Focus Fusion
NEC Survey Results

Poll ran from Nov. 19 through midnight, Nov. 26, 2005, mountain time.
The following is a streamlined tabulation for public view.
(A version of this survey, for the public to take, is found here.)

(NEC respondents listed in sequence of last name)   .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.

Focus Fusion rating:

t10

t10

t3

t3

dec

t10

t10

t10

25%

t3

dn

25%

25%

10%

10%

dn

*below

+ +

Knowledge on FF:

6

6

9

5

1

2

3

5

6

3

2

5

2

3

7

0

4.1/10

f.y.i.

Percent influenced by Valone:

10

75

50

100

25

50

10

80

0

50

0

30

90

33

90

0

43%

f.y.i.

FF experiment experience:

3

4

10

2

3

1

2

0

1

2

0

-

2

0

2

0

2.1/10

f.y.i.

NEC publish synopsis statement:

y

y

y

y

(n)

(n)

y

y

y

y

(n)

(n)

y

y

y

(n)

11y;5n

pass

NEC's FF survey results public:

(n)

y

y

(n)

(n)

(n)

y

(n)

y

y

(n)

(n)

y

y

y

(n)

8y;8n

pass**

FF survey text public:

y

y

y

y

(n)

(n)

y

(n)

y

y

(n)

(n)

(n)

y

y

(n)

9y;7n

(pass)

OK to publish my FF answers:

y

y

y

y

(n)

y

y

(n)

y

y

(n)

(n)

(n)

y

(n)

(n)

9y;7n

indiv.

**Tie goes to "yes" because no "abstain" default was provided. (A flaw in the design of this survey is that a check box (checked = yes) (unchecked = default = implied no) was presented in cases where three options should have been given: yes / no / abstain, with "abstain" being the default. Some of the above "(n)" answers, which are tabulated as "(n)" because no response was given, would most likely have been "abstain", not "no".)

Comments

Reasons for Focus Fusion Response

Adrian Akau
(score: top 10; knowledge 6; Valone 10%; experience 3)

I do not know what financial resources, if any, are presently at the disposal of the New Energy Congress. A project such as Focus Fusion is certainly warranted but may require investment in the order of tens of millions of dollars.

An energy technology evaluation must consider time as well as capital constraints. This type of fusion is certainly much more promising than conventional hot fusion, but how could the government possibly be influenced to shift funding in this direction? It may take years before physicists in this area would be willing to look at, much less support development in this direction.

Sterling D. Allan
(score: top 10; knowledge 6; Valone 75%; experience 4)

No working prototype of final concept yet; still theory.  Very strong recommendations from Tom Valone and James N. Downing, both of whom have strong experience in the field.  Mike Johnston, who also has significant understanding of nuclear phenomenon, is not impressed.  I'm going for a more conservative stance than I first took.

James N Downing
(score: top 3; knowledge 9; Valone 50%; experience 10)

I have done extensive research on the DPF in graduate school and at Los Alamos. I don't think this technology is as easy or as cheap to develop as indicated; however, it offers much more promise (orders of magnitude) than conventional approaches to fusion energy. The DPF has suffered the same monetary and political fate as many alternative concepts which threaten the status quo.

Joel Garbon
(score: top 3; knowledge 5; Valone 100%; experience 2)

[no comment]

Sepp Hasslberger
(score: top 10; knowledge 2; Valone 50%; experience 1)

Although there are important open questions about the technology, it would represent a big advance over current "steam-engine" type technologies that are in general use. So even though the technical details have not been worked out, it would be a good candidate and be worth even a "long shot" investment.

As several others, I am not at ease to make a recommendation at this stage of the game, we really need more substantial examination and discussion.

Troy Helming
(score: top 10; knowledge 3; Valone 10%; experience 2)

[no comment]

--
(score: top 10; knowledge 5; Valone 80%; experience 0)

I highly rate [Thomas] Valone's opinion, but there are other technologies out there that I am aware of.

Mike Johnston
(score: top 25%; knowledge 6; Valone 0%; experience 1)

It definitely needs more work and then there is a question of time to develop such a technology and get it into widespread use (assuming it is made viable).

Joseph B. Martin
(score: top 3; knowledge 3; Valone 50%; experience 2)

[no comment]

--
(score: top 25%; knowledge 2; Valone 90%; experience 2)

High temperature power generation for a small community application is quite viable, but not as appealing to a larger market as other technologies nearing availability. It still requires a very skilled operator. On/Off/Volume is all the consumer can safely handle.

Tai Robinson
(score: top 10%; knowledge 3; Valone 33%; experience 0)

Focus Fusion sounds great. It would be nice to see it happen. It would be great to see the prototype reactor. I do not have enough knowledge on Focus Fusion to give my assessment to merit. However, if independent individuals are endorsing it, there must be viability.

If the electrical energy coming from Focus Fusion is by the x-rays into a PhotoVoltaic, it would seem wise to use space grade solar cells that are designed for use without an atmosphere between them and the sun.

--
(score: top 10; knowledge 7; Valone 90%; experience 2)

Focus Fusion is a large scale system generating 2MW or more.  Our ideal power source would be one that provides 10-15KW and cost effective to provide distributed power to individual homes.

--
(score: don't know enough to rate; knowledge 0; Valone 0%; experience 0)

My interest are geared more towards a simple approach something that anyone can make in a garage with parts from the local hardware store. I have an engineering background and this stuff is over my head so I can't say if it would work or not.

Specific Technologies Recommended

An abbreviated listing of "other technologies" suggested by NEC members.  "Private" technology mentions are not included here.

(Listed according to confidence level, highest first; on scale of 0 - 10)

• Renewable Hydrogen generation and combustion (Tai Robinson, 10)
• Randell Mills "hydrino" device (Joel Garbon, 7)
• Stirling Solar (inc?) (Sterling D. Allan, 7)]
• TMA Vertical Axis wind turbine (Sterling D. Allan, 6)
• AIUS.com (solar turbines) (Sterling D. Allan, 6)
• Hydrogen-Boost.com (Fran Giroux) brown's gas to air intake, etc (Sterling D. Allan, 6)
• ZPE Generator from Magnetic Power, Inc (Joseph B. Martin, 4) (Sterling D. Allan, 6)
• Two Canadian groups doing H-hydrolysis to air intake (Sterling D. Allan, 4)
• Bearden's MEG (James N Downing, 2)
• methane hydrates from off shore deposits (James N Downing, 1)

Survey results tabulated by Sterling D. Allan, Nov. 26, 2005
Announced to NE_Congress, Nov. 26, 2005, pm.
Original ballot archive posted here.
Past last updated November 30, 2005