collide and fuse.  This makes neutrons.  The more neutrons, the more fusion.  Amateurs can make a million a second [22, 23].  Phoenix Nuclear Labs can do 100 billion while JET can do at least 16 quadrillion (the world record) [24, 65].  Next, you must sustain fusion.  This “shot time” is driven by containment.  Focus fusion argues that all they need is a nanosecond for net power, while General Fusion is aiming for hundreds of microseconds and Tri Alpha Energy says it can do 5 milliseconds [30, 31, 66, 67].  But who knows?  Mr. Griengers’ homemade fusor can fuse for hours at room temperature [22, 23].  Could the polywell give the same behavior?  Dr. Park has suggested it; especially if the plasma can be heated steadily [1]. 

          Once you contain the hot plasma, you must extract energy.  Not every team has planned this far.  General Fusion wants to absorb everything in a liquid blanket, heat it and make steam [29].  Focus fusion has suggested a traveling wave tube [30].  Polywellers have pushed for a form of direct conversion.  These last two ideas are shown below.

Here is how these ideas work: exhaust from fusion is a mixture of neutrals, ions, electrons and gas.  It is a mess.  It comes off in all directions.  It comes off at many speeds.  First, we must beat this stuff into submission.  Ideally, we only want a beam with one kind of charge.  The traveling wave tube uses a positive beam.  Ions fly down the center.  They pull electrons from the surrounding wire.  This makes a flowing current.  Direct conversion puts metal in the way of the beam [127 - 129].  Ions are absorbed – holding one side of a circuit, steadily positive.  You can draw a current from this.  Several teams have discussed integrating these extraction methods directly into their design [20, 122].  But, though we can do relatively cheap fusion, for hours [22, 23, 35] no commercial team can steadily draw a current from fusion.  Not yet.

The Energy Balance:

           What comes after energy collection?  Optimization.  That will revolve around the energy balance.  Any hot plasma concept must grapple with this equation.

John Lawson gave us this equation in 1957 [108].  It is the energy balance for a machine fusing with a hot plasma.  We have always merely tried to boost the first term: the fusion rate.  But we may finally be changing focus.  The next term is conduction.  This is the loss of mass.  Anytime a plasma touches a surface, it is lost.  The newest designs (polywells, Lockheeds’ machine, the dynomak, Phoenix Nuclear Labs’ device) all appreciate this.  They all have smooth surfaces - and some cases, no surfaces at all.  Both PNL and the polywell have vast spaces in the center [1, 24].  Space without a solid wall limits conduction loss.  After this comes the radiation term.  If a particle ever changes speed, it loses some energy as light [109].  This happens everywhere inside the cloud, and for many reasons.  Radiation is a function of cloud composition, temperature, density, size and structure.  Fusioneers are just starting to tune their plasmas to beat this problem.  For example: the polywell works best with tons of cold electrons, and a few hot ions [25].

Can this distribution be done?  We do not know – mixing and instabilities will fight against it [130].  But, it is possible to make plasmas which do not have the common bell curve [25, 110].  Tuning plasma clouds to beat radiation loss is going to be important.  Finally, there is machine efficiency.  Most fusion machines are very inefficient.  NIF is one example.  It takes 200 units of electrical energy to make one unit of laser energy [72].  New methods for energy capture will go a long way to improve overall efficiency.  Realize: if the energy balance was correct; the fusor could make net power. 

New Design Principals:

            Wither they know it or not, these groups are embracing a new set of design principals.  I call these the new principals of fusion energy.  They that have emerged in the past 10 years - outside tokamaks and laser fusion worlds. 

