Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion

In summary, Eric Lerner discusses how quasars could not have formed from the Big Bang, citing serious algebraic errors in Chen's paper and concerns about the stability of EPS's model. Clint Seward offers a rebuttal, pointing to the large data base of experimental studies that support his model.
  • #1
Dear Folks:

I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response.

Can you be of assistance?

I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing.

In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion.

Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges.
The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium?
I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site.

You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have.

Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source.

"Hi Erich,

I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address
the fusion application. A few points:

1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be
crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is
happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to
understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t
seem to use many other than the photos.

2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to
errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to
say the least.

3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not
fully trust it.

3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net
fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he
also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they
hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit
each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick
together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the
collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only
have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm
across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles
fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of
3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed
by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ--
a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either
you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids
stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any
experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that
much longer confinement times will happen.

Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than
focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some
theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically
that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory,
published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably
reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good
diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also
extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the
dense plasma focus.

Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But
they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break
even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they

I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to
answer questions on focus fusion when you get them.


And Clint's response:

"Dear Erich,

Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points.

1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions.

NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see.

2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work.

3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website.

3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents.

3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest.

3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary.

Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus.

Hopefully this helps.

Clint Seward"

Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi...Wow!

"An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our
technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a
draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their
having talked with our technology partners.

Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have
copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review.

"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

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and

Please let me klnow what you think.


Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting
group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004

Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons

Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass.

Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an
STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for
reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called
"electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST
electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient
to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel
laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning,
are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without
requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be
accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g.,
600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic
acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab
and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although
these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter
long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak"
fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must
then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast,
EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate
high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6
seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest
from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a
major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion
reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long
"neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision.

Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale)
EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or
projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor
penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers
in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600
km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's
extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum.

- Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities
(defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
- Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS
- Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary
(officially defined as 62 miles)
- Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose
initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate
its ESTs.

Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).

Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor)
- appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for
Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY
2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support),
but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5)
within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with
visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners
(agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power)
could accelerate this.
-MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least
$2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by
development of an integratable engineering package.

TRL 3-4. 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.

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and

It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants ,NIST grants etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. I can go into their histories if you are interested

I have been at this for a few months, you have seen the most important posts among my contacts with the Fusion players. Look over their web sites and tell me what you think. EPS seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion, etc.

Been sending my posted questions to academics, science magazines, and forums, not a whole lot of responses.

Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter.
Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a few months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as the paramount problem of our time.
The New York Times> Search> Abstract

Thank you for your attention
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[tex] \large p + ^{11}B \rightarrow 3\alpha + Q (8.7 MeV)[/tex] is attractive for the energy output and the fact that it does not produce neutrons.

For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of
This is about 2% of the normal atomic density in the solid at room temp and 1 atm.

Such an ion density is awfully high and would generate enormous pressures at fusion temperatures. One would have to put all the energy into the proton beams.

I would think ion densities more like 10^20-10^21 /m^3.

The problem with B is Z=5, which means 5e for each B atom, and that means a lot of losses from brehmsstrahlung and cyclotron radiation, recombination.

There's a lot there to digest, so it may be sometime before I can respond.

But it would seem that [tex] \large p + ^7Li \rightarrow 2\alpha + Q (17.5 MeV)[/tex] would be more feasible.
Last edited:
  • #3
There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS.

EPS seems the strongest. Electron Power Systems Home Page Clint Seward recently sent me this response to the few questions raised by folks on the 22 forums I have posted questions to:

"Your most important point was that others have suggested that I should be
able to demonstrate a collision of EST's and even a level of fusion with a
few hundred thousand dollars and about a year. I agree. Here is what I
need to do:

1. Capture the EST in a way that I can measure them. I have designed a
method in the last two months that will do this.
2. Measure the density of the EST. This requirement is something everyone
is asking for, and will enable me to get serious funding from sponsors.
3. Collide two EST's. I have found a simple way to do this based on the
TRISOPS work by Wells.
4. Consulting work by Chen to verify the physics I have outlined for the
5. Make and measure an EST based on Deuterium.
6. Collide two Deuterium EST's.

