DPF Fusion Propulsion

7/2/2026:

  DPF-based propulsion seemed promising then, and even more promising now that SpaceX has all but solved the re-useable rocket puzzle. Launch costs and mass capabilities would make this concept more feasible than ever.

  Deep space exploration would no longer be science fiction.

  The opening of the solar system would definitely be in play. It sounds corny, but the sky would be the limit.

  I checked the NextBigFuture link. It's still good. Very detailed study. This isn't pie-in-the-sky, especially now.

9/14/2011: The original post follows:

Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) Fusion Systems for Space Propulsion


This was a Next Big Future post last year. I don't think I've seen it before. This idea seem intuitive to me from observing the diagrams and illustrations of how the DPF works. It seems like a natural for space propulsion. The post here seems rather more involved than I anticipated for the device.

Surprising to me that work proceeds on this as of the time this post was written. If it continues to this day, it is hard to imagine why anyone would want to build chemical rockets. This would make chemical rockets obsolete. ( Unless I am missing something important)

I brought up that last bit of info because NASA announces its new SLS that won't fly any earlier than 2017. By 2017, the tech could very well be obsolete. Not only with respect to this possible breakthrough, but consider what others (SpaceX and Xcor) are doing as well.

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Has Repeatable Power Pulses

Next Big Future

Comment:

Sounds like great news.  By the way, I favor this concept for powering rockets.  I think it may be a perfect application for Dense Plasma Focus.

Advances in Dense Plasma for Fusion Power and Space Propulsion

via Next Big Future post

Followup post here.

ADVANCES IN DENSE PLASMA FOR FUSION POWER AND SPACE PROPULSION, with George Miley, Ph.D.

Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi

Next Big Future and eCat Site

excerpts (eCat site):

• Dr. Miley feels that the work of Mr. Patterson and Andrea Rossi have many similarities and has offered a theory that is felt to cover both.
•  I have included a slide show of this presentation below.
• Previously Dr. Miley has explored the use of fusion for rockets and space planes and a presentation covering that subject can be viewed here.

Comment:
The slide show is fast, so you have to read really fast. Tip: hit the pause button. The link to fusion rocketry is interesting in itself.

Update: 10/23

I revisited the post since I overlooked this snippet:

There is some discussion that he not getting the kilowatts that Patterson was claiming I hear from attendees that Miley is getting about 300 watts of thermal power without inputting any energy. ¹[emphasis mine]

George Miley has worked on all kinds of nuclear fusion and headed the nuclear fusion department at the University of Illinois. He is a far more respectable source and researcher than Rossi. ²[emphasis mine]

Comments:
¹ That's quite a significant finding. Thermal power without input of energy.

² There you go again.  But what does politics have to do with it?  I say everything!  Politics and Science are linked.  Scientists can play the political game, just like the politicians.  Money is at stake, as well as power.

Wang: John Slough fusion space propulsion

Via Next Big Future

Just spent the last hour and a half slogging through this series of posts on this space propulsion system.  It is new to me.  Chalk it up to yet another fusion strategy that is out there. There are two others of the hot fusion type which are not what you would call conventional.  Also, this one does not appear to be aneutronic, meaning that it will be radioactive to at least some extent.

Also, it doesn't appear to have the goal of being net energy, which means it needs an external power source. This could be solar or nuclear.  Yes, nuclear.

The Department of Defense and NASA has funded this one.  It also appears that Brian Wang seems to think well of it, but not everybody is happy.  That shouldn't be a surprise.  If there is one thing that you can count on, for anything new, there are going to be skeptics and critics.

News release: In fusion race, lightning thunders over lasers

I guess you can say this is "hot"!  As in hot fusion as opposed to "cold fusion".  It is a bit of news from the Focus Fusion boys at  Lawrenceville Plasma Physics.  An excerpt from the press release:

NIF researchers hope to improve enough to reach ignition in a year, but LPP expects to substantially better its own results next month as major upgrades to FoFu-1 are completed. Yet, to judge from the work of most scientists at the conference, an observer might think that there were only two possibilities for fusion: NIF and the equally enormous ITER, a 100-foot tall “plasma donut” that may finish construction in France by 2025. 

http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/images/stories/AtLeft-NIF_Chamber_AtRight_LPP-FoFu-1_Chamber.jpg

 Looks like Focus Fusion is on schedule for feasibility demonstration at the end of the year.  A couple throw in quotes below completes the press release:

I think that the “Focus Fusion” approach of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. should be funded as the science behind it is very interesting. Even if this approach does not succeed in producing fusion energy, the research will produce valuable technology in the near term. - Bruno Coppi, Professor of Physics and Senior Fusion Researcher, MIT

The experimental program that LPP plans to carry out has great potential to show how the plasma focus can be used to generate fusion energy and to demonstrate the feasibility of hydrogen-boron fusion. In addition, the experiments will investigate the magnetic effect, which will be very exciting. Achieving giga-gauss magnetic fields with the plasma focus, getting gyro-radii of the order of the electron Compton wavelength, will certainly be new physics and will open up large new possibilities for energy production. - Dr. Julio Herrera, Professor of Physics, National Autonomous University of Mexico

As I stated before, I really like Focus Fusion as a space propulsion device.  I am going to put this press release with the label that goes with the rest of the posts I made on that subject.


More here at NextBigFuture.

A Fusion Thruster for Space Travel

Clean, highly energetic reaction delivers a lot of drive from a drop of fuel

I saw this several days ago and my initial reaction was negative.

On further review, I saw this and it looks impressive.

The motor could generate 1 megawatt per second if the pulses are frequent enough to start reactions that consume that amount of boron in 1000 seconds.  [ a little further ahead of this sentence--- Even at 50 percent efficiency, burning off 40 milligrams of the boron fuel would deliver a gigajoule of energy]

But it won't be ready soon.  He says 10 years of work before this can be put to use.

Asked how long it will be before his fusion reactor is pushing spacecraft toward Mars, Chapman acknowledges that a decade of work might be required before that happens. "It takes teamwork to get something to the point where you put it in space," he says. His aim so far is "to get the idea out so other minds can begin thinking about it." 

 

Focus Fusion as Propulsion, II

I wrote about this concept before, but what makes this different is that I added a few comment boxes to the picture, so as to illustrate what I meant.  Not that it is necessary, because I would think it would be obvious, but just in case it isn't.  [ This is rather repetitive and unnecessary, but what the heck.  I think all this proves is that I just might know what the heck I am talking about.  The only thing is that I don't have the PHD to prove it.  Even if you did have the PHD, like Fleischmann and Pons in the case of "cold fusion", you will still be called crazy, which is what they mean by "pathological science".  That's conventional wisdom for you, it will take you nowhere, it justs keeps you where you are.]

Update:

Incidentally, I was listening to a second Space Show mp3 file as I prepared this post. I would like to attend the propulsion conference, but that is not in the cards. I would like even more to sock it to a crowd and make them believe this stuff, but I don't do public speaking. Too bad, because that may be the only way to get to a large number of people. They are too damn lazy to read this stuff and even more so in trying to understand it. It may take someone who will be forceful enough to push something even if it means rattling some cages big time.

Focus Fusion v E-cat for fusion propulsion

Lerner believes he is way ahead of everybody, but if Fossi-Focardi E-cat works, he won't be after all.  In terms of rocket propulsion, this means that the E-cat will find it's way into a NERVA type configuration, which is probably what NASA is looking into.  Except they won't call it E-cat.  Another possibility is that, if E-cat works, they'll just buy the technology.  We'll see how that works. 

Fusion Propulsion Post

I meant to write about it today, but I can't think of anything to write about. It has already been covered. The only thing I haven't written about is...  (blankout)

Look, the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics people are on to this, most likely. It would take only a minor modification of their device in order to make it suitable as a fusion propulsion device. How?

By taking away the coil which will be useful for electricity production, but not useful for spacecraft propulsion. But I covered that already. What next?

The thought occurred to me that if this device had sufficient thrust and ISP, you would not need to get to orbital velocity in order to escape Earth's gravity. But I covered that already.

Hmmm. Okay, so I went back into a Power Point file and picked out yet something else that I probably covered already. No, that was a different post.  This power point pic isn't what Lockheed Martin produced, because I blanked out what I didn't quite understand or even agree with and came up with this

Now, the main thing to see is a picture of what I'm seeing.  Here you have the Focus Fusion device (with the arrow pointing downward toward the magnetic nozzle), the tanks of hydrogen and boron that will comprise the reaction products that will fuse in the device and send out the alpha particles (mentioned in an earlier post) as thrust.

Lerner says that he can get 30,000 out of 100,000 joules expended.  The rest is still in the device, not lost.  This will demonstrate feasibility, says Lerner.  But, let's just say (for the sake of argument)  that we are just able to use the 30,000 joules.  That is 30,000 Newtons, is it not?  Is it not also true, that without slowing down the alpha particles (as would be the case if you were to convert to electricity), that you will get virtually all of this output?

It should be noted that

1. I am relying on memory about the 30,000 joules
2. That there isn't anything significant that I am missing
3. There could be something significant that I am missing because I am not trained in this area
4. My energy conversions could be wrong
5. The device mentioned has not demonstrated continuous firing.  It would have to fire continuously in order to be useful for power or propulsion.  I am assuming that Lerner has this figured out.

Why write all this?  Haven't they already thought about this?  Yes, I'm sure somebody has.  What bothers me is that somebody could have something worthwhile and have it suppressed.  There was a time when I thought that such a thing would not happen, but these days, I'm not so sure anymore.

Update:

I tried to confirm that 30,000 joules number by looking over a few of my posts.  I know that I saw or heard that somewhere, but can't remember exactly where.  Also, some of the energy production will come from the Xray emissions.  Not all of it will come from the alpha particles.  So, the potential thrust will be somewhere south of 30,000 joules.  Don't know how far, but somewhat south of that number.

Focus Fusion as Propulsion

I've always liked this idea. Take a look at this picture: from Fusion Taking Focus Fall 2010 Update on YouTube.

Focus Fusion Generator Device

The thing you can notice here is that the fusion takes place inside the electrode.  There is a high energy particle beam that is emitted from the electrode, which is shown as a bright light in the center of the device.  The particle beam, which is alpha particles- if I am not mistaken- go through a coil type device, which convert the kinetic energy of the particles into electricity.  The alpha particles have an electric charge, due to the positive charge of the two protons of the Helium nucleii in each particle.  That is how you can get electricity.

Now, if you don't use this coil, and just allow the particle beam to exit the device as would a magnetic nozzle of a rocket, this would generate thrust.  The amount of the thrust would depend upon how much mass is emitted and at what velocity.  Considering how powerful the particle beam is, and how much electricity they are hoping to obtain from it, it should be a considerable amount of thrust potential.

Here's another video that shows the bright flash that occurs as the shot takes place.

Properties of carbon useful in connection with "cold fusion"?

In any context, the chemical properties of carbon are amazing.  One use of carbon, as activated carbon, or charcoal, was mentioned in the "cold fusion" video discussed yesterday.   I highly recommend that video, by the way. Let's look at the advantages of carbon with respect to "cold fusion".

It is useful for absorption because of its surface area.  It can adsorb hydrogen, which may be useful in the nickel "cold fusion" reactions.  In the video, it was indeed useful, even necessary, in the palladium-deuterium reactions.  It is not clear that it is being used in the Rossi Focardi device, but the video could be hinting at this as a possibility.

Here are some advantages of carbon nanotubes that everyone may have heard about:

Carbon Nanotubes Are Superior To Metals For Electronics, According to Engineers

Questions:
Does this mean that it can be better used to store electrons, like a capacitor?  Can you "flick a switch" so that when the electron volts accumulate up to a certain point, then release the electrons to where you want them to go?  Would that be useful in "cold fusion" reactions? [ I think it could.]

Carbon Nanotubes can carry more current without deterioration.

They can conduct electricity as well as copper, conduct heat as well as a diamond, and are a hundred times stronger than steel at the same dimension.

Currently, more than 10 million amperes in a square centimeter area can be passed through a MWCNT continuously over six days without any deterioration. [emphasis added]

Question:

More current means more energy potential- would that be useful for "cold fusion"? [Yes, I think so.]

Speculation:

Here's what I am getting at: the current Rossi Focardi machine may be seen as crude, yet effective method of generating energy- as it may be seen from the future historical perspective.  It could be optimized in the future in order to produce even greater energy in smaller devices.

This is not to say that the current 1 MW design is inefficient.  Keep in mind that the first automobiles were effective in doing the job of moving people and goods, but they got more sophisticated as time went by.  The same is true of all new technologies.  This could be no exception.

I offer this speculation on the one hand to show how Rossi Focardi E-cat can work, but also to show how it might look in the future.

While I am at it, the following question could arise?  Who cares?  As long as it can produce energy for only 1 cent per kilowatt hour, what difference would it make?  I am thinking in terms of optimizing in size.  This would have advantages for spacecraft- inasmuch as any hardware can enforce mass penalties, the objective will be to minimize mass.

Note:  My book has arrived.  I will pick it up shortly.  The video mentioned above was made by the same man who authored the book- Eugene Mallove.

VASIMR with 200 megawatts nuclear electric generator?

Some discussion of fusion electric propulsion there.  Still think that the Dense Plasma Focus is the way to go with that, especially if it becomes net energy soon.

What is a compulsator?

That's the question of the day. You see, I started posting all about Fusion Propulsion and I don't know what the heck I am talking about. I had to go back to Trent Waddington's post about Fusion Propulsion in February and take it from there.  Somehow, the Wikepedia post wasn't good enough to me.  I wanted a better explanation.  I found this on YouTube.  It seems to help a little to actually "see" it.



Next question: would such a device be workable in a space craft? It needs to spin very fast, so it needs a power source, of course. But we knew that already. I wonder if that would be a problem in space- not the power, but the spinning of the thing.

Update:


Some looking around yielded this, which looks like it may be what I'm looking for.

To Mars? Maybe. To the stars? Probably not.

This may seem like a confession if you haven't read all my stuff. I don't know that much about physics. I would really like Focus Fusion to work soon and have it power a spacecraft to anywhere in the solar system. But I haven't the foggiest notion of how this might be done.

I just spent some time looking over a few things, such as a pdf file of focus fusion. I don't understand what they wrote there, to be honest.

So, it is hard to say where they are on this and what they still need to do. My guess is that they need to have a way to pulse that thing a lot. I haven't seen enough about how that might be done. Inasmuch as I would have liked to see this powering a rocket, I have little to go on that will show how this might be done.

And so all this amounts to speculation. More than likely, if there's a fusion device that becomes net energy soon, the path forward for rockets is something like VASIMR. VASIMR needs a powerful energy source. If one can be found, it can take a spacecraft to Mars quickly enough.

Now if we were to speculate further, let's say the Rossi Focardi device can be put on a rocket. If that is possible, you could have a device that will get you to Mars. It would simply be a matter of testing VASIMR, which will happen soon. The next step could be to integrate that device with VASIMR so that it will have the power it needs to get to Mars quickly. This looks like the quickest path other than a fission rocket, like NERVA was.

Fusion Taking Focus- Fall 2010 Update

This will be included in my new sidebar entry- fusion propulsion- because it may be possible for it to become a spinoff from the net energy research for focus fusion. It doesn't appear to be the case for the moment, though. I don't know the reason for this. There could be a reason why it can't be, but if that is the case, I'm unaware of it.

This presentation has four parts. The first part is embedded here. You can follow the rest of the presentation by following the links provided.



Update:

I think the answer to the question of why it can't be a propulsion device is that it may require a lot of technical advances not yet achieved. ( An engineering problem)

Here is a screen shot of the proof of fusion- the bubbles are caused by neutrons. The neutrons are captured in this way, which shows that fusion did indeed occur.

Update:
Here's another pic, actually two that I have put together. One is from the animation of the dense plasma focus and the other is an actual pic of the process in process. This shows how the actual filaments are being formed during the fusion process- before the plasmoid is formed. The filaments form first, then they twist into tighter and tighter ball or plasmoid.

The actual plasmoid is shown below.

Morn. Summ. 5/15

Very good day yesterday, at least by this blog's standards.  As we see from sitemeter, there were 30 visits.  This is a high number for this blog.  In fact, it is a record.  Pageviews at the top of this post shows 76, which is near a record.  It appears that one of my posts was drawing the most attention and that is the one about NASA studying  "cold fusion".  But NASA will never call it thus because the phrase has been discredited.  But that is what it is.

This got me to thinking about something that I've been focusing on since I started blogging regularly last September.  The idea of space colonization and how it may be the answer to a lot of problems here on the ground.  People don't believe that because it's been drummed into their heads that it is impossible.  For one thing, it costs too much.  But not necessarily.  Costs can be brought down.  If you start with a belief that it can't be done, why, you are never wrong.  It can't be done if you don't try.  Somebody has to, but very few people outside of the space community seem interested in it.

You do need money to do the job though.  How to do it?  Get some venture capital?  But that is not likely because they want a payoff in 3 to 7 years.  That may be too far off.  You are going to need more time than that.  With the above paragraph, it would appear that politicians will not be interested.  That leaves you with little to work with.  You have to find somebody with deep pockets who will fund it, but who?  And how?  And why?  The why part can be answered if you had a plan and you can get somebody with money to fund the plan.

I better post now since it is 6 in the morning local time.  I will return to this today.  Keep tuned.

NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation (Piantelli-Focardi)

This is not to be confused with the Rossi Focardi

According to Bushnell, NASA is not working on a replication of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device.

“We do not have enough details, by far, to even start to think of a replication of Rossi,” Bushnell wrote.

This looks like "cold fusion" except that nobody likes that phrase.  You might say that it was "nuked" two decades ago.

My Kingdom For A Horse

The phrase is a little differently defined here than what I thought it would be.  But this post has nothing to do with Shakespeare.  The meaning I thought that may be applicable is this:  if a king had access to this, he may really be wiling to trade his kingdom for it because it was so valuable.  I use this phrase with respect to the idea that I've been batting about here: fusion propulsion.

The key here is recognition by way of little bits of pieces of information that convince me of its probable utility.  I found another today while  browsing the subject.  A pdf file produced by none other than Robert Bussard himself.  Perhaps the intuition came from listening to him speak on the matter before.  At any rate, the Isp for such a rocket appears to be near 1 million- yes 1 million.  An incredible number.  Bussard's paper gives little detail to this propulsion method, instead describing two other types.  Here is a snippet of the file here

Now, Bussard is referring to a polywell fusion device, whereas I am looking at a dense plasma focus.  Also, I've been thinking about a less than net energy device.  The thought occurred to me, why not mate it with an energy source as described above that will feed into the dense plasma focus in order to produce the reaction mass?  A possible energy source:  cold fusion device being worked on by Rossi Focardi.  In a short time, a device like this may be possible for deep space missions.

The ability to travel at will throughout the solar system may be worth a king's ransom indeed.

Space Show liveblogging Monday, Mar 7, 2011 (Eric Lerner)

Today's guest, Dr. Eric Lerner, LPPX president, worked on Focus Fusion for 25 years.  DPF work.

Do you have fusion yet.  Says we don't have net energy.  Says we're close.  Lot of progress.  Net energy this year?  Can't say.

What happened in the last year?  He says made progress in last year.  Moving in right direction.  Highlights:

In fall 2009, one of first goals try and confirm result at Texas Aand M thought had achieved high temperature and density.  Had low efficiency where energy produced ( in Tx experiment) .  Background: core of device is inches across, condensed energy in ball where it reaches high tempature and density.  By April, fist indication, had achieved high energy, but didn't have instruments online.  Half a dozen instruments.  Now is growing by leaps and bounds looking at each shot.  Big accomplishment have best resolution picture- close to what they want.  ICCD camera based on same principles as usual camera, but expensive 65000 bucks.  Pictures is being formed way they thought.  Twists like telephone cord, kinks seen clearly.   Radius of core was bigger than expected, but in ballpark.

Putting it in layman's terms:

Whole idea is concentrating energy to an extreme degree.  Energy stored in a big room and at end of process, most of that energy is temporarily concentrated in a volume less than millimeter long and microns across 1/25 inch by few thousandth inch.  Second thing is the twisting.  Theory of how plasmoid forms.  Like a kink on a telephone line.  All that energy mentions kinks up into a little ball.

Exciting to have pictures that show this, he says.

First question from Todd in San Diego:  Why are you able to come up with these results or clue to achieve fusion when Tokomak don't report such findings?  Says, have to be going in the right direction.  Says he's critical of the direction that Dept. of Energy is going.  Mistake was to narrow range to tokomak at time it was premature to do so.  If they looked at different approaches, it would not be at the low level it is at now.  Their approach attempts to make the process to stay still and he says that is impossible.  Plasma is unstable by nature.

Plasma focus device takes opposite way, use the instabilities of the plasma.  Each instability will concentrate the energy further, just as nature does.  By taking this approach, get away from having to control it.  Plasma is so dense, it only has to exist for short time.  Finally, PDF is a cheap device as opposed to tokomaks which are very expensive.  Can do experiments a thousand times cheaper.  They can't get as far we can because they are heading in the wrong direction.

Calls it institutional inertia.  Hard to change it once it gets going.  Calls it Eater instead of ITER because it eats up money.  Momentum on their side.

Why weren't they won't funding.  One thing they said, we decide to fund things on we think has best chance of success.  How to decide that?  How successful the thing is in getting funding.  Begs the question.  Circular argument.

DPF is private funding.  Takes a long time to raise the money.

Question was asked about Dr. Bussard device, was it the same?  The answer is no.  Actually, the are others besides these two fusion methods too.

Describing some of the process again.  Produces no neutrons and no radiactivity.  Makes it much cheaper.

Kelly Starks: size of device.  How rapid the pulse.  50 kilojoules would power lightbulb for a few minutes.  Want to do it fast pulse.  Can't do too rapidly though, because of heat.  Optimal size is 5 megawatts, or 3 ton device a couple yards across.  Very compact for that size.  Could fit it into anything except a car.  Could power things like a ship.  Would about an airplane?, asks David  A plane would be challenging.  Most radioactivity is not there, but there is some.  But in a plane, may not be safe as we would like.

He suggested maglev trains in an evaculated tunnels.

Charles asks other reactions possible?  One of things not demonstrated amount of compression goes up as atomic charge goes up.  Heavy elements have advantages.  Lithium doesn't burn all that much easier.  More complicated, he says.  Wants to go hydrogen boron.  A third of energy will be released by xrays.  "Braking" radiation occurs when electron encounters protons and causes them to slow down.  Intends to capture that energy efficiently.

(next) Caller was Charles:  asked about other reactions, see above.  With light elements, lose compression.  Also, doesn't like steam.  Gets away from cheap, clean energy.

Have achieved efficiency, getting close to having efficiency needed.

break

Emphasized that demonstrated that significant amount of energy in plasmoid.  These beams produced are very energetic and delivers in tens of nano seconds.  Produces tremendous power in that short of time.  Much greater energy than in Texas A and M experiment.  If all the energy goes into plasmoid, then what?  Net energy?  Lerner says this is necessary.

He says low efficiency in other ways of generating fusion.  Getting the energy transfer into the device in the tens of percent.  ( a little confusing to follow)

has a forum for this discussion; focus fusion society at focus fusion.org. ( I may have a link to that here)

(next) Caller  Dave in Cleveland:  NASA advanced concepts submission of proposals for that.  Looked at it briefly, not sure fusion being allowed.  Not enough money.  Asked Dave if he could "rig the game".  Dave says "Can't do it". Asked Dave if he read the proposal, he said no.  Don't open space without fusion drive.

(Lerner) Says its easier to get government money once scientific demo of fusion is done.  ( yep)

Problems cited in using this in space with heat.

Trent asks how fusion can be used in space.  (reply) He says that once we develop it energy production on Earth, can use it for space travel.  With fusion can achieve much higher speeds.  Rate of exploration go up an order of magnitude.

Can use energy of the ion beams in space for propulsion.( comment from me: this confirms what I thought)   Fusion generator as source of electricity that get off the Earth.( my comment this last sentence unclear)   {Emphasis added as an update}

break

Karen in Madison Wis, adm pushing forward to advance sophisticated propulsion like Vasimr.  Is any way that be included in future.  He says he would like to fund fusion ( instead of Tokomak).  Why did NASA move away from fusion, (host) David asks.  (reply) Didn't want competition from oil and gas.  NASA fusion program was important because it funded alternatives.  He had something to say about cutbacks in spending.  He sympathized with protestors.  (sorry to hear him say that, but (for me) this isn't about money, it is about rule of law and democratic process)

Harold asks status of serious fusion research in other countries.  Several groups on same idea as DPF.  All groups are interested in net energy.  The most powerful device in Poland.  Another in Iran.  Quite active DPF research.  A large machine in Las Vegas, he said.  Smaller devices in other countries, too.

Criticism of funding programs.

Caller on bad phone line or cell phone:  Fusion rockets have to have better alpha he said.  He says his generator weighs 3 tons.  If putting large fusion rocket, would probably set up a circuit from a single bunch of capacitors.  A whole cycle is 8 microsends.  For a single electrode, it would melt.  In theory, could put a bunch of electrodes to fire off a single capacitor for a better higher energy to mass ratio.  Need a switching system.  Fire the electrodes in some type of sequence.  Get orders of magnitude more energy. (my comment inserted here: this is what I was thinking about, good to hear that it may be feasible)

Jane asks about He3 on Moon.  Comments.  He says Boron lot easier to get.  If DPF works, the amount of Boron needed would be only 10 percent of what we already using.  Going to the Moon too costly in comparison.

Caller Trent:  Read recent paper, wonder what next thing publish in reference to Journal of Fusion Energy.   He says will submit latest work that proves what he's claiming.  ( Have an interruption, have to stop here)

Update: Did some editing for clarification. Kept it as close to original as possible.