Dense Plasma Fusion Breakthrough

Fusion energy breakthrough!



This is not a scam. I've followed Lerner for a good few years, he's a brilliant scientist. His new paper is very promising, he's achieved in just a few years (with £500,000) what took the mainstream fusion industry nearly decades to achieve (with £1,000,000,000+!). Traditional nuclear fusion has never been fruitful, and its taken near billions to fund them and they have never attained a fusion reactor that can stay dense enough for a long enough period of time to get past the Lawson criterion en.wikipedia.org...].

Lerner states that the science is no real issue, the issue is the funding and the polotics of the energy industry at this point.

Lerner based his theory for the dense plasma focus based on his alternative electromagnetic plasma model for pulsars, which was a small part of plasma cosmology. Despite being lambasted by many scientists for proposing alternative plasma models when they prefer their simple gravitational inferences, he stayed strong and has gone on to develop this. All gravity is was the idea that if the mass of earth is known (cavendish, michelson-morley) then everything else's mass is worked out in relation to that via newtonian mechanics (and made mathematically elegant via relativity).

This is a one minute demonstration of how it works in simple terms, by confining electric currents into finer and finer filaments till they start to produce fusion.
www.youtube.com...


Science literature:
www.springerlink.com...

Media Sources:
www.smartplanet.com...
www.theregister.co.uk...

Plasma cosmology papers:
www.photonmatrix.com...

Does this mean we can build a lightsaber?

Cool find dude I hope it is real (and he doesn't get bumped off by Petrol companies)

I bet there is particle weapons applications here as well, the next ten years are going to be very very interesting, all comes down to the pigs that pull the strings, will they relinquish their idiocy that the rest of us are "The scum of the earth", and will they drop their debt slave masters mentality.
We all know how the game works now, and, that their are better ways for us all to live, the first step to that would be a release from energy poverty.
When it costs you 130$-70£ to fill an average family car in the UK, and with so much reliance upon them, there is no better way to keep you focused on just surviving day to day.
Well F*** That.

fusion energy would be safer, with no radioactive waste. and it would be cheaper to produce and maintain, but im not sure if the energy companies would pass them savings on to the consumer as we all know that the world we live in is all about the money

reply to post by DaveNorris

fusion energy would be safer, with no radioactive waste.

This is incorrect. Any material exposed to the neutron emissions produced by fusion would be transmuted to radioactive isotopes. While gamma radiation and other forms of high-energy emissions will actually transmute elements (often into unstable and 'unnatural' isotopes that rapidly decay).

Basically - your reactor cores would still have to be replaced as they would literally decay from exposure to radiation. While it wouldn't be in the same quantity as nuclear fission - you could put all the nuclear fission waste into a building the size of a football field if you stacked the waste 12 feet high. That's all nuclear fission waste - ever.

Waste is not a legitimate concern in the nuclear power industry. Concerns over it are so greatly exaggerated that it is an affront to human claims of sentience and intelligence.

and it would be cheaper to produce and maintain,

Not necessarily. Fission is an almost entirely exothermic process - as is the burning of coal, natural gas, and other fuels. Most of the power generated can be fed directly into the distribution grid.

Fusion, on the other hand, requires a lot of feed-back to support its continued operation. Superconductors need to be supplied with massive amounts of power to provide the plasma containment fields. Those same superconductors must be cooled to single-digit kelvin temperatures while being in proximity to plasmas that are hotter than the surface of the sun.

Which leads back to the main problems we are experiencing with fusion. It's not creating a fusion reaction - it's creating a fusion reaction whereby we can harness enough power to continue the reaction -and- create spare power on the side.

Once we hit the "zero point" (depending upon what circles you are in - this 'zero point' is considered the point at which a fusion reactor generates enough power to continue its own free-standing fusion process) - it will probably be another decade or two before fusion actually reaches a point where it can even begin to compete in terms of power generation with fission and even fossil sources of fuel.

We are struggling just to get a fusion process to break even. Getting a fusion process to break even and generate megawatt-hours per square kilometer of facility grounds (which is the case with current nuclear and fossil fuels)... may take a while.

It's no use to build a multi-billion dollar fusion power plant if it only ends up producing as much power as a few million-dollar windmills (which, even at 30% nominal capacity rating, would still be cheaper to set up, even though you're having to build for four times the expected power draw to ensure reliability during off-peak generation).

but im not sure if the energy companies would pass them savings on to the consumer as we all know that the world we live in is all about the money

It really depends. If laws mandate their construction; then you will end up paying higher prices for your utilities for the first five to ten years after construction of any new power facility is constructed. There are no competing options (though those laws are likely to set a cap on the price of electric utilities - if the price is substantially lower than existing utility costs - then government subsidies have to be implemented to ensure construction and continued economic viability... which will end up having to come about through increased taxes or the issuing of bonds... or inflation of fiat currency if funding is from the federal level).

Basically - even with fission reactors (a proven technology that is getting cheaper and safer by the decade) - you are looking at considerable investments in construction (largely because most of the reactor must be custom built on-site... a target of mini-reactor developers who look to create reactors that can be largely assembled in a factory and delivered to smaller construction sites) and time.

It would take decades and trillions of dollars to replace our current infrastructure with nuclear power over the next 50 years (and it would take that long). Fusion - if it were to be solved and power competitive with Fission - would take just as long and would likely be stifled by China's dominance of the rare-earth materials; and be several times as expensive.

Which is why most realistic 'energy policies' put forward look to replace coal with natural gas plants in the interim with long-term movement into nuclear power (over about 50 years). Fusion will likely enter the playing field within the next 20 to 70 years. Depends upon what lucky breaks are made, where, and how companion technologies in manufacturing and materials science evolve.

Apparently they have made another breakthrough recently in relation to the density of the reaction ... not published yet only rumours but will keep up dated soon as its in a science journal.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by DaveNorris

 

fusion energy would be safer, with no radioactive waste.

This is incorrect. Any material exposed to the neutron emissions produced by fusion would be transmuted to radioactive isotopes. While gamma radiation and other forms of high-energy emissions will actually transmute elements (often into unstable and 'unnatural' isotopes that rapidly decay).

Basically - your reactor cores would still have to be replaced as they would literally decay from exposure to radiation. While it wouldn't be in the same quantity as nuclear fission - you could put all the nuclear fission waste into a building the size of a football field if you stacked the waste 12 feet high. That's all nuclear fission waste - ever.

Waste is not a legitimate concern in the nuclear power industry. Concerns over it are so greatly exaggerated that it is an affront to human claims of sentience and intelligence.

That's not entirely true. This waste, as properly canistered and processed and put in a long term repository, is fine.

The actual problem that scares people is that a running fission reactor generates a pretty substantial quantity of intensely radioactive waste after being turned on for a few years but still in the reactor or close pools, and there are some disaster scenarios which result in enormous economic loss and some potentially serious health problems.

In this aspect a fusion reactor is much safer still.

I agree that fission reactors are getting much safer, but they don't seem to be getting much cheaper, and outside of China, the new safe ones aren't getting built.

a reply to: ZeuZZ

A crowdfunding effort is now underway. They are raising money for a new beryllium cathode.

It is worth mentioning that this process is aneutronic using a boron deuterium fuel that produce no neutrons and hence produce no radioactive waste.

lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com...