Each of these requires some cash outlays, so I am working them as I can get
resources. Several people, including yourself, are considering helpful
investments of $5k to $10k to 25K to 50K to 100k. Work will progress with
any investment, no matter how small. Capturing an EST is a $5k investment.

Your second most important point is that more people want to see more data
and even a video. I have many of these, but have not published them yet. I
have concentrated on the physics, which I feel I now know completely, and
can get confirmed. This is a smaller effort, about $15k.

You suggested an article from the SF Chronicle that you might send. Please

Again, thanks for the call."

He is also working with Paul Bellan : Spheromak Formation - Paul Bellan

Here's an up date from Eric Lerner on his progress with Focus Fusion:

""Dear friend of Focus Fusion,

<>Thanks for your support of and interest in Focus Fusion. <>

I'm writing you to update you on our Focus Fusion project and to ask for your help. As you may know from our website or newsletter, this year we came very close to winning a $2 million grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), US Dept. of Commerce. The grant is to develop the dense plasma focus as a powerful x-ray source for infrastructure inspection, but the research involved is essentially the same as that required to reach fusion break-even. While NIST gave us high marks for the technical proposals and we passed Gate 1 of their procedure, we failed Gate 2, which judged the financial side of the plan. In the de-briefing, the NIST representatives assured us that we had an excellent chance of getting the grant in 2005 if we corrected some problems in our business submission.
First, they said we needed more proof that we had tried to raise the $2 million privately and from other government agencies and were unable to. Second, since they will not fund facility rent, considering this an indirect expense, they needed to see pledges from investors that they would cover this cost for at least the first year, in the event the grant was awarded. We estimate that this will involve a maximum of $100,000. In addition, they wanted more evidence that state departments of transportation and other final customers would actually want the x-ray scanner if we succeed. (We have already started to receive these assurances. I’ve attached one from the California DOT.)

<>Finally, they did say that they expected to see at least some small technical progress during the period since our last application in January, even though they realized that this would be limited by available funding. <>

So I am writing you to ask you to do one of three things, any of which would be helpful to us. First, I would like to ask you to consider investing in Lawrenecville Plasma Physics, Inc.(LPP)’s x-ray source project. (NIST rules require this money go to a for-profit, rather than not-for-profit entity, so we applied on behlaf of LPP, not Focus Fusion Society). I’ve attached a summary of the project. This project contributes immensely to the development of focus fusion, but it also has a lower risk, and a faster prospect of financial return. Your investment will contribute in three ways: first, it will help to finance the small new simulation we will carry out to optimize x-ray production, increasing our chances of winning the NIST grant. Second, in the event we do win the NIST grant, it will aid us in accomplishing the project. While we believe we can succeed with $2 million, unexpected contingencies are always possible in research and more money is useful. Third, this money can go toward the $100,000 that we need for the first year’s facility rent. You can see LPP's overall business plan at our website, http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/. <>

Investments can be made by purchasing LPP non-voting shares at $120 a share in minimum blocks of 25 shares. By SEC regulations, to make this investment you must be an “accredited investor” which means that you have one million dollars in net worth (house included) or an income of $200,000 dollars year. <>

If you can not make an investment in this project now, I would very much appreciate your sending me a letter, on your letterhead, explaining very briefly why you can’t do this (too high risk, insufficient funds available, not an accredited investor, etc.) We can use these letters as proof that we can’t raise $2 million from private sources in our next NIST application, so they are very important. You can send these letters either as hard copy to our new address: LPP, 11 Calvin Terrace, West Orange NJ 07052, or to my email address as a PDF file. This will only take you a few minutes, but is going to be invaluable to us. <>

Third, you can make a contractual pledge to provide all or part of the $100,000 that we need to cover our first year facility rent in the event that we are awarded the NIST grant. This money will only be due IF we get the $ 2 million grant and are thus assured the funds we need to do the job. Again, this investment will be in the form of the purchase of LPP shares and will be subject to the same “accredited investor” restriction. <>

I hope that you will be able to help us in one of these three ways. I look forward to your response. Feel free to contact me by email or at 973-736-0522. <>

Warm regards, Eric J. Lerner <>
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. "

Paul Koloc has been working in this field the longest. One interesting point about his approach is that His lawyers have put up the money for his patent application.

