Skepticism is welcome, but let's be accurate about the facts.
LPP has already achieved breakthroughs well beyond all other fusion researchers: the highest temperature ever reported for a fusion fuel (1.8 billion degrees Celsius) and higher fusion yields than any other group working with the Dense Plasma Focus device. These breakthroughs were due to LPP's unique design features (smaller size and axial magnetic field) suggested by Lerner's mathematical model of the device, which no one else has. The model has been experimentally confirmed in several ways, and it predicts ignition will result from device improvements that LPP is implementing now.
Do you think lack of merit is the only possible reason why the US government doesn't fund a technology that would disrupt the entire fossil fuel sector almost overnight? NASA funded Lerner's work at an earlier stage when it was less proven, but NASA was ordered to stop funding any fusion research. Do you have any evidence that contradicts the former head of DoE fusion research (and other senior fusion scientists) who said: "the promise of the LPP DPF approach to fusion power has considerable merit and a much higher level of investment is warranted, based on their considerable progress to date."
Former US Fusion Chief: Focus Fusion Merits Higher Investment
LPP is working toward ignition systematically, changing one variable at a time. That's what good scientists do. Far from endless, the series of steps should be complete in the next year or two. If you think that progression is not meaningful, then you disagree with the experts who have looked carefully at LPP's work, not given it a "first glance."
Have you read the book? Have you read Halton Arp's book that agrees, and Halton Arp's credentials? Or are you judging Lerner's book by its cover?
- - - Updated - - -
The cost of harvesting, storing, and distributing solar energy is unlikely to drop fast enough to replace fossil fuels in time to prevent devastating climate change from excess atmospheric CO2. In contrast, LPP's fusion power (if their mathematical model continues to be correct) will be so cheap that it could stop climate change relatively quickly, and power CO2 sequestration projects to reverse it.
The planet radiates excess heat to space. The problem with fossil fuels is not the heat they add, but the added CO2, methane and other gases that prevent excess heat from radiating away. That's why they are called "greenhouse gases."
The similarities I saw at first glance:
1. Promising a breakthrough well beyond current state of the art.
LPP has already achieved breakthroughs well beyond all other fusion researchers: the highest temperature ever reported for a fusion fuel (1.8 billion degrees Celsius) and higher fusion yields than any other group working with the Dense Plasma Focus device. These breakthroughs were due to LPP's unique design features (smaller size and axial magnetic field) suggested by Lerner's mathematical model of the device, which no one else has. The model has been experimentally confirmed in several ways, and it predicts ignition will result from device improvements that LPP is implementing now.
2. Relying on private funding since the DoE won't touch them with a 10 ft pole. (Seems LPP applied for DoE funding for an x-ray source, but haven't yet found evidence that they received any.)
Do you think lack of merit is the only possible reason why the US government doesn't fund a technology that would disrupt the entire fossil fuel sector almost overnight? NASA funded Lerner's work at an earlier stage when it was less proven, but NASA was ordered to stop funding any fusion research. Do you have any evidence that contradicts the former head of DoE fusion research (and other senior fusion scientists) who said: "the promise of the LPP DPF approach to fusion power has considerable merit and a much higher level of investment is warranted, based on their considerable progress to date."
Former US Fusion Chief: Focus Fusion Merits Higher Investment
3. An endless series of "milestones" which seem to be mostly geared towards securing additional funding, rather then making meaningful progress towards the "promise".
LPP is working toward ignition systematically, changing one variable at a time. That's what good scientists do. Far from endless, the series of steps should be complete in the next year or two. If you think that progression is not meaningful, then you disagree with the experts who have looked carefully at LPP's work, not given it a "first glance."
Add to that his book "The Big Bang Never Happened", and my opinion is that he is more successful as a science fiction writer than the person who will develop terrestrial fusion as an energy source.
Have you read the book? Have you read Halton Arp's book that agrees, and Halton Arp's credentials? Or are you judging Lerner's book by its cover?
- - - Updated - - -
We get more solar nuclear fusion energy than we can imagine what to do with. It is just a matter of harvesting it, and either storing or distributing it (e.g. superconducting transmission lines) effectively and efficiently.
The cost of harvesting, storing, and distributing solar energy is unlikely to drop fast enough to replace fossil fuels in time to prevent devastating climate change from excess atmospheric CO2. In contrast, LPP's fusion power (if their mathematical model continues to be correct) will be so cheap that it could stop climate change relatively quickly, and power CO2 sequestration projects to reverse it.
Terrestrial fusion (if done on large scale) will just add more heat to the planet.
The planet radiates excess heat to space. The problem with fossil fuels is not the heat they add, but the added CO2, methane and other gases that prevent excess heat from radiating away. That's why they are called "greenhouse gases."