Focus Fusion video

 

7/18/25:

 

There's another report out, and they're still making progress. It's a slow slog through all the problems and difficulties. If it was easy, anybody could do it.

 

Investing is easy, even a caveman can do it. Doesn't cost much, and the rewards could be revolutionary. It's a good way to put your money where your mouth is, if you believe in climate change. Even if you don't, as I most certainly DO NOT, it is still a good investment play. This thing will be worth some serious money if they're successful. Maybe the so-called greenie folks have something against making money.

I own a share.  It split so I really own two.  See, I made money already.

 

6/29/25:

Focus Fusion Update

Disclosure:  I own (1) share. 

Aneutronic fusion would be a game-changer.

Quote:

Imagine the world in which power is cheap, pollution is gone and people are enjoying affordable housing, locally produced foods, and cheap healthcare. With fusion energy, everything can change for the better – in a heartbeat.

Focus Fusion is doing more fundraising

 

This is a shoe-string type operation. Small timers can invest here. It is like a lottery ticket. The thing to remember about lottery tickets is that they payoff. They have to.

But it is a hit or miss proposition. If it doesn't hit, you lose it all. Therefore, a small investment of funds that could be lost without wanting to jump off a high building--- may be all that is needed. Therefore, I have been invested in exactly one share of this "investment" that I call a lottery ticket. If you can spare it, and you can afford it, one share might be available for as low as $100. Incidentally, most of my posts on Focus Fusion is on the other blog. It goes here now because it is a speculation. That's where I try to divide between what could be, and what actually is.

And invest in LPPFusion! https://t.co/c8sCdNunBk

— LPPFusion (@LPPFusion) March 18, 2025

Graphene capacitors here and now

This tech is better than the tech described in the AI dialogues. I don't know if these are available for installation in autos, but they are indeed being used in other applications. However, not as I envisioned it. To put together a package that could work the way I envision could take awhile to figure out and write it up. This short ditty will have to do for now.

 

Would power beaming work on Mars?

How would you get all of your power on Mars? One thing that you could do would be to use power beaming.

 

tdavl commented on Popular Mechanics: "This is real. I’ve seen Reach wireless power a drone. Stayed up for 6 hours." https://t.co/w5hNhrnHYG --- It would seem that power beaming could work on Mars. It would be a way to power a base on Mars.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 26, 2025

Fission-fusion hybrid reactor

A new thorium reactor concept?

Speculation alert:  It is a bad habit of mine to comment upon things I don't know beans about.  Hence the speculation alert.

On with my comment...

This seems unnecessary since the Thorium will transmute into an isotope of fissionable uranium.  So why do you need the fusion reaction?  It introduces a level of complexity that isn't needed.

The problem with fusion is that it uses more energy than it produces.  It will produce neutrons, and it can be used to transmute the Thorium, but the Thorium can do that by itself.  What problem does this solve?

It is a gas-cooled reaction, which is different from the molten-salt designs that are being developed.  ( I haven't kept up with these developments lately, so I don't know when a prototype will be available.  The goal was to have one in this decade.)

If a gas-cooled reactor is somehow better than a molten-salt one, then maybe that is the advantage.  But the article doesn't go into that.  It did mention that it is sub-critical, but so what?  Criticality is not what causes it to become dangerous in a molten-salt design.  The problem is with solid-fueled reactors that use water for cooling.  Molten-salt reactors solve that problem.

Thorium based molten-salt reactors have already had proof-of-concept testing way back in the seventies.  These tests did not use Thorium per se, but since Thorium only needs a neutron source to get it started, this is absolutely feasible.  Politics stopped this concept, it wasn't technical.

This elaborate design might be feasible, but the design has only been tested in computer simulations.  If it is feasible and can escape the politicians, then it could maybe work.

Focus fusion progress

Wefunder Campaign Extended to Mar. 1, X-rays Show: FF-2B's Best Shot is All Hot, Images Catch FF-2B in Action, New Video Series on Crisis in Cosmology

LPPFusion Report January 22, 2020 Summary: Wefunder Campaign Extended to March 1 X-rays Show: FF-2B's Best Shot is All Hot! Images Catch FF-2B in Action New Video Series on Crisis in Cosmology Wefunder Campaign Extended to March 1 We've just completed our third successful financial audit. Because of this we can now extend our Wefunder campaign through March 1st. Without this audit, SEC regulations limited us to ending the campaign 120 days after our fiscal year ended, which is Jan 31st. We are happy that we can stretch this campaign a little bit longer. So far, we've raised $395,000 from 165 investors. We need to raise only $5,000 more to reach our minimum goal of $400,000, but we hope to go way beyond this in our final month. Thanks to everyone who has invested or is considering doing so. X-rays Show: FF-2B's Best Shot is All Hot! The latest data from LPPFusion's lab shows that all the plasma in our tiny fusion plasmoid is hot, not just some of it. Hot in this case means 600 million degrees K, sixty times hotter than the center of the sun. This new result shows that our results are being fairly compared with those of other fusion approaches and that we really do have the hottest confined plasma in the fusion race. LPPFusion published in 2017 results that showed our device FF-1 had achieved the hottest confined ion energy of any fusion device—energy equivalent to a temperature of 2.8 billion K. However, some critics questioned if all the ions were this hot, or if there was a hidden background of cold plasma. In this alternative, a small number of hot ions in our plasmoid were colliding with a large number of cold ions to produce the fusion reactions we observed. So, critics argued, our record did not really reflect what was going on inside the plasmoid that produced the fusion reactions. (These critiques were never published, but were conveyed to us in conversations.) The new X-ray data that we analyzed this week rules out this cold-plasma idea. X-rays are emitted when hot electrons collide with any ions—hot or cold. So, the quantity of X-rays emitted measures the total number of ions (charged atoms) present in the plasmoid. At the exact same time, we are measuring the number of neutrons produced by fusion reactions, which are a measure of the number of hot ions. By measuring the ratio of neutrons to X-rays (and correcting for temperature and other factors) we can measure the ratio of the number of hot ions to the number of total ions. When we did this for our best shot so far this year, shot 1 of October 21, we found that while the neutrons showed 0.125 J (watt-sec) of fusion energy was released, only 0.035 J of X-rays energy was emitted. (See the graph—the big peak on the right is from the neutrons and the small peaks on the left are from the X-rays. The third peak from the left was produced when the fusion reactions took place. The horizontal axis is time in microseconds. Neutrons travel much slower than X-rays, so arrive at our instrument later.) Based on this ratio, we calculated that the number of hot ions is the same as the number of total ions, with a 15% error margin. So, at least for this shot, there's no room for cold plasma—it is all hot. We'll soon be doing the same analysis for all shots we take. Images Catch FF-2B in Action These new images from inside our Focus-Fusion-2B experimental device show the development of the filaments of current (bright thin parallel lines) in the early stages of each pulse. The filaments are a crucial step in compressing and heating the plasma to get fusion reactions. The images, taken with our ICCD camera using an exposure time of only 5 ns (billionths of a second) show the current sheath moving down the anode (towards upper right) as viewed between the cathode vanes (diagonal black bands). The top-to-bottom size of the images is 2.5 cm. They show the development of the sheath from 230-570 ns after the current starts flowing. So, the events are happening about 6 million times faster than you see them in this GIF. The key positive features of the images are that the filaments (running from lower left towards upper right) are evenly spaced and thin—only 200 microns in radius. Those characteristics should lead to a dense plasmoid and rapid fusion burn. But the images also show the challenge that we currently face—the front (right) edge of the sheath is not a single, sharp line, but two separated fronts. This is caused, we know, by the oscillation in current that produces an early small pulse of current, followed by a bigger one. In the region between the fronts the filaments are twisted and disorganized. This leads to poor compression and less fusion. However, we are working hard to eliminate the oscillations so there is a single front and the filaments will be neatly organized all the way to the front of the sheath. In the past three months, we have achieved significant progress in greatly reducing the oscillations, but have not yet reached the threshold for a new increase in yield. These images are produced from 10 separate, but very similar, shots. The flickers in brightness are caused by changes in camera filters and sensitivity—the real brightness is steadily increasing during the time covered as the current flowing through the sheath increases.

Focus Fusion Report

lppfusion.com LPPFusion Report November 7, 2019 Summary: Wefunder Campaign Enters Home Stretch Light Elements Weigh in on Crisis in Cosmology Song Contest Winners! Fred Van Roessel 1937-2019 Note: This report is on LPPFusion developments outside our lab work. A separate report on lab development will follow next week. Wefunder Campaign Enters Home Stretch As we have reported to all investors and supporters, LPPFusion is again crowdfunding on the Wefunder website. Through the Wefunder site, anyone can now buy LPPFusion shares. We started this second campaign on Nov. 15, 2019 and now we are in the last two weeks, with the campaign ending Jan. 31, 2020. So far, we've raised $336,000 from 133 investors. We need to raise $64,000 more to reach our minimum goal of $400,000. We're confident we can do that with the help of new and old investors. This is your chance to help decide if and when fusion energy becomes reality. Humanity needs fusion to move forward. So far, LPPFusion has made the most progress towards achieving net energy for the least resources. With only $7 million invested, we have published peer-reviewed results thousands of times better than any other private fusion company. Our ratio of energy out to energy in is only 1/3 less than that achieved by JET, the most successful government fusion program—and they got that record back in 1997. Your investment, a minimum of $1,000 for 8 shares, will make more of a difference with LPPFusion than with any other fusion project. Our company valuation right now is only $38 million, so you will get the best bargain in fusion. For non-accredited investors, the Wefunder campaign is at present the only way to invest in LPPFusion. We realize that not everyone who wants to support our fusion effort can afford a $1,000 investment. For those who want to contribute, we will be initiating a major donation drive, with no minimum contribution, in February. We'll be announcing the details shortly. Our goal remains to raise $1 million from all sources as soon as possible. Share Tweet Forward to Friend Read Later Share Light Elements Weigh in on Crisis in Cosmology A bedrock prediction of the Big Bang theory has been contradicted by abundant observations, according to a new study by LPPFusion's Chief Scientist Eric Lerner which he presented Jan. 8 at the American Astronomical Society Meeting in Honolulu, deepening the already widely-discussed crisis in cosmology. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang. For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy. Li vs Fe abundance for the 26 known dwarf stars with Fe/H<10 ppb. These are the oldest stars, with the least contamination from earlier stars. Dark blue dots are measured values, red dots are Li upper limits and light blue dots are Li and Fe upper limits. The BBN predicted range of values is shown by the red solid lines. Equally important, the study shows that the right amounts of these light elements have been predicted by an alternative explanation, which hypothesizes that these elements were produced by stars in the earliest stages of the evolution of galaxies. This alternative explanation, which Lerner calls the Galactic Origin of Light Elements or GOLE hypothesis, derives from theoretical expectations that the first generation of stars to form in a galaxy are intermediate-mass stars that are from 4 to 12 times as massive as the sun. These stars burn hydrogen to helium in tens to a couple of hundred million years, much faster than our sun's burn rate of ten billion years. The helium then disperses in powerful stellar winds during the late stages of these stars' lifetimes. Cosmic rays from these early stars, colliding at high energy with other nuclei, produce deuterium and lithium. Lerner's new work was covered in a number of news reports including the online magazine Inverse, Futurism, Courthouse News Service, and Space Daily. The science website "See the Pattern" posted Dec. 21 a new hour-long illustrated interview with Lerner discussing the relationship between the companies' fusion research efforts and his research in cosmology. The physical theories that guide the development of the plasma focus device for fusion experiments arose from studies by Lerner and others of quasars, the giant explosions deep in space. The tiny plasmoids in the device, where the fusion reactions take place, are in essence ultra-scaled-down versions of quasars. So, instead of a "star in a bottle" our fusion device is more a "quasar in a bottle". Lerner's research in fusion and in cosmology have been closely linked for decades. In addition to the quasar work, Lerner performed calculations about the origin of the large-scale structure of the universe, based on the properties of plasma filamentation—an instability that generates tornadoes of electric current and magnetic fields on all scales. On the cosmology side, these calculations, together with observations of giant superclusters of galaxies, showed that the largest structures must have taken hundreds of billions of years to form, far longer than the time available since the hypothetical Big Bang, so this was strong evidence against the Big Bang theory. On the fusion side, quantitative understanding of these filaments, which form on a tiny scale in the plasma focus device, allowed solid predictions of how the device would work best. Many of the conflicts between Big Bang theory and observations that are emphasized in the new study have been known for some time, especially the "lithium problem". But most cosmologists have dismissed them as "anomalies" in an otherwise sound Big Bang "concordance cosmology" theory. On the contrary, Lerner contends that the light elements results join the better-known Hubble-constant and closed-universe problems in a long list of contradictions between Big Bang theory and observations. "The Big Bang should have resulted in the annihilation of matter and antimatter, leaving a surviving density of matter that would be a hundred billion times less than that observed," Lerner points out. "To avoid that outcome, Big Bang theory requires an asymmetry of matter and antimatter with consequences, such as the decay of the proton, which have been contradicted by extensive experiments. In addition, an expanding universe should lead to declines in the surface brightness of distant galaxies—but those have not been observed either, as I and my colleagues have shown in published papers. The list of contradictions goes on and on. For cosmology to advance, the basic hypothesis of the Big Bang has to be abandoned. The real crisis in cosmology is that the Big Bang never happened." Technical background on the new study and on the other problems with Big Bang theory is available here. Share Tweet Forward to Friend Read Later Share Fusion Song Winners! The votes, all 63 of them, are in and we have our winners in our Fusion Song Parody contest. First Prize, with 24 votes to "Fusion for Everyone" written by 2-time contest winner and still champion, Gregory N. Ranky! Second Prize, with 16 votes, to "Age of Beryllium" written by Chief Scientist Eric Lerner. Third Prize, with 9 votes, to "Cone with US" by Matei Victor. Rest of the votes, 14 total, to the other contestants: "Plasmoid Song" and "Focus Fusion Anthem" by Lerner and "FoFu, FoFu" by Mike Muller. Congratulations to all! Next step: Can anyone who sings well and someone who plays an instrument get together and record one of the winners in a video? Might be fun and get us a bit of notice!

If carbon dioxide is captured, then what?

Comment:

5:32 pm:

I've posted on this in connection to molten-salt reactors.  You might get fuel from a process derived from captured carbon dioxide, but it will cost $25 a gallon.  In other words, not economical, except in war zones.

Unless this process brings that price down, it won't make economic sense.

12:04 pm:

The obvious question is what do you do with the gas?  Any gas can escape, so "sequestration" isn't of much value. 

According to the article, it requires 1 gigajoule of electricity to capture 1 ton of the gas.  But the processing isn't finished with the mere capture.  You have to do something with it.  From there, it might be processed back into fuels, but at a cost.  If it takes 1 gigajoule, that's about 278 kilowatt-hours per ton.

1 gigajoule power per ton captured: MIT engineers made a cheaper and more efficient device to trap carbon dioxide https://t.co/fqr7jE1DX5 via @thenextweb

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 2, 2019

Aneutronic fusion news, progress being made

Comment:

Still a long ways to go, but progress is being made.  A very significant milestone will require energy production to increase by a factor of about 80.

Aneutronic Fusion News: Oscillations Down, Fusion Yield Up: https://t.co/h9iKxah3M2

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 8, 2019

Hot diggetty, you might say.

Comment:


Betcha they used the hell out of slave labor, and they probably used the hell out of concrete.  These two factors were well within their their capabilities.  It isn't "high tech", but modern day people may think of it as such.  

The Romans knew about geothermal power and in the renaissance architects utilized the same sources to build great villas with natural air conditioning. Here is the Villa Trento Carli in Italy, built in 1645, never warmer than 17 to 23 degrees c even in the hottest of summers. pic.twitter.com/xD2Njy7gai

— Wrath Of Gnon (@wrathofgnon) July 22, 2019

Focus Fusion making progress

Previous experiments used tungsten.  The latest will use beryllium.  The beryllium electrode is seen in this pic:

A pic looking up at the assembled device.  The beryllium cathode is in the center.

How long until breakeven?  It all depends on how successful they are.  It appears to be on track, so the answers should be coming soon.  "Soon" meaning in the next year or two.

LPPFusion Report July 3, 2019: https://t.co/LGH7iL2b5F

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) July 4, 2019

Terrestrial Energy news

Comment:

Impressive.

If their production meets their public-relations efforts, these guys will be in the lead for commercializing molten-salt reactor technology.

Cheaper than coal, and for you carbon-free believers, it is carbon-free.

.@TerrestrialMSR is named as 1 of 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2019, curated by @BillGateshttps://t.co/LUPIczIGrs@NukeInnovation@AdvancedNuclear

— Terrestrial Energy (@TerrestrialMSR) February 27, 2019

Thorcon news

Comment:

This appears to be crawling along much slower than I would have thought.

According to the article, the tech part is not the problem.  The problem is getting it funded.

Quant investor Gary Bergstrom is backing a plan to mass-produce small nuclear reactors that can be delivered by sea to smaller countries in need of power https://t.co/AoSa2hk2c6 via @technology

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 18, 2019

Thorium news

So, what's been happening with the project to bring Thorium energy to the world?

There doesn't appear to be as much going on as before.  The Thorium Energy Alliance hasn't had a meeting in over a year.  There isn't one planned for this year, or if there is, it isn't mentioned on their website.

Kirk Sorensen still has his Flibe Energy company going.  Flibe is working on something fairly recently, but the results haven't been discussed on Sorensen's Twitter feed.  There is this one tidbit:

Our @PNNLab #NuclearEnergy team is partnering with Flibe Energy on advanced reactor R&D funded by @Energy. https://t.co/NTb9ocmpZa Our research looks at using nitrogen trifluoride to remove uranium from a #MoltenSalt fuel mixture. pic.twitter.com/t1Uj5C5g0o

— Energy at PNNL (@energyPNNL) July 18, 2018

There is something on Flibe Energy on its website, and it is dated from October of last year.   The video describes an opportunity to do what they wanted to do, and was won in a competitive bid for the Energy Dept. funding.  Sorensen will report on the results by the end of the year, he says.

Well, that's something.  It is all I have for now.

Fusion energy is coming. Maybe.

A quick rundown on what's out there.  Didn't cover everything, like the Focus fusion device, nor the Bussard device.  ( polywell )

The failure to cover these indicate to me a weakness.  Yet, the video gets all the views.  Why is that?

To answer that question, those processes are harder to understand.  It was for me, anyway, and so I think the case could extrapolate to the general public.

The polywell doesn't heat up a plasma.  The others require heating up a plasma to millions of degrees, and then controlling the plasma, which is a difficult feat to accomplish.  The polywell is underfunded, as well.  Isn't it a shame that people may ignore a promising area of research because the concept is hard to understand?

Carbon dioxide to carbon

How interesting.

The only downside seems to be that certain green groups oppose it.  Not surprising to me that this is so.  At the heart of green theory is that man's technology is the problem, therefore, all tech, including this ( even if it works), is bad.

New method to turn CO2 into coal https://t.co/XQ8VMgOUXg

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 7, 2019

ThorCon to end energy poverty

Comment:

It may be better to say that the WILL end it, as opposed to "can" end it.

Why should it not be successful?  It is a proven concept for 40 years.  Up until now, it has not been commercialized.

ThorCon is not re-inventing the wheel.  They are just building upon what has already been done.

ThorCon can end energy poverty and global warming with cheap, nonstop power. https://t.co/KQVDcOHuY5

— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) December 16, 2018

Bill Gates on Nuclear Energy: "It is ideal"

Comment:

Too bad he won't spend his money on PROVEN concepts though, like the molten-salt reactor.  If he did that, the tech would commercialized by now.

Bill Gates on #NuclearEnergy: “Nuclear is ideal for dealing with #ClimateChange, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day” https://t.co/D1QG5XlP04

— Terrestrial Energy (@TerrestrialMSR) January 2, 2019