1.  The Blob is Death.  In 1994, Todd Rider assessed the polywell theoretically and came to conclusion it would fail [5, 106].  This post can walk you through his work [107].  Rider did something even more profound, that few appreciate.  He told us what not to do.  He showed that if you merely have a hot plasma blob, you cannot expect net power.  A “blob” is a hot, thermalized, uniform, unstructured cloud of ions.  The blob is death.  Anything you can do to get away from the blob, helps.  This includes squeezing the plasma (ICF, General Fusion, Sandias’ Z-machine) spinning the plasma (Tri Alpha Energy, ITER, JET, Helion), flattening the plasma (focus fusion, theta pinch) or structuring the plasma (polywell, Lockheed).  The further from the blob, the better. 

2.  Electric heating. You can accelerate ions down a negative voltage, heating them to fusion temperatures [131].  Today, this is the cheapest and simplest method for heating to fusion.  This is arguably far better than options like radiofrequency heating, neutral beam injection or magnetic oscillation.  Radiofrequency heating works in the same way that a microwave heats food [21, 27, 28].  Beam injection starts by heating the gas; by temporary charging it and racing it down a voltage [132].  The beam is then neutralized and shot into the reactor.  Magnetic oscillation (as I understand it) varies the field around a plasma.  Lockheed is notably following this last path [21, 27, 28].

3.  Cusp confinement. You can hold a plasma with a sharply bent magnetic field [1, 133-135].  This has been long predicted – but never seen until Parks’ work [1].  There are many unknowns, but if it is successful - it may lead to the worlds’ best plasma trap.  In these systems, the plasma “pushes back” the containing field.  This makes to a magnetic free region with an electric current flowing on its’ skin [133-135].  Theoretically, this structure is stable; but who knows?    There are a myriad of instabilities which could destroy it [130].  We may know much more when Lockheed publishes what it has learned on their system [21, 27, 28]. 

4.  Direct conversion.  Direct conversion has been discussed for decades.  The trend of incorporating it directly into designs is what is exciting. This was tested on the TMX fusion device and it achieved a 48% efficiency [128]. 


Certainly, fusion is changing.  We need to stop seeing it as a hodge-podge of technological novelties and start seeing it as a fledgling industry.  An industry where innovation is happening much faster than in “big science”.  An industry which must work around price.  Where will all this take us?  No one knows.  My hope is to a cheap, scalable, clean, carbon-free energy source for all mankind.  My hope is we can summon effort needed to build this tool and the wisdom to use it wisely.  

Summary of Funding By Concepts [73-105]

Work Cited:

