Focus Fusion?

[Eric L]

How to test?

How to test hypotheses abut LPPFusion?

Here are the steps:
Go to our website. Look at the videos and written material, including published papers, where we describe our progress, the physics behind it, comparisons with other approaches to fusion. See if it makes sense. See if the physics corresponds to what you can find out about physics from other sources.
Judge for yourself.
Come back and report to this forum. Or ask questions where you are in doubt.

 

[ben m]

Different hypothesis: Maybe, Nature employs people who, unlike you guys, have actual physics knowledge, who dig around, interview lots of fusion scientists, read scientific papers (and actually can understand them) and draw conclusions as to what projects are worth using as examples.

You're asking a lot here.

a) Here is an unsigned editorial, about international project management, which chose to mention my company!
b) Let's assume, without evidence, that the unnamed authors are actually physics experts who aren't listed as such on the masthead; that they somehow did a never-mentioned, never-published, never-again-editorialized-on investigative study of the field; and that THAT'S why they chose to mention us!
c) Under those assumptions, the mention lends credibility to my company! So much credibility, in fact, that it should make other physicists think twice about dismissing us!

I don't want to make those assumptions. I don't want to make any assumptions about the deep motivations of unnamed journal editors. If I were you, in other words, I would not do what you did and use sentences like:

If this were a crackpot scam, why would Nature magazine (Fusion Furore, 23 July 2014) have cited us as one of two independent fusion efforts worth funding?

(Note how you phrased that in the form of a question, and I answered exactly what you asked, and stand by my answer. If you were a crackpot scam, Nature could have nonetheless cited you as they did because you are a reasonably-easily-Googled fusion startup, whose website does not scream "crackpot" by virtue of having alien pyramids on it or something. Lesson: don't ask questions that you don't want answered.)

 

[Eric L]

Far wiser than the editors of Nature

So your logic is that Nature is staffed by incompetents who can’t tell a scam by doing research on it, but you, who have no discernible physics knowledge, can?

Rather than just repeating “scam, scam, crackpot, crackpot” and pretending that name-calling is an argument, why don’t you try to point to an error in the derivations of the theories we published—checked by peer-reviewers—or in the evidence we published of our results?

Actually, your bar needs to be a bit higher—since a scam is not just science with an error in it, it’s something pretending to be science, which is not. So why don’t you describe exactly how our theories and experiment results are not actually science?

Or does your "proof " consist of saying over and over ”this is just a scam, scam, scam?” Lots of physics in that argument, right? Oh yeah, I forgot, you guys also make racist remarks about Kazakhstan—another great physics argument.

 

[JeanTate]

<bait omitted> ... why don’t you try to point to an error in the derivations of the theories we published—checked by peer-reviewers—or in the evidence we published of our results?

Actually, your bar needs to be a bit higher—since a scam is not just science with an error in it, it’s something pretending to be science, which is not. So why don’t you describe exactly how our theories and experiment results are not actually science?

<more bait omitted>

That's good advice (sans the bait).

In return, I'll offer you some advice of my own:

• when first posting to a self-avowed skeptical audience, do not begin trying to make your case by appealing to authority
• particularly when the appeal cannot be independently verified
• when responding to a reasonable rebuttal of such an untestable appeal to authority, do not dig yourself into a deeper hole
• however, if someone does respond to your attempt at a rebuttal, do not ignore them
• if you realize that you got off on the wrong foot, acknowledge your error, apologize, and move on
• however infuriating the discussion prior to your joining may be to you, do not respond in kind
• in particular, avoid taunts, baiting, and insulting your audience's intelligence and knowledge of physics (you have no idea who ISF members are, so do not assume they are all dumber than you and that none have PhDs in plasma physics)
• always keep in mind that you are here to try to persuade an essentially unknown (to you) audience of the soundness of your Fusion Focus project; the onus is on you to make that case, not for ISF members to 'unmake' it.

 

[Craig B]

How to test hypotheses abut LPPFusion?