Comparison between PLASMAKä BL Model and Formed PMKs

All these guys are scouring the government and private investor for support of their next experiment to demonstrate the viability of their respective approaches.

This is such a specialized area of plasma physics very few people, even in the field, feel confident to respond to my posted questions. Although These postings have intrigued many, over 3000 viewing, with only two dozen replies, I feel that this technology needs to be presented to a wider audience. I have sent this info to several science magazines, the only one that showed an interest was Popular Mechanics (the yellowish journal of technology) how ever they have millions of readers. That was a month ago, I hope it pans out.

This technology is so green (only by product helium) and solves such a panoply of world problems, if it is viable, it is the fuel of the American dream.
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
A negitive review of p-B11 efforts

Darren Garnier of the levitated Dipole experiement:

MIT, Columbia begin new 'hot' fusion experiment - MIT News Office

Had this to say about the p-B11 efforts:

"I, like most of my colleagues in fusion research, are hesitant to
comment about this work. Mainly because when we do, we often end up
being accused of having motives other than that of furthering
scientific understanding.

That said, I'll give you my understanding and my opinion. Many years
ago, I was interested in Koloc's Prometheus... it sounded exciting, and
at the time I was a first year graduate student. (You probably can
google me on it.) Anyhow, my conclusion at the time was it was an
unverified theory with significant holes in it.

In the meantime, I've learned a lot of plasma physics, a lot about
building experiments and diagnosing them, and about "alternative
concepts". Many of which are pursued at a serious level through
funding by the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Research.
(Like my own experiment, the Levitated Dipole Experiment).

Here's what I've learned. Concepts similar to these "toroid" plasmas
have been and are still being researched. There are at least 3
spheromak experiments that can think of off the top of my head in the
US. (They are not surrounded by atmospheric gases though). There are
2 experiments currently being pursued that are try to collide two
spheromaks together to form (possibly) a "field reversed configuration"
or FRC. The investigators working on these projects, I'm sure, would
tell you that a lot of work still needs to be done to even determine if
one of these devices could reach ignition, let alone 0.0005

As far as p-B11 as a fuel goes, this is even harder to consider. Sure
its an available fuel, but there have been significant efforts to
determine its cross-section and it doesn't look feasible. Technically,
the temperatures required would likely make synchrotron radiation of
the boron snuff out the fusion fire. (That's why on LDX, which we
hope to have minimal neutron radiation, we hope to have a "catalysed
D-D" reaction... But, I'll tell you, it ain't happening in the next
10 years, and won't be put into cars).

About the quote from the DOD review. I can't speak for "MIT", but I
and I would guess most of the scientists working at the MIT Plasma
Science and Fusion Center, would not agree.

Speaking for myself, I can say only this. In general I support
research in "alternative concepts". However, I'm very wary of
proponents who promise too much too soon. The fusion community burned
itself badly 40 years ago when its said that, in just a few years
fusion energy plants will produce electricity that is too cheap to
meter. In the end, very proposal for research should be well
presented with respect to prior work and reviewed so that claims by the
proponents can be evaluated in the course of the research.



Thank you for your Attention.

Erich J. Knight

Related to Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion

1. What is Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion?

Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion is a type of nuclear fusion reaction that involves the fusion of hydrogen nuclei (protons) with boron nuclei. This process releases large amounts of energy, similar to other types of fusion reactions.

2. How does Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion differ from other fusion reactions?

Unlike other fusion reactions, Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion does not require any radioactive materials and produces no radioactive waste. It also has a higher efficiency rate and produces more energy per unit of fuel.

3. What are the potential applications of Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion?

Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion has the potential to be a clean and sustainable source of energy, providing an alternative to fossil fuels. It could also be used for space propulsion and as a power source for spacecraft.

4. What are the challenges of achieving Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion?

One of the main challenges is creating the extreme conditions necessary for the fusion reaction to occur, such as high temperatures and pressures. Another challenge is containing the plasma for a sustained period of time, as well as finding a way to efficiently extract the energy produced.

5. Is Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion currently being researched?

Yes, there are several research projects and experiments currently underway to achieve Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion. However, it is still in the early stages of development and more research is needed before it can be implemented as a viable energy source.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
  • STEM Academic Advising
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
  • STEM Career Guidance
  • Nuclear Engineering
  • STEM Academic Advising
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics