Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stop the Suppression of an Alternative Energy Source!

Expand Messages
  • sky watcher
    The Webfairy wrote: To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, apfn-1@yahoogroups.com From: The Webfairy Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 14:44:50 -0500
    Message 1 of 2 , May 12 1:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment


      The Webfairy <webfairy@...> wrote:

      To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, apfn-1@yahoogroups.com
      From: The Webfairy
      Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 14:44:50 -0500
      Subject: [cia-drugs] Stop the Suppression of an Alternative Energy Source!


      http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWeb%2028%20Jul%2002-2/28editor.htm
      Stop the Suppression of an Alternative Energy Source!

      By Eric Lerner


      Recently, at the IEEE-APS International Conference on Plasma Science
      in Banff, Alberta, Canada I announced experimental results that
      promise cheap, clean, non-radioactive energy. The results
      demonstrated the viability of a compact fusion device called the
      plasma focus, opening the door to a new energy source possibly 100
      times cheaper than oil and gas. The experimental work was performed
      last year at Texas A&M University in a project funded by the Jet
      Propulsion Laboratory of NASA. Other scientists congratulated us on
      the success.

      Yet, instead of hailing this new work, a Los Alamos National
      Laboratory manager threatened two members of our research team with
      firing if they didn't repudiate the results. Funding for the
      research has been cut off, and the mainstream press has ignored both
      the new discovery and the effort to suppress it. What's going on
      here?

      The new results are important because they show that the high
      temperatures -- over a billion degrees -- needed to burn
      hydrogen-boron fuel can be reached. A plasma focus reactor using
      hydrogen-boron fuel would serve as an almost ideal source of energy.
      It generates no long-lived (more than a few minutes half-life)
      radioactive byproducts. The fusion energy is released mainly as a
      beam of charged alpha particles, which can convert directly to
      electricity without the use of expensive steam turbines. A plasma
      focus device, with a core about the size of a large coffee can,
      costs less than $500,000 to build. Once fully developed, focus-based
      fusion reactors would also be small, making possible decentralized
      sources of power. With the reactors so economical, the successful
      development of plasma focus hydrogen-boron reactors could eventually
      render oil and gas nearly worthless.

      We achieved these high temperatures, together with high densities,
      last August and posted a scientific paper describing the results to
      an online physics archive (http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0205026) in
      May, as well as submitting it to the journal Physica Scripta.

      Then came the attempt to suppress this work. In May, Dr. Richard
      Seimon, Fusion Energy Science Program Manager at Los Alamos,
      demanded that Dr. Hank Oona, a Los Alamos staff physicist involved
      in the experiment, dissociate himself from comparisons that showed
      the new results superior in key respects to those of the tokamak and
      to remove his name from the paper describing the results. The
      tokamak, a much larger and more expensive device, has been the
      centerpiece of the U.S. fusion effort for 25 years. The demand was
      particularly outrageous since Oona was neither funded by Los Alamos
      nor at Los Alamos while participating in the experiment.

      Seimon didn't dispute the data or the achievement of high
      temperatures. He objected to the comparisons with the tokamak,
      arguing that it was biased against the tokamak. In addition, Seimon
      pressured Dr. Bruce Freeman of Texas A&M, another co-author of the
      paper, to advocate the removal of all tokamak comparisons from the
      paper.

      Both of my colleagues, who did tremendous work on this experiment,
      had carefully reviewed and approved the paper originally and had
      endorsed its conclusions. For them to be forced to recant under
      threat of firing is outrageous. It undermines the very basis of
      scientific discourse if researchers aren't allowed by their
      institutions to speak honestly to each other. Los Alamos has no more
      right to tell scientists what to think than the Catholic Church had
      to tell Galileo.

      Why would Los Alamos try to suppress this work? For 25 years,
      government officials and program managers have based the fusion
      program exclusively on the tokamak, nearly eliminating all other
      approaches such as the plasma focus. Tokamak devices can't lead to
      drastically cheaper energy. Tokamaks use deuterium-tritium fuel,
      which creates high-energy neutrons. These neutrons would then be
      used for conventional steam turbine generators. Most of the capital
      cost of electricity comes from the steam cycle, not the energy
      source, so a significant reduction in energy costs is not possible
      with the tokamak. Unlike the plasma focus, they pose no threat to
      oil and gas.

      The Department of Energy, which funds Los Alamos and many other
      labs, defends the tokamak tooth-and-nail in part through sheer
      bureaucratic inertia. But the Department's leadership has become
      increasingly indistinguishable from that of the oil and gas
      corporations, and it has no interest whatsoever in funding research
      that might eventually threaten those corporations.

      The plasma focus does pose a real threat to the existing
      fossil-fuel energy multinationals, the Exxons and Enrons of the
      world. Not only would focus fusion reactors be cheap, producing
      energy at the equivalent of a oil at a dime a barrel, they would be
      decentralized, with each reactor producing perhaps 20 megawatts,
      enough for a town. This would both reduce transmission costs and
      inhibit corporate control of energy supply.

      At the moment, there is NO U.S. government funding for focus fusion
      research. The NASA program that was funding this research, at a very
      low level, has been cut. Research at some 15 plasma focus groups in
      other countries is also crippled by lack of funds. Yet the amount of
      money needed is tiny; the next step in the research will require
      only about $500,000.

      The amount of money needed is so small that it can be raised from
      the general public. To do this, we have set up the Focus Fusion
      Society (www.focusfusion.org) with the aim of developing focus
      fusion on a non-profit basis. The more results we get, the more
      difficult it will be to suppress this technology. We can all support
      this work by joining this society and by spreading the word about
      it; forwarding this message to email lists and organizations that
      have an interest in cheap, clean, decentralized energy; holding
      meetings; getting on local radio shows; and writing letters to local
      papers. By taking matters into our own hands, we can change energy
      policy.

      As engineers and scientists, we frequently find that work we do
      with benefits to society is frustrated by corporate interests and
      governmental polices that serve them. Often, all we can do is
      protest. This time, instead of just protesting, we have the
      opportunity to actually do something about energy policy. We can
      ensure this technology gets fully researched and developed and not
      suppressed.

       


      Do you Yahoo!?
      The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    • sky watcher
      http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWeb%2028%20Jul%2002-2/28editor.htm Stop the Suppression of an Alternative Energy Source! By Eric Lerner Recently, at the
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWeb%2028%20Jul%2002-2/28editor.htm
        Stop the Suppression of an Alternative Energy Source!

        By Eric Lerner


        Recently, at the IEEE-APS International Conference on Plasma Science
        in Banff, Alberta, Canada I announced experimental results that
        promise cheap, clean, non-radioactive energy. The results
        demonstrated the viability of a compact fusion device called the
        plasma focus, opening the door to a new energy source possibly 100
        times cheaper than oil and gas. The experimental work was performed
        last year at Texas A&M University in a project funded by the Jet
        Propulsion Laboratory of NASA. Other scientists congratulated us on
        the success.

        Yet, instead of hailing this new work, a Los Alamos National
        Laboratory manager threatened two members of our research team with
        firing if they didn't repudiate the results. Funding for the
        research has been cut off, and the mainstream press has ignored both
        the new discovery and the effort to suppress it. What's going on
        here?

        The new results are important because they show that the high
        temperatures -- over a billion degrees -- needed to burn
        hydrogen-boron fuel can be reached. A plasma focus reactor using
        hydrogen-boron fuel would serve as an almost ideal source of energy.
        It generates no long-lived (more than a few minutes half-life)
        radioactive byproducts. The fusion energy is released mainly as a
        beam of charged alpha particles, which can convert directly to
        electricity without the use of expensive steam turbines. A plasma
        focus device, with a core about the size of a large coffee can,
        costs less than $500,000 to build. Once fully developed, focus-based
        fusion reactors would also be small, making possible decentralized
        sources of power. With the reactors so economical, the successful
        development of plasma focus hydrogen-boron reactors could eventually
        render oil and gas nearly worthless.

        We achieved these high temperatures, together with high densities,
        last August and posted a scientific paper describing the results to
        an online physics archive (
        http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0205026) in
        May, as well as submitting it to the journal Physica Scripta.

        Then came the attempt to suppress this work. In May, Dr. Richard
        Seimon, Fusion Energy Science Program Manager at Los Alamos,
        demanded that Dr. Hank Oona, a Los Alamos staff physicist involved
        in the experiment, dissociate himself from comparisons that showed
        the new results superior in key respects to those of the tokamak and
        to remove his name from the paper describing the results. The
        tokamak, a much larger and more expensive device, has been the
        centerpiece of the U.S. fusion effort for 25 years. The demand was
        particularly outrageous since Oona was neither funded by Los Alamos
        nor at Los Alamos while participating in the experiment.

        Seimon didn't dispute the data or the achievement of high
        temperatures. He objected to the comparisons with the tokamak,
        arguing that it was biased against the tokamak. In addition, Seimon
        pressured Dr. Bruce Freeman of Texas A&M, another co-author of the
        paper, to advocate the removal of all tokamak comparisons from the
        paper.

        Both of my colleagues, who did tremendous work on this experiment,
        had carefully reviewed and approved the paper originally and had
        endorsed its conclusions. For them to be forced to recant under
        threat of firing is outrageous. It undermines the very basis of
        scientific discourse if researchers aren't allowed by their
        institutions to speak honestly to each other. Los Alamos has no more
        right to tell scientists what to think than the Catholic Church had
        to tell Galileo.

        Why would Los Alamos try to suppress this work? For 25 years,
        government officials and program managers have based the fusion
        program exclusively on the tokamak, nearly eliminating all other
        approaches such as the plasma focus. Tokamak devices can't lead to
        drastically cheaper energy. Tokamaks use deuterium-tritium fuel,
        which creates high-energy neutrons. These neutrons would then be
        used for conventional steam turbine generators. Most of the capital
        cost of electricity comes from the steam cycle, not the energy
        source, so a significant reduction in energy costs is not possible
        with the tokamak. Unlike the plasma focus, they pose no threat to
        oil and gas.

        The Department of Energy, which funds Los Alamos and many other
        labs, defends the tokamak tooth-and-nail in part through sheer
        bureaucratic inertia. But the Department's leadership has become
        increasingly indistinguishable from that of the oil and gas
        corporations, and it has no interest whatsoever in funding research
        that might eventually threaten those corporations.

        The plasma focus does pose a real threat to the existing
        fossil-fuel energy multinationals, the Exxons and Enrons of the
        world. Not only would focus fusion reactors be cheap, producing
        energy at the equivalent of a oil at a dime a barrel, they would be
        decentralized, with each reactor producing perhaps 20 megawatts,
        enough for a town. This would both reduce transmission costs and
        inhibit corporate control of energy supply.

        At the moment, there is NO U.S. government funding for focus fusion
        research. The NASA program that was funding this research, at a very
        low level, has been cut. Research at some 15 plasma focus groups in
        other countries is also crippled by lack of funds. Yet the amount of
        money needed is tiny; the next step in the research will require
        only about $500,000.

        The amount of money needed is so small that it can be raised from
        the general public. To do this, we have set up the Focus Fusion
        Society (www.focusfusion.org) with the aim of developing focus
        fusion on a non-profit basis. The more results we get, the more
        difficult it will be to suppress this technology. We can all support
        this work by joining this society and by spreading the word about
        it; forwarding this message to email lists and organizations that
        have an interest in cheap, clean, decentralized energy; holding
        meetings; getting on local radio shows; and writing letters to local
        papers. By taking matters into our own hands, we can change energy
        policy.

        As engineers and scientists, we frequently find that work we do
        with benefits to society is frustrated by corporate interests and
        governmental polices that serve them. Often, all we can do is
        protest. This time, instead of just protesting, we have the
        opportunity to actually do something about energy policy. We can
        ensure this technology gets fully researched and developed and not
        suppressed.


        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.