We need lots of energy to make all that science happen, and that's why we have to drill in the article.

The caribou will just have to live with it.

As for the article:  Allow me to retort.

A) The preface about China using oil... yes, it's going to happen.  We caused it, we're going to have to deal with it.

B)The part about us harming the planet... is without merit....junk science brought to you by the ozone hole/landfills filling up/nuclear power bad/save the whale/vegetarian/PETA crowd.

1)Nanotech..... A great buzzword that was supposed to change the world over night, but instead just makes what we have work a little better.  And that's all it'll do.... it'll just slowly improve what we already have.   And that's what we need.  It does for technology what BASF does for chemicals.  We're a lot of years off from little nano-bots, but I don't think that point's up for debate.

1a... he didn't label it as another number.... weird.)Therminonics....... will enable the whole world to use solar power.  Those PV cells..... make a LOT of heat.... suck the heat off the back side, and make more electricity.  POW... 60% efficient solar cells.  Heat's easy to store..... heat in the day = electricity at night.  This technology is quite a ways off too, but seems to hold a lot of promise.   However, it's over promise is very over sold.  Heat moving from one point to another only can theoretically yield a certain amount of energy, no matter what technology is used.  I'll subscribe to it as a "world changer" when the first commercial power plant that uses that technology has been in operation for over 10,000 hours.

2)Biotechnology.....  Will change the world if they'll let us.  Biology is more powerful than any man-made machine.

The bleeding left liberals will keep us from fully exploiting this.    These are the same people that want to feed the children, but won't allow biotech grain in to the food supply.

Start genetically modifying something to do something really important like drought resistant rice, and they bitch loud and clear...... do something *REALLY COOL* but not as important  (like a bean plant that grows hollow beans made out of a biodegradable plastic polymer with drops of crude oil in the middle of them) and you'll feel their full hippie rath.... with all their hemp cloths, and biodegradable protest signs.....

Remember... to them it's not about making the world *better* it's about making the world in to something that *THEY* want.  (better for THEM and their hippie friends)  In most cases it's about turning back the clock on progress.  Preferably to a time just between indoor plumbing and the "drug war."  We should all live in communal farming tribes.  Basically rural China, but with lots of pot and  outdoor concerts.    Damn hippies!  These are the same people that thought/think that communism is a good idea.  ( It's only killed 100 million people.... lets give it another chance!)

Energy is the hippie's enemy, because energy means forward progress.  Hippies are actually very narrow minded and conservative people, and forward progress messes with their idea of what the world should be.... basically the little utopia in their mind.   Energy moves civilizations forward.  Pretty much in this order:   Solar-Bio, People, slaves, beasts of burden, wood, hydro, coal, (steam power) petroleum, splitting atoms, some direct wind/direct solar,  Bio-engineered-solar, fusing atoms...  Energy allows civilizations to move forward, and the planet to feed billions. Energy = life.  Really.

"Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

1.74x10^10 boe/year, or
2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or
1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

mi^2
Area, Modality
========
1000 biomass
300 wind
60 solar
0.3 nuclear

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?

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

Now ya know how big the problem is!!

I found this technology page on the Suncone, Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator  http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.htmland
The Claim of a 50 MW array producing at $.046/KWhr is the best I've seen for solar at this level of development, and the PV solar roofing technology they are acquiring looks solid too.

And This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts   http://www.electronpowersystems.com/  . I sent it to Clint Seward and here's his reply:

 "There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.  
 It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event.  (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this).   I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.  
 The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

 "There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.  
 It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event.  (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this).   I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.  
 The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."

Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

He's referring to a power point presentation at the 05 AIAA conference on alternative forms of fusion which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion . 1.) Prometheus II , 2.) Field Revered Configuration, and 3.) Focus Fusion http://www.focusfusion.org/about.html

It's by Vincent Page a technology officer at GE.
Email me and I'll send it to anyone interested.

from : Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075
| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ -;* http://www.neoteric-research.org/
| http://www.prometheus2.net/%A0%A0%A0------ mailtomk@plasmak.com

"Erich,
Thanks for your update,

A friend of mine, Bruce Pittman, who is a member of the AIAA, recently sent me a copy of the attached paper by Vincent Page of GE. Please keep in mind that I have never communicated with Vincent, but he found our concept to have the highest probability of success for achieving a commercial fusion power plant of any that he examined.

A program manager at DARPA submitted a POM for sizeable funding of extended research on our concept, both here and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, it didn't stay above this year's cut line for the budget funding priorities.

BTW, I agree with Cox that the analysis done by Chen does not fit the criteria of the EST plasmoid that Clint produces. The poloidal component of current in his toroid dominates his topology, which means that the corresponding toroidal field, which is only produced within the torus, also dominates. Consequently, the outward pressure on the EST current shell must be balanced by some external inward force. The toroidal component of current is weak and cannot produce the external poloidal magnetic pressure that would bring the toroid into stable equilibrium. If the plasmoid lasts for .6 seconds without change of shape or brightness level, then it must be continuously formed with his electron beam source. Otherwise, the plasma would decompose within microseconds.

By comparison, our PLASMAK magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) have negligible change in shape, size or luminosity over a period of one or two hundred milliseconds after the initial tens of microseconds impulse that forms them has ceased. That may not sound like much of a lifetime, but compare that to the decomposition of Lawrence Livermore's spheromak plasma within 60 microseconds. The other interesting thing is that we have recently produced PMKs of 40 cm diameter (under work sponsored by DOD), and with the installation of our new, additional fast rise capacitors, we expect to obtain lifetimes of seconds.

Cheers,
Paul "

Clint Seward just sent this update of their progress at   http://www.electronpowersystems.com/  , a very nice time frame, if Clint can find the funding:

"Hi All,

           The following is the annual update to the EPS progress toward a clean energy solution to replace fossil fuels.  Below is a brief summary of where we are.  Attached is an updated copy of the manuscript describing our project.

It remains clear that we have made and patented a new discovery in physics: a plasma toroid the remains stable without external magnetic fields.  This is so far beyond the experience and understanding of plasma scientists today that, to say the least, we are having trouble convincing reviewers.   We have completed the design of an improved neutron tube.  This is what we have to build to demonstrate a clean energy source, and I plan to do the first steps in 2006, with a first demo in 2007 if all goes well.  

 Clint Seward, EPS  

 Chapter 27. Colliding EST Spheromak Neutron Tube

 In 2005 we completed a detailed design of the apparatus we need for the first demonstration.  This is possible because of two things.  First, we understand the EST is really just a special case of a spheromak, a plasma ring that is being studied by others, except that the EST is high density spheromak, which will overcome the limitations of spheromaks for the clean energy application.  Secondly, we can adapt the EST Spheromak to the well known neutron tube, by applying all of the pieces we have developed over the years.    

We plan to do this by making a new, high energy neutron tube.  There are several thousand neutron tubes in use in the US today that safely collide hydrogen ions to produce neutrons, which in turn are used for explosives detection, industrial process control, and medical testing.  Figure 1 shows the neutron tube schematically.  An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to 110 kV, then directed to hit the target (also deuterium), a process which produces neutrons (see reference below).  

Figure 1: A One Meter Long Neutron Tube Schematic

Neutron tubes today are limited by the low density of the hydrogen ions.  We plan to overcome this limitation by adapting the EST Spheromak to increase the ion density to produce a high output neutron tube.  The EST Spheromak is patented jointly by EPS Inc. and MIT scientists who also have published papers confirming the physics and data.  Since each part of the development has been done by others or by EPS, we anticipate that this will be an engineering project to produce a proof of concept lab demo in two years, with modest funding.

The major application is a high output neutron tube for clean energy applications.  The high output neutron tube can be thought of as a heat generator to replace a furnace and/or generate electricity.  Fuel costs for energy will 20:1 less than fossil fuel costs.  Ultimately we plan to use the hydrogen/boron process to produce clean energy without neutrons.

            The development is a scale up of work completed to date.  We make EST Spheromaks in the lab and accelerate them.  Each step has been shown to work individually, and we plan to adapt them to produce a lab demo in two years.  Milestones:

            1. Defining Patent: (Note:  co-inventors are MIT scientists).                          2000

            2. Spheromak acceleration:                                                                             2001

            3. Spheromak capture in a magnetic trap:                                                        2006

            4. Spheromak collision for a lab proof of concept demonstration:                  2007

            5. First neutron tube commercial prototype:                                                    2008

            6. First commercial product:                                                                           2009

 Our best estimate at this time (December 2005) is that we will need 24 months and approximately $500,000 to demonstrate a colliding EST fusion process.  

 Reference:  Chichester, D. L., Simpson, and J. D. "Compact accelerator neutron generators."  The Industrial Physicist.  American Institute of Physics.  http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html.  December, 2003."

Also:

 I am glad to see the interest in Vincent Page's presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion in other forums, (Below Is an excerpt).  Vincent Page is a technology officer at GE!!

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:

"for larger plant sizes
Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale
Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:
Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)
Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%
Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%

Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities
* Research & development is also needed in
the area of computing power.
* Many fusion researchers of necessity still
use MHD theory to validate their designs.
* MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism
and perfect conductance.
* These qualities may not always exist in the
real world, particularly during continuous operation.
* More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory
such as the Vlasov equations.

• ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.
  
• Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the
  

I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

You may have seen my efforts with my "Manhattan Project" article, which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will soon run an article on these companies efforts toward aneutronic fusion.

About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.
My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.
I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.

I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.
http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm

This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.
My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.

Thanks for any help