I understand our host desire to protect colleques, and the valuation of science, but if you are going to hold a positon as forthcoming, then you have to spell out why such resistance was put up for the sake of layman thinking.

We don’t want to be walking a mindfield while we are learning?

But to the point, my IP address has not changed, on either two sites, nor has yours, while you choose different names. One of the “admin perks” is that you can know, and I have already shown ways around that, which I choose not to do.

If you are ever are close to nature and the horses, it is a respectful one that you would stand beside such an animal and see how insignificant you are while you are tossed like a toy.

Nature has a nice way of teaching us these things, pack hearding, who protects and who doesn’t whilst we engage the “higher minds” of science. Our evolution, is still there physically while we deal with abstract spaces.

I have watched Tony’s progress for a number of years now.:)

I know I’ve reached my politics quotient for this week, but I have a few more comments.

After the SOTU, scientists were cautiously optimistic about a few things. But scientists are prone to dissect things, and it turns out that the President’s …

I thought you may be interested in the new technology I high light to deal with this largest problem of them all, Climate Change, Energy and Space propulsion.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, a form of aneutronic fusion , Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as follows:

“MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi’s
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors).”

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation 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 (Below Is an excerpt).
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
limits of the available computing power.
• Governments need to fund these efforts.”

I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening (Dwyer’s paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf )
,that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

You may see my efforts with my “A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy” article:

http://www.scienceforums.com/earth-science/3665-a-new-manhattan-project-clean-energy.html

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 Billion degree 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

Erich J. Knight
shengar@aol.com

the investment of federal funding for research is the no doubt the best spent portion of the federal budget (right at the top in importance with the care and feeding of the sick an hungry.)