Here are the steps:
Go to our website. Look at the videos and written material, including published papers, where we describe our progress, the physics behind it, comparisons with other approaches to fusion. See if it makes sense. See if the physics corresponds to what you can find out about physics from other sources.
Judge for yourself.
Come back and report to this forum. Or ask questions where you are in doubt.

OK. Here's my first report to the forum. I don't find this very informative. Can any insider here expand it?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/how-far-can-crowdfunded-nuclear-fusion-go

... Last year, LPP commissioned a scientific review panel to assess both the physics and the engineering behind their Focus Fusion device. The panel’s report http://lppfusion.com/images/lpp_review_committee_evaluation-nov_28_2013.pdf formed a substantial part of the organization’s pitch to its potential base of crowd-funders.


Robert Hirsch, who, from 1972 through 1976, directed fusion research for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and Energy Research and Development Administration, chaired the review panel. Hirsch says his panel was allowed full access to LPP’s equipment and labs as well as their proprietary process for harnessing proton-boron fusion.

Hirsch says he was impressed by the “innovative thinking” behind the Focus Fusion device ...

Hirsch says he cannot, however, disclose any more details about the new physics that “Focus Fusion” builds on.

In any event, he says, the biggest question is: Will this thing work? And on that score, he thinks the answer may be available within a few years.​

Notice, he's not averring that he thinks it will be working in a few years.

 

[ben m]

So your logic is that Nature is staffed by incompetents who can’t tell a scam by doing research on it, but you, who have no discernible physics knowledge, can?

I repeat: I answered your question precisely. You asked, in apparent incredulity, whether it were possible that a Nature editorial could praise a crackpot experiment. I answered: yes, of course it is. It's particularly possible when the experiment in question is merely mentioned (not analyzed) in an unsigned policy editorial. Nature is staffed by reporters, who are as good at anyone else at science news reporting.

(Note how they're capable of writing an article entirely about fusion startups, at http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstarts-1.15592, without bringing in a domain-expert author (Waldrop is a career journalist with a particle-physics PhD from the 1970s) or doing original analysis---this is all straight-up "we called up some people for quotes" science reporting.)

Anyway, stepping back about one thing. I am a professional physicist with more than average experience working with plasma physics, but, you're right, I am not the sort of person who the DOE wants to peer-review fusion proposals. I recognize this and I am 100% willing to listen to that sort of person if they're telling me LPP's thing (or Lockheed's thing, or whatever) is going well. DOE panel reports? IAEA conference has a session about you? Peer-reviewed review articles from trusted parties? Yes, I'll listen.

I am not willing to trust the following---and I think this is defensible:

a) People praising their own startups. Of course the inventor of X thinks X is a great idea, and is unaware of any misunderstandings that might have made them think that. Lockheed's self-description of their work gets some skepticism in this sense.

b) People praising their own crowdfunded startups. Crowdfunders have a motivation to exaggerate their confidence a bit. We hashed out the "TellSpec" Raman spectroscopy crowdfunding thing on this board and our criticism was right on the nose.

c) People with a particular reputation for past wrongness. Your astrophysics reputation precedes you. This does not mean LPP can't be a good idea, but it does mean that I need someone other than you to walk me through the argument that it is. We non-experts have to pick our sources extra-carefully, you see.

 

[BenBurch]

Here's a hint. Many of the people here ARE scientists and experts in various fields, some of which have to do with exactly what is being claimed. Rather than acting like an angry child, how about discussing it with them and convincing them this isn't like every... single... scam that came before it claiming the same thing?


Or you can just continue as you are and that'll REALLY convince them.

As I seem to be alone among the engineers here who think that dense plasma focus may result in something, I think I should speak to this.

If you start accusing somebody of being a scammer, and they react angrily, I don't think that discredits that person whatsoever. I would react that way too.

And there is some reason to think that there are modes of fusion production that are not mainstream. The association between lightning and neutron bursts for example. An association that has been demonstrated in the laboratory. There really is no mechanism other than fusion that can account for neutrons out of the air. There is not much in the way of heavy nuclei in the air.

Another inadequately explained phenomenon, sonoluminescence, may also be fusion caused by the collapse of a microscopic plasma. There have been reports of neutron production there as well.

And let's not forget the Farnsworth Fusor - Electrostatic confinement thermal fusion that literally can be done on a kitchen table. If you could come up with an anode that didn't melt as the power scaled (you can't) this would be a done deal. However the late Dr. Bussard believed he could create a virtual anode via a device called the Polywell and that has had sufficiently interesting results to get several rounds of US Navy funding.

So, my take on things like the effort under discussion is that hell yes, it is worth trying. The risks are small and the potential rewards are large. And when you look at how cubic money is being spent on ITER, you have to think that a lower cost solution would dominate if it could prove out.

Mind you, I am just a software engineer with a background in High Energy Physics and nuclear reactor safety, not a physicist, but when an engineer sees something unexplained, the reaction is usually to try to build something out of it.

I don't think Dr. Lerner is a scammer. I think he has a hypothesis that would take a few million to prove out, and no better way to fund it than crowdfunding.

I can't see where this harms anybody, and I can't see where it is enriching him in the slightest; Ultra-pure metals that destroy carbon steel tools in a few minutes are expensive to acquire and expensive to machine.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and simply watch for his results.

And bear in mind that even a negative result adds to the store of scientific knowledge.

 

[Craig B]

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and simply watch for his results.

And bear in mind that even a negative result adds to the store of scientific knowledge.

Very well. What do you mean by "results"? What would be a "negative result"? People will recall the Rossi affair, in which Rossi's fanboys spent years, saying, wait, wait for the next set of results; the jury's still out, and so on. There never are any definitive "results", merely indefinite delay, and relentless, unending funding appeals,"videos", incomprehensible and ever-changing pseudoscientific "legends" etc, etc.

So we need a preordained definition of what would constitute a negative result, and when and how it might be deemed to have been found. What do you propose?

A positive result ... That would be more easily defined, but alas in the field of innovative energy proposals by non-mainstream theorists, few if any such have been noted.

 

[BenBurch]

Very well. What do you mean by "results"? What would be a "negative result"? People will recall the Rossi affair, in which Rossi's fanboys spent years, saying, wait, wait for the next set of results; the jury's still out, and so on. There never are any definitive "results", merely indefinite delay, and relentless, unending funding appeals,"videos", incomprehensible and ever-changing pseudoscientific "legends" etc, etc.

So we need a preordained definition of what would constitute a negative result, and when and how it might be deemed to have been found. What do you propose?

A positive result ... That would be more easily defined, but alas in the field of innovative energy proposals by non-mainstream theorists, few if any such have been noted.

A negative result is an acknowledged failure with analysis of exactly why. Did the Be electrodes work as expected? How bad was the initial thermal damage? Did the plasma become unstable in an unexpected way? That sort of thing.

If he builds the proposed machine and does a number of well-instrumented shots, and he fails to make commercially viable fusion, that sets a limit. He's said approximately how long until the electrodes become available, and has been pushing ahead with the titanium electrodes trying to find ways to limit the thermal damage, like having the gas ionized prior to the shot to allow the arc to form faster.

 

[BenBurch]

And do I think it LIKELY he will succeed? Nope. Nothing is likely in fusion energy. I have seen millions and millions of dollars spent on this over the course of my lifetime, and we are still a few decades away and holding.

I'm not even sure ITER is likely. Yeah I expect nice plasmas and yes I expect at least a technically over unity yield, but commercial success? That is going to be hard to achieve with a machine on that scale.

 

[Craig B]

If he builds the proposed machine and does a number of well-instrumented shots, and he fails to make commercially viable fusion, that sets a limit.

And if he never declares an "acknowledged failure"? What number of shots? What if he merely continually says, I'll have commercially available fusion after the next set of "shots"; but in the meantime I need more wonga? Send me $75 and get the t shirt. There has to be an independent criterion of "failure" with a clearly defined trigger, and it has to be applied by people independent of the originator of the project.

 

[BenBurch]

And if he never declares an "acknowledged failure"? What number of shots? What if he merely continually says, I'll have commercially available fusion after the next set of "shots"; but in the meantime I need more wonga? Send me $75 and get the t shirt. There has to be an independent criterion of "failure" with a clearly defined trigger, and it has to be applied by people independent of the originator of the project.

I think it would be obvious if we had another Rossi scenario. But we about a year away from knowing that. I do not expect it.

 

[BenBurch]

I think it would be obvious if we had another Rossi scenario. But we about a year away from knowing that. I do not expect it.

And having a "premium" seems to be the way to get crowdfunding to work.

 

[Eric L]

no evidence for your accusations?

That's good advice (sans the bait).

In return, I'll offer you some advice of my own:
• when first posting to a self-avowed skeptical audience, do not begin trying to make your case by appealing to authority….
• always keep in mind that you are here to try to persuade an essentially unknown (to you) audience of the soundness of your Fusion Focus project; the onus is on you to make that case, not for ISF members to 'unmake' it.

Jean Tate, I appreciate your effort to raise the level of debate here. What I am responding to is accusations by various people on this list that LPPFusion is a scam, taking investors money fraudulently. That’s a crime, not a scientific error. And yes, when people are accused of a crime, it is up to the accusers to prove it—at least here in the US that’s the case.
Why do I, who am in no awe of authority, raise an authority like Nature? Because, again, I am responding to an accusation not of a scientific error, but fraud. And yes, Nature owes its large prestige in part to the fact that they don’t fall for frauds. I think one would have to go back many decades to find a fraud they publicized as genuine science.
I want to point out that neither Craig b nor Ben m have been able, despite my challenge to them, to point to a single error in our published work let alone evidence that it is not even science, but a scam. If they are in any way serious about what they post here, they should either present that evidence or formally retract the accusation of scam and fraud.
Instead they continue with name calling:

c) People with a particular reputation for past wrongness. Your astrophysics reputation precedes you.

“a reputation for wrongness.” Hard to find the physics in this argument either. Where are your examples of physics errors, Ben m?

This does not mean LPP can't be a good idea, but it does mean that I need someone other than you to walk me through the argument that it is. We non-experts have to pick our sources extra-carefully, you see.

If you were a physicist, especially a plasma physicist, as you anonymously pretend on the internet to be, you would not need someone to “walk you through” our publications, videos and presentations. You would be able, like any other physicist, to read them and judge the theoretical derivations and experimental results for yourself. And if you can’t judge them for yourself, how in the world do you dare accuse us of being scammers? Seems like the height of irresponsibility to me.

 

[Craig B]

If you were a physicist, especially a plasma physicist, as you anonymously pretend on the internet to be, you would not need someone to “walk you through” our publications, videos and presentations. You would be able, like any other physicist, to read them and judge the theoretical derivations and experimental results for yourself. And if you can’t judge them for yourself, how in the world do you dare accuse us of being scammers? Seems like the height of irresponsibility to me.

Personally I'm not a physicist, and I really would like to read those parts of your publications that you consider relevant. A lot of this material is mere publicity about how wonderful things will be, if you can get the fusion to work commercially. That's obvious, and we don't need to go through masses of such material.

When I clicked on your invitation to "Take a peek at the peer reviewed science that's driving our effort." I got this which is not helpful, unless I decide to contribute money to your project. Although I note the other investment option you have made available. http://lppfusion.com/lppfusion-launches-sixth-stock-offering/

It was a feature of the Rossi undertaking, that when people asked questions about it, they were referred by Rossi acolytes to masses of videos, publications of all sorts, and even a "Journal of Nuclear Physics", which made an evaluation of the project very laborious and difficult.

As to my accusation of scam. I have referred to this, saying it looks like a scam. large contributors are offered

Scientific Immortality! Your name acknowledged as a funder in the scientific papers announcing our breakthroughs, including achieving net energy. Where else can you get immortality this cheap? You'll also receive: -Your Name on a Plaque -Your Name Added in the Monthly Reports -Video Tour of the Lab -emPOWERtheWORLD T-Shirt -Limited Edition emPOWERtheWORLD Poster -Personalized Plasma Portrait -emPOWERtheWORLD Sticker -Personal Shout Out -LPP Reports​

Now, that looks like a scam. If it is not, then I most earnestly advise you to adopt a different tone in your copious appeals for funding. I have also stated that the operation

Looks like a free energy scam to me, but it may be simple insanity of course.

So I am prepared to entertain the idea that delusion rather than dishonesty is the cause of these phenomena.

Moreover, as one poster has pointed out, citing your publicity, you will soon be able to silence your detractors in the most convincing and definitive manner.

scientifics at LPP Fusion, led by Chief Scientist Eric Lerner, are just one step away from this groundbreaking technology and we need your help for the final push.​

If you are correctly representing your closeness to positive results, then the outcome of your final push will entirely vindicate you and, believe me, I will be the first to hail your achievement as effective saviour of humanity, and will at once apologise for my present tendency towards scepticism and incredulity.

 

[Pixel42]

And yes, Nature owes its large prestige in part to the fact that they don’t fall for frauds. I think one would have to go back many decades to find a fraud they publicized as genuine science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Controversies

A series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön were published in Nature in the 2000–2001 period. The papers, about semiconductors, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003 the papers were retracted by Nature

And these were peer reviewed papers, not an editorial.

Peer review is the minimum hurdle new science has to clear to start being taken seriously; there are plenty more hurdles after that.

 

[tsig]

Hmm… Interesting hypothesis. Let’s test it—what comes up first when you Google fusion start ups? LPPF? (I wish!) No, it’s the fusion companies that have been funded by billionaires. Scratch that hypothesis.

Different hypothesis: Maybe, Nature employs people who, unlike you guys, have actual physics knowledge, who dig around, interview lots of fusion scientists, read scientific papers (and actually can understand them) and draw conclusions as to what projects are worth using as examples.

Belittling other posters? That'll work well.

 

[tsig]

And do I think it LIKELY he will succeed? Nope. Nothing is likely in fusion energy. I have seen millions and millions of dollars spent on this over the course of my lifetime, and we are still a few decades away and holding.

I'm not even sure ITER is likely. Yeah I expect nice plasmas and yes I expect at least a technically over unity yield, but commercial success? That is going to be hard to achieve with a machine on that scale.

You expect the laws of physics to be repealed?

 

[tsig]

I think it would be obvious if we had another Rossi scenario. But we about a year away from knowing that. I do not expect it.

Given what I have read from one of the defenders I guarantee a Rossi scenario.

 

[tsig]

Jean Tate, I appreciate your effort to raise the level of debate here. What I am responding to is accusations by various people on this list that LPPFusion is a scam, taking investors money fraudulently. That’s a crime, not a scientific error. And yes, when people are accused of a crime, it is up to the accusers to prove it—at least here in the US that’s the case.
Why do I, who am in no awe of authority, raise an authority like Nature? Because, again, I am responding to an accusation not of a scientific error, but fraud. And yes, Nature owes its large prestige in part to the fact that they don’t fall for frauds. I think one would have to go back many decades to find a fraud they publicized as genuine science.
I want to point out that neither Craig b nor Ben m have been able, despite my challenge to them, to point to a single error in our published work let alone evidence that it is not even science, but a scam. If they are in any way serious about what they post here, they should either present that evidence or formally retract the accusation of scam and fraud.
Instead they continue with name calling:


“a reputation for wrongness.” Hard to find the physics in this argument either. Where are your examples of physics errors, Ben m?



If you were a physicist, especially a plasma physicist, as you anonymously pretend on the internet to be, you would not need someone to “walk you through” our publications, videos and presentations. You would be able, like any other physicist, to read them and judge the theoretical derivations and experimental results for yourself. And if you can’t judge them for yourself, how in the world do you dare accuse us of being scammers? Seems like the height of irresponsibility to me.

Accusing other posters of lying, another winning strategy from the loon playbook.