1.    Park, Jaeyoung, Nicholas A. Krall, and Paul E. Sieck. "High Energy Electron Confinement in a Magnetic Cusp Configuration." In Submission (2014): 1-12. Http:// Web. 13 June 2014.
2.    Park, Jaeyoung, Sieck, Paul, Private email communication “Question about B-Field analysis” August 17th 2014.
3.    Park, Jaeyoung. "Measurement of Enhanced Cusp Confinement at High Beta Measurement of Enhanced Cusp Confinement at High Beta." Lecture at UC Irvine. California, Irvine. July 2014. Lecture.
4.    Duncan, Mark, and Robert Bussard. Should Google Go Nuclear? (Summary). N.d. MS. Should Google Go Nuclear? Mark Duncan, 24 Dec. 2008. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.
5.    Rider, Todd H. "A General Critique of Inertial-electrostatic Confinement Fusion Systems." Physics of Plasmas 6.2 (1995): 1853-872. Print.
6.    “Should Google Go Nuclear?" R.W. Bussard. Google Videos. 9 Nov. 2006. 27 September 2014.
7.    “Taking a Stab at Simulation.” The Polywell Blog, 6 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.
8.    Plate, Phil. "Hey, What’s 10 Billion Tons of CO2 between Friends?" Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 20 Aug. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
9.    "ITER - the Way to New Energy." ITER Fast Facts. ITER, 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
10.    Cho, Adrian. "Cost Skyrockets for United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project." Science Insider. Science/AAAS, 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
11.    "Currency Calculator Converter Euro to US Dollar." Currency Calculator (Euro, US Dollar). X-Rates, 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
12.    "Fusion Furor." Nature Publishing Group, 23 July 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
13.    Clery, Dan. "U.S. Energy Agency Jumps into Fusion Funding." Science Insider. AAAS Science, 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
15.    Norris, Guy. "Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details." Aviation Week. Aviation Week, 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
16.    Lockheed Martin "Lockheed Martin: Compact Fusion Research & Development." YouTube. YouTube, 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
17.    BRUMFIEL, GEOFF. "Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion." Http:// National Public Radio, 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
18.    Bussard, Robert W. "The Advent of Clean Nuclear Fusion: Superperformance Space Power and Propulsion." 57th International Astronautical Congress (2006). Web.
19.    Laberge, Michel. "Experimental Results for an Acoustic Driver for MTF." Journal of Fusion Energy 28.2 (2009): 179-82. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.
20.    Rostoker, Norman. Controlled Fusion in a Field Reversed Configuration and Direct Energy Conversion. The Regents of The University of California, University Of Florida Research Foundation, assignee. Patent US6611106 B2. 26 Aug. 2003. Print.
21.    McGuire, Thomas. Heating Plasma for Fusion Power Using Magnetic Field Oscillations. Baker Botts LLP, assignee. Issued: 4/2/14, Patent 14/243,447. N.d. Print.
22.    Carl Grienger, Private email.  “Quick Questions.”  October 18th 2014.
23.    Greninger, Carl. "Fusion in a Basement." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
24.    Pfeiffer, Greg. "Particle Accelerator | Neutron Generator" Phoenix Nuclear Labs, Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
25.    "The Physical Basis for the Polywell – 17. Critical Density: Probably Not A way to Reduce X-ray losses” The Polywell Blog. BlogSpot, 30 July 2012. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
26.    Sutherland. The Dynomak: An Advanced Spheromak Reactor Concept with Imposed-dynamo Current Drive and Next-generation Nuclear Power Technologies. Fusion Engineering and Design, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
27.    McGuire, Thomas. Magnetic Field Plasma Confinement for Compact Fusion Power. US Patent Application, assignee. Patent 14/242,999. 2 Apr. 2014. Print.
28.    McGuire, Thomas. Magnetic Field Plasma Confinement for Compact Fusion Power. World Intellectual Property Organization, assignee. Patent WO 2014/165641 A1. 9 Oct. 2014. Print.
29.    Laberge, Michel. "How Synchronized Hammer Strikes Could Generate Nuclear Fusion." Http:// TED, Mar. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
30.    Lerner, Eric. "Focus Fusion Business Plan Version 6." Focus Fusion Business Plan Version 6. Integrity Research Institute, 2003. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
31.    Waldrop, Mitchell. "Plasma Physics: The Fusion Upstarts." Nature Publishing Group, 23 July 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
32.    Clery, Dan. "Fusion's Restless Pioneers." Fusion's Restless Pioneers. Science/AAAS, 25 July 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
33.    "Overview of General Fusion." Michael Delage interview. Sept. 2014.
34.    Pfeiffer, Greg. "High Yield Neutron Generator." Phoenix Nuclear Labs. N.P., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
35.    PNL Accelerator Achieves Key Reliability Milestone - Phoenix Nuclear Labs." Phoenix Nuclear Labs PNL Accelerator Achieves Key Reliability Milestone Comments. N.P., 8 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
36.    "US Fusion Budget." US Fusion Budget. Fusion Power Associates, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
37.    Nick. "Conventional Tokamaks Comparison Table." All the Worlds Tokamaks. 23 Jan. 2011. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. .
38.    Clery, Daniel. A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy. New York: Overlook, 2014. Print.
39.    Cornish, Scott. "The Dependence of Potential Well Formation on the Magnetic Field Strength and Electron Injection Current in a Polywell Device." The Dependence of Potential Well Formation on the Magnetic Field Strength and Electron Injection Current in a Polywell Device. Physics of Plasma, 08 Sept. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
40.    "A Biased Probe Analysis of Potential Well Formation in an Electron Only, Low Beta Polywell Magnetic Field." A Biased Probe Analysis of Potential Well Formation in an Electron Only, Low Beta Polywell Magnetic Field. Physics of Plasma, 09 May 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
41.    Carr, Matthew, and David Gummersall. "Low Beta Confinement in a Polywell Modeled with Conventional Point Cusp Theories." Physics of Plasmas 18.112501 (2011): n. page. Print
42.    Carr, Matthew, and Joe Khachan. "The Dependence of the Virtual Cathode in a Polywell™ on the Coil Current and Background Gas Pressure." Physics of Plasmas 17.5 (2010). American Institute of Physics, 24 May 2010. Web.
43.    Smith, John. "Modeling Some Real Results." The Polywell Blog. The Polywell Blog, 05 July 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
44.    Smith, John. "The Fierce Urgency of Now." The Polywell Blog. BlogSpot, 26 July 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
45.    Smith, John. "Taking a Stab at Simulation." The Polywell Blog. The Polywell Blog, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
46.    Corneliuussen, Steven. "Lockheed Martin Claims to be "restarting the Atomic Age" with a Compact Fusion Reactor." Physics Today. American Institute of Physics, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.
47.    Palmer, Katie. "So Lockheed Martin Says It's Made a Big Advance in Nuclear Fusion... | WIRED." Conde Nast Digital, 14 Oct. 0014. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.
48.    Dywer, Gwyenne. "Fusion Power: Goodbye Fossil Fuels?" Fusion Power: Goodbye Fossil Fuels? Inside Belleville, 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
49.    Tucker, Bill. "Chasing the Holy Grail of Compact Fusion." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
50.    "A Big Bet on Small." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
51.    "Lockheed Announces Major Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion." RT USA. Russia Today, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
52.    S, Eric. "Compact Fusion Research & Development." YouTube. Lockheed Martin, 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
53.    Santarious, John. Tentative Agenda: 2014 US-Japan Workshop at UW-Madison. Madison, Wisconsin: U of Wisconsin-Madison, 2014. Print.
54.    Ronald, Davidson. An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2013. Print. Ser. 1.
55.    Broad, William J. "So Far Unfruitful, Fusion Project Faces a Frugal Congress." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
56.    "Stellarator." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
57.    Kesner, Jay. "Levitated Dipole Experiment." Levitated Dipole Experiment. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
58.    Hunt, Julian. "Full CV." Julian Hunt - Full CV. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
59.    "Tokamak Staff Listing." (n.d.): n. page Tokamak Energy. Tokamak Energy. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
60.    "George D. W. Smith." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
61.    Larbalestier, David. "Graduate Thesis." Applied Superconductivity Center. Applied Superconductivity Center, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
62.    Windridge, Melanie. "Home." Research Councils UK. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
63.    Buxton, Peter. "Department of Physics." Postdoctoral Researchers. University of York, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014. 
64.    Giacomelli, L. "Tomographic Analysis of Neutron and Gamma Pulse Shape Distributions from Liquid Scintillation Detectors at JET." Preprints and Conference Papers Service: EFD-P (13)37. EFDA-JET, 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
65.    Giacomelli, L., S. Conroy, and F. Belli. "Neutron Emission Profiles and Energy Spectra Measurements at JET." (2013): n. pag. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
66.    An Acoustically Driven Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor
67.    Suponitsky, Victoria, Sandra Barsky, and Aaron Froese. "Richtmyer–Meshkov Instability of a Liquid–gas Interface Driven by a Cylindrical Imploding Pressure Wave." Cornell University. Arxiv, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 May 2014. .
68.    Rose, David S. "How to Pitch to a VC." TED Foundation, Mar. 2007. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
69.    "What is the cost of JET - EUROfusion." EURO Fusion. EURO Fusion, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
70.    "What Is the Cost in 1983 Dollars." Measuring Worth. Measuring Worth, 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.
71.    "Euro to Dollars, 1983." Historical Exchange Rates. N.p., 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
72.    Moses, Edward I. "The National Ignition Facility: Exploring ICF Burning Plasmas In the Laboratory." Presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington DC. 18 Feb. 2005. Slide 29.  Lecture.
73.    Sengbusch, Evan. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Makes First Commercial Neutron Generator Sale Closes Financing Round Comments." Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Phoenix Nuclear Labs, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
74.    "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Raises $590,500 from Angel Investors." Http:// Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel, 10 Dec. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
75.    Boulton, Guy. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Wins $3 Million Army Contract." Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel, 6 Oct. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
76.    Sengbusch, Evan. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Makes Its First Commercial Sale - Phoenix Nuclear Labs." Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Phoenix Nuclear Labs, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
77.    Klein, Alex. "Beam Fusion." Technology (FPGeneration). Beam Fusion, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2013.
78.    "How Many People Worked at FPGeneration." Message to Alex Klien. 5 Dec. 2014. E-mail.
79.    Newman, Judy. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Gets 2 Army Contracts: wall street journal" Wisconsin State Journal, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
80.    Gallaher, Kathleen. "Madison Groups Win Funding for Isotope Work." Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel, 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
81.    LaMonica, Martin. "How to Fund an Atomic Startup | Xconomy." Xconomy RSS. Xconomy RSS, 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
82.    Chang, Kenneth. "Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
83.    Lerner, Eric. "FOCUS FUSION: EmPOWERtheWORLD." Indiegogo. Indiegogo, 5 July 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
84.    Jafarov, Isayev. "Iran to Build Nuclear Fusion Producing Plant." Trend. Trend Iran, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
85.    Laberge, Michel. "General Fusion Closes First Series A Funding with Support from Sustainable Development Technology Canada." General Fusion Completes US$9M Series a Funding (2009): n. page. Http:// General Fusion, 4 Aug. 2009. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
86.    Laberge, Michel. "General Fusion." Crunch Base. Crunch Base, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
87.    Bartel, Mario. "Where Are They Now? General Fusion Gets Closer to the Sun - Burnaby News Leader." Burnaby News Leader. Burnaby News Leader, 2 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
88.    "Tri Alpha Energy." Crunch Base. Tri Alpha Energy, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
89.    Simmons, Gerald, and Dale Prouty. "Tri Alpha Energy - Notice of Sale of Securities - $646,710." US Security and Exchange Commission, 23 Feb. 2001. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
90.    "How Much Total Investment Has LXXP Received?" Focus Fusion Society Forum. N.P., 22 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
91.    Frisbee, Robert. "THE NASA-JPL ADVANCED PROPULS1ON PROGRAM." (1997) page. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
92.    Du Bois, Dennis. "Congratulations to Cleantech Open 2013 Regional Finalists - Energy Priorities." Energy Priorities. Energy Priorities, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
93.    Slough, John. "FISO: MSNW LLC and "the First Realistic Approach to Fusion-based Propulsion"" Space for All. Http://, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
94.    Slough, John. "MSNW, LLC." NASA SBIR & STTR Program Homepage. NASA SBIR Program, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
95.    Slough, John. "NIAC 2012 Phase I & Phase II Awards Announcement." NASA NIAC. NASA, 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .
96.    Westenhaus, Brian. "Funding Continues for Bussards’ Fusion Reactor." Funding Continues for Bussards’ Fusion Reactor. New Energy and Fuel, 23 Aug. 2007. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
97.    Henry, Margaret. "Tokamak Solutions Secures Funding to Develop Powerful Neutron Source." UK Business Angels Association. UK Business Angels, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
98.    Sykes, Alan. "Tokamak Solutions." Crunch Base. Tokamak Solutions, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
99.    "Tokamak Solutions UK Ltd." Http:// PSEPS, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .
100.    Research Councils UK. "Development of a Small Tokamak with High Temperature Superconducting Magnets for Sale as a Fusion Research Instrument." Tokamak Solutions UK Ltd, Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
101.    Sykes, Alan. "Tokamak Energy – About Us." Tokamak Solutions. Tokamak Solutions, 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
102.    "Technology Strategy Board." Technology Strategy Board. Grants over 25K, April 2014, Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .
103.    Lerner, Eric. "Funding." Focus Fusion. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
104.    Rambonnet, Martijn. "Introduction." Fusor Forum., 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
105.    Syed, Asher, and Micheal Ten. "Quora." What Are the Best Companies Right Now in Fusion Energy? Quora, 10 July 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
106.    “Fundamental limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium” Todd Rider, Thesis, MIT, June 1995.
107.    "The Polywell Blog." : Explaining the Counter Argument (Part II). N.P., 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .
108.    Lawson, J. D. "Some Criteria for a Power Producing Thermonuclear Reactor." Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section B 70.1 (1957): 6-10. Print.
109.    J. Larmor, "On a dynamical theory of the electric and luminiferous medium", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 190, (1897) pp. 205–300 (Third and last in a series of papers with the same name).
110.    Moreau, M. "Non-thermal Plasma Technologies: New Tools for Bio-decontamination." Science Direct. Biotechnology Advances, 16 Aug. 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.  

111.    Tuszewski, M. "Field Reversed Configurations." Nuclear Fusion 28.11 (1988): 2033-092.
112.  Green, T. "Evidence for the Containment of a Hot, Dense Plasma in a Theta Pinch." Physical Review Letters 5.7 (1960): 297-300.
113. Kolb, A., C. Dobbie, and H. Griem. "Field Mixing and Associated Neutron Production in a Plasma." Physical Review Letters 3.1 (1959): 5-7.
114. Tuszewski, M., A. Smirnov, M. C. Thompson, T. Akhmetov, A. Ivanov, R. Voskoboynikov, D. Barnes, M. W. Binderbauer, R. Brown, D. Q. Bui, R. Clary, K. D. Conroy, B. H. Deng, S. A. Dettrick, J. D. Douglass, E. Garate, F. J. Glass, H. Gota, H.y. Guo, D. Gupta, S. Gupta, J. S. Kinley, K. Knapp, S. Korepanov, A. Longman, M. Hollins, X. L. Li, Y. Luo, R. Mendoza, Y. Mok, A. Necas, S. Primavera, E. Ruskov, L. Schmitz, J. H. Schroeder, L. Sevier, A. Sibley, Y. Song, X. Sun, E. Trask, A. D. Van Drie, J. K. Walters, M. D. Wyman, and The Tae Team. "A New High Performance Field Reversed Configuration Operating Regime in the C-2 Device." Physics of Plasmas 19.5 (2012): 056108.
115.    Pietrzyk, Z. a., G. c. Vlases, R. d. Brooks, K. d. Hahn, and R. Raman. "Initial Results from the Coaxial Slow Source FRC Device." Nuclear Fusion 27.9 (1987): 1478-488. Web.
116.    Goldenbaum, G., J. Irby, Y. Chong, and G. Hart. "Formation of a Spheromak Plasma Configuration." Physical Review Letters 44.6 (1980): 393-96. Web.
117.    Nogi, Yasuyuki, Hiroaki Ogura, Yukio Osanai, Katsunori Saito, Shouichi Shiina, and Hisamitsu Yoshimura. "Spheromak Formation by Theta Pinch." Journal of the Physics Society Japan 49.2 (1980): 710-16. Web.
118.    Jones, W. B. "Generation and Motion of Plasmoids in a Magnetic Field with Mirrors." Physics of Fluids 11.7 (1968): 1550. Web
119.    Slough, John. "MOQUI Simulation of Two FRCs Colliding." YouTube. MSNW LLC, 27 Mar. 2013. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.
120.    Gerhardt, S. P., E. Belova, M. Inomoto, M. Yamada, H. Ji, Y. Ren, and A. Kuritsyn. "Equilibrium and Stability Studies of Oblate Field-reversed Configurations in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment." Physics of Plasmas 13.11 (2006): 112508. Web.
121.    Jardin, S. C., and M. Yamada. "Status and Promising Directions for Field Reversed Configuration Research." Conference Summary. Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 8-9 June 1999. Web. 12 Jan. 2015.
122.    Slough, John, and David Kirtley. "Nuclear Propulsion through Direct Conversion of Fusion Energy: The Fusion Driven Rocket." NIAC Spring Symposium (2012): Pasadena, CA. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
123.    Steinhauer, Loren C. "Review of Field-reversed Configurations." Physics of Plasmas 18.7 (2011): 070501. Web.
124.    Santarius, John, private conversation, September 2014.
125.    "Tri Alpha Energy, Inc." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.
126.    "The Fusion Driven Rocket - Fall 2012 NAIC." YouTube. YouTube, 17 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.
127.    Moir, R., and William Barr. "Venetian-Blind Direct Energy Converter for Fusion Reactors." Nuclear Fusion 13 (1973): 35-46. Print.
128.    Barr, William, and R. Moir. "Experimental Results from a Beam Direct Converter at 100 KeV." Journal of Fusion Energy 2.2 (1982): 131-43. Print.
129.    Rosenbluth, Marshall. "Generic Issues for Direct Conversion of Fusion Energy from Alternative Fuels." Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 36 (1994): 1255-268. Print.
130.    "List of Plasma Instabilities." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.
131.    Robert L. Hirsch, "Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of Ionized Fusion Gases", Journal of Applied Physics, v. 38, no. 7, October 1967
132.    "ITER - the Way to New Energy." ITER. Peter Ginter. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.
133.    Berkowitz, J., K. o. Friedrichs, H. Goertzel, H. Grad, J. Killeen, and E. Rubin. "Cusped Geometries." Journal of Nuclear Energy (1954) 7.3-4 (1958): 292-93. Web. 16 June 2014.
134.    Haines, M. g. "Plasma Containment in Cusp-shaped Magnetic Fields." Nuclear Fusion 17.4 (1977): 811-58. Web. 18 June 2014.
135.    Berkowitz, J., H. Grad, and H. Rubin. "Magnetohydrodynamic Stability." Proceedings of Second UN International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (1958): P/376. Web. 18 June 2014

136.  "IPCC: Rapid Carbon Emission Cuts Vital to Stop Severe Impact of Climate Change." Http:// The Guardian, 2 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. 
137.  "‘Leaders Must Act,’ Urges Ban, as New UN Report Warns Climate Change May Soon Be ‘irreversible’." UN News Centre. The United Nations, 2 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.
138.  "Concluding Instalment of the Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change Threatens Irreversible and Dangerous Impacts, but Options Exist to Limit Its Effects." IPCC Press Release (n.d.): n. pag. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.


  1. Last October I posted a round up of some recent fusion research to my blog:

    This is an exciting time for fusion with so many projects underway.

    Best wishes,


  2. I am grateful to read your Blog and have the advantage of your hard efforts and careful scholarship.
    I would however like to ask you about your comments on NIF which you included in your post.

    You said - "NIF has failed. It cannot get ignition. Even if it could, would it be commercial? The machine is complex. It is expensive and inefficient. Heaps of taxpayer dollars were spent on this. The public should be furious. Someone needs to be held accountable."

    While I think that all fusion advocates were disappointed that the National Ignition Campaign, which began in 2006 and ended on Sept. 30th, 2012 did not result in ignition and break even energy, I think it is a mischaracterization to suggest that NIF is a failure.

    Since the Sept. 30th end of the National Ignition Campaign, NIF has rather quietly achieve significant progress.

    By the end of the National Ignition Campaign on Sept. 30th, 2012, NIF had attained a maximum yield of about 2 kJ on its best D-T shot to that date.

    August 13, 2013, NIF produced a yield of nearly 3 × 10^15 neutrons, or about 8,000 joules of neutron energy—about three times the previous record neutron yield for cryogenic implosions.

    On November 19, 2013, a high-foot laser pulse experiment produced an even higher neutron yield of 6.1 x 10^15 for 17.3 kilojoules of energy.

    On January 20, 2014, an experiment delivered 9.3 * 10^15 neutrons or 26 kilojoules of energy

    On March 4, 2014, an experiment essentially duplicated the Jan. 20th, 2014 results, yielding 9.6 x 10^15 neutrons or 27 kilojoules.

    Since the end of the National Ignition Campaign on September 2013, the fusion yield in high-foot experiments has systematically increased by more than a factor of 10 over previous approaches, largely because the implosion is better controlled.

    I would like to suggest that NIF is making respectable quiet progress since the end of the NIC and that it is unhelpful to claim that "NIF is a failure" when plasma alpha heating and the rate of progress at NIF appears to be accelerating.

    Ignition Experiments at NIF -

    History of yields from D-T targets at NIF -

    1. Mr. Steinhouse,

      It is good to hear that NIF has improved compression. That should help trap those hot alphas and improve their Integrated Threshold Factor Experimental [1]. If they get a value of one they get ignition - and as of 2012 they had only reached a tenth of that [1, 2]. That is their colossal failure.

      But take a step back, this focus on fusion rates gets back to my arguments in this post. A focus on fusion rate over efficiency, scalability, cost, complexity and energy loss rates. Who cares about fusion rates, when the machine costs $3.5 billion and took 9 years to build? Does that sound commercially viable to you?

      NIF is not on a path to commercial viability and moreover – by its very existence - it strangles off resources for all other efforts. ITER has the same effect. Funding agencies, the public and academics do not realize there are any other legitimate approaches out there. The researchers follow the funding and they get into tracks (and ways of thinking) that perpetuate the big machines. The fact that a 13 year old can get fusion in his basement for a couple thousand bucks - could not be any starker of a contrast. NIF is hurting more than helping.

      If I could rewind the clock on 50 years of fusion research, here is what I would have done differently. First, I would have kept fusion funding more egalitarian; funding many more ideas and for much longer. Ideas like POPS, field reverse configurations, pinches, magnetic mirrors, polywells and fusors would each have had centers of excellences – either attached to the national labs or universities. This is critical for growing talent and knowledge; in a diverse set of fusion fields. Second, I would not try to keep as much information, so secretive. This is a classic example of short term gains hurting long term progress. This community is closes off for some short term prize, but over time an information desert grows. This hurts everyone, because bad information fills in the gaps. As an example: there are ~200 peer reviewed papers on cusp confinement, but the topic is not on Wikipedia. There is a huge body of good work on field reverse configurations and none of it is on the web. Finally, I would have wished away the LENR/cold fusion fiasco. That episode did so much damage to this community.

      Climate change does not care about any of this maneuvering. That is the bottom line. That is the real tragedy of all of this.

      1. The United States of America. The Department of Energy. The Office of Science. Final Review of the National Ignition Campaign. By Steven E. Koonin.
      2. Clery, Daniel. "Ignition Facility Misses Goal, Ponders New Course." Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 1 Apr. 2013.

  3. John,
    Excellent blog on advances in fusion research. You can add one more to the mix. Electron Power Systems -

    They are creating tori (plural torus) of high density hydrogen in a lattice structure. Bash two together and you have fusion. They have links to papers on their web site.

    1. Dave,

      I am very skeptical. I will read the peer review papers and see what data they present. I do not accept patented information. In fusion, every time someone says (proprietary) I see it as (BullSh!!)

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts