Saturday, December 28, 2013

Snowden Stole Everything




I am sorry children, but the end game remains in the hands of Mr. Snowdon. How it will play out remains to be seen although I presume that we will now see progress simply because they are communicating.

Snowdon curiously can demand and enforce an ethical resolution well ahead of any necessary financial and protective issues.  Doing that could well save his life.  In the meantime the NSA will need to review its procedures and to also understand that placing loyal contractors under an ethical Geias can and obviously will backfire.

You cannot have it both ways.  Educate your citizen to uphold a high ethical standard and then breach those standards out of a false loyalty.  Not after Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

DOD official: Snowden ‘stole everything — literally everything’
1:21 PM 12/17/2013

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden stole vastly more information than previously speculated, and is holding it at ransom for his own protection.

“What’s floating is so dangerous, we’d be behind for twenty years in terms of access (if it were to be leaked),” a ranking Department of Defense official told the Daily Caller.

“He stole everything — literally everything,” the official said.

Last month British and U.S. intelligence officials speculated Snowden had in his possession a “doomsday cache” of intelligence information, including the names of undercover intelligence personnel stationed around the world.

“Sources briefed on the matter” told Reuters that such a cache could be used as an insurance policy in the event Snowden was captured, and that, “the worst was yet to come.”

The officials cited no hard evidence of such a cache, but indicated it was a possible worst-case-scenario. Some version of that scenario appears to have come true.

“It’s only accessible for a few hours a day, and is triple encrypted to the point where no one can break it,” the official said of the data cloud where Snowden has likely hidden the information.

According to the official, there are at least two others in possession of the code to access the information, and, “if we nail him — he’ll release the data.”

“Everything you don’t want the enemy to know, he has,” the official said. “Who we’re listening to, what we’re after — they’d shut us down.”

The damage would be “of biblical proportions,” the official said.

Another official from the NSA task force commissioned to assess the data stolen and leaked by Snowden said on television recently that granting Snowden amnesty is “worth having a conversation about” in order to secure any potential stolen data.

Director of the NSA Gen. Keith Alexander said on “60 Minutes” Sunday that he opposes the idea, and said that people need to be held accountable for their actions. The White House stated Monday it would not be changing its policy regarding Snowden.

The NSA director has repeatedly testified before Congress about the revealed programs, and continues to state that the leaks have compromised U.S. national security.

Alexander announced in October he would be retiring as NSA director and head of U.S. Cyber Command effective March, and a recent White House task force charged with improving NSA transparency has suggested appointing a civilian head to steer the signals intelligence agency.

The official said that following Alexander’s retirement, he doesn’t “know how (the amnesty conversation) is going to play out.”



Coldest Place on Earth




We are slowly discovering some truly cold spots on Earth which may well serve as a valuable laboratory and manufacturing platform for exotic materials and tests in large bulk lots.  Where else could one lay out tons of material on a test bed to process easily at these temperatures?

Of course, it would be wise to tunnel deep into the rock to protect humans working there and a closed heat system would also be wise.

Of course a whole range of technology would demand invention in order to work well here but to be honest; we need all this anyway in order to work in space, on the moon and on Mars.  A full base on that particular ridge begins to look attractive.

On the other hand, penetrating with an adit and excavating a series of internal chambers is a pretty quick job and that internalizes the whole operation while it is happening.  The trick is to go as large as can be mounted in the front end.  Next season one can easily double up the working space with the same equipment and completely resupply as well.

Since this is an underground base, it makes sense to create domed chambers with cemented roofs in the first phase, then excavate downward deeply below the roof, then build the internal structure back up to the secure roof.  Multiple ten story chambers with connecting multi story tunnels that also are wide enough to house living space provide a robust base.

This will be necessary because moving in and out of this base particularly needs to be minimized during the winter at least.

Polar-orbiting satellite locates the coldest place on Earth
By Scott Sutherland | Geekquinox – Tue, 10 Dec, 2013



It goes without saying that it's cold in Antarctica, but exactly how cold does it get? Scientists poring over more than 30 years of data from orbiting satellites have found one part of the Antarctic mountain ridge that actually got down to a record -93.2 degrees Celcius — the coldest temperature we've ever recorded anywhere on the planet.

This truly bone-chilly temperature was recorded on August 10th, 2010, along the East Antarctic Plateau, and it knocks the previous 'coldest place on Earth' — Vostok research station with its record of -89.2°C — off of its 26 year throne of ice.

Scientists from NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Centre discuss the new record in this video:



As for how temperatures can actually get down that low, rather than a very windy place, you actually need very still air that persists in one area for a long time, as this short video explains:


There are a few particularly amazing and scary facts about this discovery.

Firstly, this temperature is so cold that it goes far beyond any discussions of extreme cold you'll likely find. Environment Canada's guide on this kind of weather stops at "-55 and below" with warnings like "Extremely High risk: exposed skin can freeze in less than 2 minutes," "DANGER! Outdoor conditions are hazardous" and the simple advice of "stay indoors." Furthermore, that "-55 and below" isn't for temperature, but wind chill. The same strong breeze that can turn -30°C into a -55 wind chill can make -93.2°C feel more like -145. Yikes!

If you ever want to visit the East Antarctic Plateau, forget about the long underwear and parkas. Break out the space suits!


Scientists Discover Viable Alternative Fuel





So what is it that is supposed to have been discovered here?  And if we solve the water splitting problem and the energy storage problem it is nonsense to use any of it to produce a liquid fuel as a storage method.

So far this reads like a cloud of smoke and where there is smoke, it turns out much too often that we have a smoke machine.

It sounds like an incremental improvement on synthetic fuel manufacture and an effort to promote continuing support.  Recall Israel’s vast new natural gas reserves will shortly make them a serious petro state.  In that situation, great new replacements quickly lose attractiveness.

Scientists Discover Viable Alternative Fuel

Thursday, November 28, 2013


As the US undergoes its busiest travel week of the year, it is timely to reflect on the future of our fuel supplies. The modern world relies so heavily on the need for mobility, but, with our current reliance on fossil fuels, travel has a precarious future. 

Oil reserves are not limitless, and the by-products of the internal combustion engine are impacting on global warming. It's time to find a viable alternative, and Israeli university researchers believe that they have done just that. 


Scientists from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) have discovered a ground-breaking method that is able to derive an alternative liquid fuel from hydrogen (water) and carbon dioxide, two of the most common elements on earth. The development team comprised Professor Moti Herskowitz, who is the Israel Cohen Chair in Chemical Engineering and VP and dean of R&D, along with Professor Miron Landau, Dr. Roxana Vidruk and researchers from BGU’s Blechner Center of Industrial Catalysis and Process Development. 


“It is an extraordinary challenge to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen to green feed,” said Herskowitz, “The technology is based on novel specially tailored catalysts and catalytic processes. Well-established, commercially available technology can be directly applied to the process developed at Ben Gurion University. It is envisaged that the short-term implementation of the process will combine synthetic gas produced from various renewable and alternative sources with carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Since there are no foreseen technological barriers, the new process should become a reality within five to ten years."


Herskowitz unveiled the new discovery during a presentation at Bloomberg Fuel Choices Summit which was held in Tel Aviv on 12th-13th November, during which he stated that the new process could become the primary technology for producing liquid fuels once “carbon dioxide capture from various sources, including air and water splitting, become technologically and economically feasible.”
[ good luck on that – arclein ]


The new substance in its raw state is similar to synthetic crude oil and can be turned into a usable liquid fuel using the same type of technology, but the research team explained that further technologies, such as water splitting equipment, would need to be developed in order to make the new fuel a viable and competitive alternative. It already provides a more practical solution than other alternatives, such as electric cars, as it could use the existing infrastructure used for oil and liquid gas distribution, and Herskowitz said he was confident that the new technique would be adopted within five to ten years.


The BGU team believe that the most logical approach would be to implement the changeover in stages, and they suggest “beginning with carbon dioxide, water and natural gas, biomass or bio-gas as the starting products and ultimately evolving into a technology that requires only carbon dioxide derived from the atmosphere and water.”


"The process is patent pending, and we are ready to take off, demonstrate and commercialize it," Herskowitz said, adding that bench experiments have been conducted and scale-up should be fairly straightforward. 


The Israeli government has a visionary approach to its future transport solutions, and has a valiant ambition to replace 60 percent of its conventional oil consumption with the latest innovations in alternative fuels by 2025, making it the world leader in this field.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about Israel’s vision at the Bloomberg Fuel Summit and announced the joint winners of the first annual $1 million Samson Prize for innovation in the field of alternative fuels, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southern California (USC) G.K. Surya Prakash and Nobel Laureate George A. Olah. The Summit focused on key factors surrounding the incorporation of new fuels, and will discuss whether the advances in new technologies will live up to expectations, and whether the sector will continue to be dominated by one fuel. 


The advent of new and environmentally friendly alternatives is excellent news for the planet, but it will be interesting to see how readily new technologies are embraced. As the opportunities for diversification in the fuel sector begin to open up, will the world be released from the stranglehold of the oil companies, and what will be the economic implications of this? The world's economy is driven and dominated by the oil industry; 'black gold' both feeds and undermines the global economy but is so inextricably interwoven into every aspect of the world's manufacturing processes that it is not yet clear how the new, carbon-neutral fuels would be integrated into the financial system. Increased demand and uncertainty over reserves currently allow companies like Opec to manipulate supplies in order to artificially inflate prices, a practice which has led to the upward spiralling oil costs being experienced in the Western world, but if fuel can soon be generated to order, will this tyrannical reign be over?


Unknown Country strives to bring you news of the most important issues to face our planet - subscribe today for further insights and benefits.


  

Scientists Discover second DNA code




Once again, we discover that we actually knew diddly squat.  On the other hand our own understanding of natural logic languages is only now becoming sophisticated enough to anticipate just this type of fix in the system and in fact to expect even a lot more.  My difficulty is that I can scope out the actual quadratic logic system used by biological systems, but cringe at the task of mapping the operators to the known empirical evidence.  It can wait a while.

Otherwise this is good news.  The present dispensation was intuitively deficient and this begins to close that gap. Bravo.

This is a pretty good hint on why the system is remarkably stable even if it looks like a horde of bees shifting around in an envelope.

Scientists discover second, secret DNA code

By AFP | AFP – Thu, Dec 12, 2013


Scientists have long believed that DNA tells the cells how to make proteins. But the discovery of a new, second DNA code Thursday suggests the body speaks two different languages.

The findings in the journal Science may have big implications for how medical experts use the genomes of patients to interpret and diagnose diseases, researchers said.

The newfound genetic code within deoxyribonucleic acid, the hereditary material that exists in nearly every cell of the body, was written right on top of the DNA code scientists had already cracked.

Rather than concerning itself with proteins, this one instructs the cells on how genes are controlled.

Its discovery means DNA changes, or mutations that come with age or in response to viruses, may be doing more than what scientists previously thought, he said.

"For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," said lead author John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine.

"Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture," he said.

"Many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously."

Scientists already knew that the genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons.

But now researchers have figured out that some of these codons have two meanings.

Coined duons, these new elements of DNA language have one meaning related to protein sequence and another that is related to gene control.

[ this looks like a causation operator that ensures stability in the required outcome. – arclein ]

The latter instructions "appear to stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made," the study said.

The discovery was made as part of the international collaboration of research groups known as the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, or ENCODE.


It is funded by the US National Human Genome Research Institute with the goal of finding out where and how the directions for biological functions are stored in the human genome.

Friday, December 27, 2013

Major Endorsement to Lawrenceville Plasma Physics




My sense on this is that we are around $2,000,000 away from a successful proof of concept test.  That is really not a great deal of coin.  At that point, taking it all to the scale needed for a commercial device will take another $25,000,000 and an actual working commercial system another $100 mill.  At that point you are good to go.

It is good to see more folks coming on side here.  This is the device protocol that we need to power Star ships and everything else.  The actual power takeoff is uncomplicated and natural to the system itself with on intermediation whatsoever.  That alone even allows excess on the front end if it is necessary.

A deliverable in the 2020’s will be about right and will naturally coincide with shift over to a full battery supported electrical system and all electrical cars.

No other fusion protocol can even dream about a deliverable, let alone a proof of concept so soon.

Senior Fusion researchers give major endorsement to Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Dense Plasma Focus Fusion Work and say they expect feasibility will be shown within two years with adequate funding
DECEMBER 13, 2013


In a major endorsement of the fusion energy research and development program of start-up Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP), a committee of senior fusion researchers, led by a former head of the US fusion program, has concluded that the innovative effort deserves “a much higher level of investment … based on their considerable progress to date.” The report concludes that “In the committee’s view [LPP’s] approach to fusion power … is worthy of a considerable expansion of effort.”


Lawrenceville Plasma Physics has been developing an extremely low-cost approach to fusion power based on a device called the dense plasma focus (DPF). In contrast to the giant tokamak machines that have been the recipients of most fusion funding, a DPF can fit in a small room. LPP’s final feasibility experiments and planned commercial generators will use hydrogen-boron fuel, which produces no radioactive waste and promises extremely economical clean energy.


The committee of researchers was led by Dr. Robert Hirsch, a former director of fusion research for the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Agency. Other members of the committee were Dr. Stephen O. Dean, President of Fusion Power Associates and former director of fusion Magnetic Confinement Systems for the Department of Energy; Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski, Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Professor Dennis Papadopoulos, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland. The committee was organized by Dr. Hirsch at the request of Mr. Alvin Samuels, an investor in LPP’s effort, to give an objective assessment of the program. Neither Mr. Samuels nor LPP had any control over the committee’s conclusions.


If the physics issues outlined herein can be satisfactorily resolved, it is conceivable that the DPF concept could be developed into a viable, economic, and environmentally attractive electric power source for not only civilian power but also for military purposes. LPP’s projection of very small (about 5MW) units would be an advantage relative to most other fusion concepts. To date, LPP personnel have not given extensive consideration to the engineering of a DPF power reactor. This is appropriate in the committee’s opinion, because without the successful resolution of existing issues, a DPF reactor will not be possible. Having said that, the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability. 


The committee’s report pointed to the “innovative thinking and experimental results achieved thus far by Mr. (Eric J.) Lerner and his team at LPP.” At the same time, the scientists did not minimize the remaining work that still needs to be done to experimentally validate the predictions of LPP’s theory of DPF functioning and lay the foundation for commercial fusion generators. Commenting on the report, LPP’s President and Chief Scientist Lerner said, “We agree with the review committee that several of our predictions still need to be proved in the laboratory, which is what we intend to do in the near future.”


The LPP team has stated that, given adequate funding, they can demonstrate in a year or two the scientific feasibility of fusion energy with the DPF and hydrogen-boron fuel, a combination the team calls “Focus Fusion.” They expect that a working prototype generator can then be developed in a few years more.


The review committee broadly supported that short-term timeframe, concluding: “While a number of near-term physics issues remain to be resolved, it is likely that with adequate financial support these matters could be addressed in a relatively short period of time, e.g. a few years.” If these issues are addressed, “the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability.” In other words, a functioning, economical and clean new source of energy may soon become reality.


Highlights of the LPP”s program, based on a theoretical model developed by Mr. Lerner are as follows:

1. The concept should operate more effectively with heavier elements, such as boron. 


2. Scaling to effective operation is towards smaller sizes. 3. The so-called Quantum Magnetic Field effect, postulated in astrophysical plasmas but not verified in laboratory experiments, will reduce energy transfer from hot ions to electrons thereby preventing catastrophic energy loss due to bremsstrahlung emission by hot electrons. 


4. Lerner’s theoretical model predicts that reduction of bremsstrahlung loss and reabsorption of synchrotron radiation by the dense and opaque plasma focus could allow the pB11 DPF pinch to reach ignition.


5. After the pinch disassembles, Lerner believes that plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device, carrying roughly two-thirds of the plasma energy, allowing efficient direct energy conversion to electric power. 


6. Based on his theoretical model, a weak axial magnetic field might enhance the beneficial formation of the pinch plasma. 


The committee’s views on these points are as follows:
1. DPF operates more effectively with heavier elements. This prediction from the model remains to be verified. In the near future LPP has a credible plan to test this theory using Nitrogen as a stand-in for Boron. This appears possible, and, if proven, would be a distinctive characteristic of the DPF. 

2. DPF wants to scale to smaller sizes. This prediction of the model also needs experimental validation. This appears possible, and, if demonstrated, is a positive, distinctive characteristic of the DPF. Smaller size scaling would be unique among fusion concepts and would mean that program development might proceed rapidly. On the other hand, in a power producing device, small size might lead to difficult device cooling, an issue that cannot be evaluated at this time. 


3. The Quantum Magnetic Field Effect will keep electron temperatures lower than the ion temperatures. This effect has never been seen in laboratory experiments. Its demonstration represents a major challenge since it requires much higher densities and much higher self-generated magnetic fields. Lower electron temperatures are essential for this or any pB11 concept, because electron temperatures near ion temperatures would result in radiation losses that would prohibit net power production. 


4. Ignition with pB11 may be possible. While conceivable, ignition in pB11 has to our knowledge not been previously considered possible in other pB11 fusion concepts. If achievable, it would provide a distinct advantage for the DPF pB11 approach to fusion power. 


5. Plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device. If true, beam ion exhaust holds considerable potential for direct energy conversion, a distinct advantage, assuming relative engineering simplicity is viable. 


6. A weak axial magnetic field may help pinch formation. LPP presented plausible arguments and data to the committee on this proposition. If true, it could represent a means of enhancing operation of a DPF system.


Other Issues 

1. Plasma densities in the current experiment: LPP personnel and the committee believe that the plasma densities in the existing DPF experiment are too low by over a factor of 10,000 to be practical for a pB11 fusion power system. Since observed densities at LPP are currently lower by about a factor of 10-100 than in many other DPF experiments, there does not appear to be a fundamental barrier to achieving higher densities than currently observed in the LPP device. LPP personnel believe that the reason for current low plasma densities is the high impurity content of current plasmas and that a change in device electrode material is a potential solution. LPP proposes to fabricate their anode out of tungsten to dramatically reduce impurities and increase plasma densities. This approach seems reasonable to the committee. Densities must be increased even further by demonstrating the effect of using a heavier element (like the Nitrogen proposed) and eventually reaching the higher densities required for the quantum magnetic field effect. 


2. Impurities in the current experiment: Both LPP and the committee recognize that impurity concentrations must be dramatically reduced. 
See comments above. 

3. The LPP program: The current LPP program is grossly underfunded and appears to be living hand-to-mouth. In spite of the issues and uncertainties outlined in this report, the committee feels that the promise of the LPP DPF approach to fusion power has considerable merit and that a much higher level of investment is warranted, based on their considerable progress to date. Enhanced support should largely be used  for additional experimental and theoretical efforts as well as for additional diagnostics and a larger experimental facility to accommodate additional diagnostics.


4. Developing the DPF to a viable, economic, environmentally attractive fusion power reactor: If the physics issues outlined herein can be satisfactorily resolved, it is conceivable that the DPF concept could be developed into a viable, economic, and environmentally attractive electric power source for not only civilian power but also for military purposes. LPP’s projection of very small (about 5MW) units would be an advantage relative to most other fusion concepts. To date, LPP personnel have not given extensive consideration to the engineering of a DPF power reactor. This is appropriate in the committee’s opinion, because without the successful resolution of existing issues, a DPF reactor will not be possible. Having said that, the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability. 

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks

LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

Review Committee Evaluation of the Lawrenceville Plasma
Physics Focus Fusion Program
November 28, 2013.

Executive Summary

The independent LPP technology review committee was pleasantly surprised by the efforts and progress made by LPP in its development of the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) fusion power concept. While recent progress has been notable, significant physics issues as well as a number of engineering challenges remain to be addressed before the practical viability of the concept can be fully evaluated. The committee found that LPP has identified some major physics challenges to achieving aneutronic fusion with a DPF and formulated a near term program to address them.

I. Introduction

At the request of one of the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) investors, an expert review committee was assembled to review and evaluate the LPP program on the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) fusion power concept. The committee was chaired by Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, formerly a fusion researcher and head of the federal fusion research program, Dr. Stephen O. Dean, former fusion researcher, former federal fusion program manager, and current President of Fusion Power Associates, Professor Gerald Kulcinski, fusion researcher and Associate Dean of Research at the University of Wisconsin, and Professor Dennis Papadopoulos, plasma physics and astrophysics researcher at the University of Maryland. Additional biographical background is provided in the Appendix.

The members of the committee have no financial association with the LPP program and agreed to participate in this review with the understanding that the committee would have complete freedom to express its opinions as it saw fit.


II. The Committee Review

The committee assembled at the LPP facility in Middlesex, New Jersey, for a one-day briefing and tour on November 18, 2013. On November 19, the committee met in executive session to discuss the LPP program and related DPF technical issues. Thereafter, Dr. Hirsch drafted this report, which the committee modified as it saw fit, resulting in this final report, which the full committee endorses.  LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

III. The Dense Plasma Focus Concept (DPF).

For the purposes of this report, we quote the DPF description in Wikipedia:

“A dense plasma focus (DPF) is a machine that produces, by electromagnetic acceleration and compression, a short-lived plasma that is hot and dense enough to cause nuclear fusion and the emission of X-rays. The electromagnetic compression of the plasma is called a pinch. It was invented in the early 1960s by J.W. Mather and also independently by N.V. Filippov in 1954.”

The reader is directed to the technical literature and the Internet for detailed descriptions of the concept, related physics, and technical progress. Because of limits on space and time, the following discussion assumes that the reader is familiar with the technical aspects of DPF physics and technology.


IV. LPP Thinking and Results From Its DPF Research

The LPP effort is led by Mr. Eric Lerner, and conducted by a relatively small research team. Mr. Lerner has published his results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and openly exchanged information with other researchers in DPF research and related areas of physics. The LPP program is primarily guided by Mr. Lerner’s thinking.

The LPP program focuses on developing the DPF concept for use with the pB11 fusion fuel cycle. This cycle has the potential for producing fusion energy with low neutron emissions, thereby minimizing undesirable radiation hazards and radioactive materials. The committee supports this goal, due to its superior environmental characteristics and potential for high electric conversion efficiency.

As indicated, the operation of a DPF involves a brief electrical discharge that creates a gaseous plasma, which through acceleration and compression, often results in a high density (1022 ions/cm3 though the current LPP DFF density is about 100 times lower), few micron size, energetic (>150 keV), strongly magnetized (106 Tesla) plasmoid, which could in principle release potentially useful quantities of fusion energy from fusion fuels in the very short period of time that a DPF maintains its integrity. By rapidly and repeatedly pulsing such a device, significant quantities of energy to both drive the DPF and provide useful, environmentally attractive electric power for practical use might be produced.

The committee accepts that such an approach is in principle plausible, but its practical viability remains to be established.

As the committee understands the background, LPP’s choice of the DPF concept was based on Mr. Lerner’s belief that previous DPF limitations might be overcome with a different formulation of related physics theory and by using an LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

 3 expanded array of plasma diagnostics to better understand the fundamental physics of important phenomena occurring in DPF discharges. A related research program could conceivably lead to a practical source of electric power.1


Highlights of the LPP”s program, based on a theoretical model developed by Mr. Lerner are as follows:

1. The concept should operate more effectively with heavier elements, such as boron.

2. Scaling to effective operation is towards smaller sizes.

3. The so-called Quantum Magnetic Field effect, postulated in astrophysical plasmas but not verified in laboratory experiments, will reduce energy transfer from hot ions to electrons thereby preventing catastrophic energy loss due to bremsstrahlung emission by hot electrons.

4. Lerner’s theoretical model predicts that reduction of bremsstrahlung loss and reabsorption of synchrotron radiation by the dense and opaque plasma focus could allow the pB11 DPF pinch to reach ignition.

5. After the pinch disassembles, Lerner believes that plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device, carrying roughly two-thirds of the plasma energy, allowing efficient direct energy conversion to electric power.

6. Based on his theoretical model, a weak axial magnetic field might enhance the beneficial formation of the pinch plasma. The committee’s views on these points are as follows:

1. DPF operates more effectively with heavier elements. This prediction from the model remains to be verified. In the near future LPP has a credible plan to test this theory using Nitrogen as a stand-in for Boron. this appears possible, and, if proven, would be a distinctive characteristic of the DPF.

2. DPF wants to scale to smaller sizes. This prediction of the model also needs experimental validation. This appears possible, and, if demonstrated, is a positive, distinctive characteristic of the DPF. Smaller size scaling would be unique among fusion concepts and would mean that program development might proceed rapidly. On the other hand, in a power producing device, small size might lead to difficult device cooling, an issue that cannot be evaluated at this time.

3. The Quantum Magnetic Field Effect will keep electron temperatures lower than the ion temperatures. This effect has never been seen in laboratory experiments. Its demonstration represents a major challenge since it requires much higher densities and much higher self-generated magnetic fields. Lower electron temperatures are essential for this or any pB11 concept, because electron temperatures near ion temperatures would result in radiation losses that would prohibit net power production.

1. There are other potential applications of DPFs that might yield near-term applications other than fusion power, but LPP was not pursuing those applications at the time of the committee review.
2. Fusion ignition is the point at which a nuclear fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining, i.e., does not require additional energy input. LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

4. Ignition with pB11 may be possible. While conceivable, ignition in pB11 has to our knowledge not been previously considered possible in other pB11 fusion concepts. If achievable, it would provide a distinct advantage for the DPF pB11 approach to fusion power.

5. Plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device. If true, beam ion exhaust holds considerable potential for direct energy conversion, a distinct advantage, assuming relative engineering simplicity is viable.

6. A weak axial magnetic field may help pinch formation. LPP presented plausible arguments and data to the committee on this proposition. If true, it could represent a means of enhancing operation of a DPF system.

V. Other Issues
1. Plasma densities in the current experiment: LPP personnel and the committee believe that the plasma densities in the existing DPF experiment are too low by over a factor of 10,000 to be practical for a pB11 fusion power system. Since observed densities at LPP are currently lower by about a factor of 10-100 than in many other DPF experiments, there does not appear to be a fundamental barrier to achieving higher densities than currently observed in the LPP device. LPP personnel believe that the reason for current low plasma densities is the high impurity content of current plasmas and that a change in device electrode material is a potential solution. LPP proposes to fabricate their anode out of tungsten to dramatically reduce impurities and increase plasma densities. This approach seems reasonable to the committee. Densities must be increased even further by demonstrating the effect of using a heavier element (like the Nitrogen proposed) and eventually reaching the higher densities required for the quantum magnetic field effect.

2. Impurities in the current experiment: Both LPP and the committee recognize that impurity concentrations must be dramatically reduced.

See comments above.
 3. The LPP program: The current LPP program is grossly underfunded and appears to be living hand-to-mouth. In spite of the issues and uncertainties outlined in this report, the committee feels that the promise of the LPP DPF approach to fusion power has considerable merit and that LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

 5. A much higher level of investment is warranted, based on their considerable progress to date. Enhanced support should largely be used for additional experimental and theoretical efforts as well as for additional diagnostics and a larger experimental facility to accommodate additional diagnostics.

4. Developing the DPF to a viable, economic, environmentally attractive fusion power reactor: If the physics issues outlined herein can be satisfactorily resolved, it is conceivable that the DPF concept could be developed into a viable, economic, and environmentally attractive electric power source for not only civilian power but also for military purposes. LPP’s projection of very small (about 5MW) units would be an advantage relative to most other fusion concepts. To date, LPP personnel have not given extensive consideration to the engineering of a DPF power reactor. This is appropriate in the committee’s opinion, because without the successful resolution of existing issues, a DPF reactor will not be possible. Having said that, the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability.

VI. Conclusions

The committee was pleasantly surprised at the innovative thinking and experimental results achieved thus far by Mr. Lerner and his team at LPP. We commend him for developing a theoretical model to guide the effort. In the committee’s view, their approach to fusion power based on their DPF findings to date is worthy of a considerable expansion of effort.

While a number of near-term physics issues remain to be resolved, it is likely that with adequate financial support, these matters could be addressed in a relatively short period of time, e.g., a few years. Further effort in this area is definitely justified.

 LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

 6
Appendix

LPP Fusion Review Committee – Selected Career Highlights

Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Committee Chairman

 Senior Energy Advisor, Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) and
consultant in energy technologies. 2007-present
 Director fusion research, USAEC & ERDA, 1972-1976
 Staff member, USAEC fusion program, 1968-1972
 Contributor to the fusion research literature

Dr. Stephen O. Dean

 President, Fusion Power Associates, 1979-present
 Served on DOE Fusion Energy Advisory Committee, Chaired review panel
on Alternate Concepts
 Served on Secretary of Energy, Energy R&D Task Force
 Editor, J. of Fusion Energy, Springer Publications, Inc.
 Director, Magnetic Confinement Systems, AEC/ERDA/DOE 1972-79

Prof. Gerald L. Kulcinski
 Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering, University of
Wisconsin-Madison; Grainger Professor of Nuclear Engineering; Director
of the Fusion Technology Institute.

 Technical Program Chair, ANS Topical Meeting on Fusion Technology,
1976, member of the Board of Directors (1987-90), chair of the Honors
and Awards, Fusion Division, 1997-2004; General Chairman of the 16th

ANS Topical meeting on Fusion Technology (2004).

 A U.S. delegate to the International Tokamak Reactor (INTOR) Project,
Vienna, Austria,1979 - 1981, and member of the INTOR advisory panel.

 Associate Editor of Fusion Engineering and Design, 1983-2003.


Prof. Dennis Papadopoulos

 Professor of Physics, Departments of Physics and Astronomy, University
of Maryland, 1979 – present
 Senior scientist and division consultant, Plasma Physics Division, Naval
Research Laboratory - 1969-1979 LPP Proprietary Information, not to be shared without prior written permission.

 7
 Science Advisor, Applied Physics Division, Office of Fusion Energy, DOE,
1978
 Currently PI, Multi-University Research Initiative on the "Fundamental

Physics Issues on Radiation Belt Dynamics and Remediation

Israel's Strategic Position




Up to quite recently, Arab autocrats promoted an anti-Israel marriage of convenience that generally fared poorly when things got hot.  Today the autocrats are severely weakened and alternative governance is rising throughout the Middle East.  The marriage of convenience is effectively nonexistent today.

Instead we have the noisy threat of rogue players and that includes Iran.  Whereas solving Israel’s security situation meant many players, today it means only solving Iran.  It is now becoming clear that no one else cares particularly and in fact they seriously wish to get on with business.  That essentially also includes the Palestinians.

I also think that the Israeli reality is now so large and in fact so promising that the Arabs can no longer resist the natural attraction.  Better, the fixes are generally obvious to anyone and have even become minor.  Israel has what it set out to acquire which is both strategic and tactical security in the Sunni world.

Thus the ongoing Sunni Shite conflict simply ensures that Iran remains isolated.

Israel's New Strategic Position

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2013 -
By George Friedman


Israel has expressed serious concerns over the preliminary U.S.-Iranian agreement, which in theory will lift sanctions levied against Tehran and end its nuclear program. That was to be expected. Less obvious is why the Israeli government is concerned and how it will change Israel's strategic position.

Israel's current strategic position is excellent. After two years of stress, its peace treaty with Egypt remains in place. Syria is in a state of civil war that remains insoluble. Some sort of terrorist threat might originate there, but no strategic threat is possible. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does not seem inclined to wage another war with Israel, and while the group's missile capacity has grown, Israel appears able to contain the threat they pose without creating a strategic threat to Israeli national interests. The Jordanian regime, which is aligned with Israel, probably will withstand the pressure put on it by its political opponents.

In other words, the situation that has existed since the Camp David Accords were signed remains in place. Israel's frontiers are secure from conventional military attack. In addition, the Palestinians are divided among themselves, and while ineffective, intermittent rocket attacks from Gaza are likely, there is no Intifada underway in the West Bank.

Therefore, Israel faces no existential threats, save one: the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and a delivery system and use it to destroy Israel before it or the United States can prevent it from doing so. Clearly, a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would be catastrophic for Israel. Its ability to tolerate that threat, regardless of how improbable it may be, is a pressing concern for Israel.

In this context, Iran's nuclear program supersedes all of Israel's other security priorities. Israeli officials believe their allies, particularly those in the United States, should share this view. As a strategic principle, this is understandable. But it is unclear how Israel intends to apply it. It is also unclear how its application will affect relations with the United States, without which it cannot cope with the Iranian threat.

Israel understands that however satisfactory its current circumstances are, those circumstances are mercurial and to some extent unpredictable. Israel may not rely heavily on the United States under these circumstances, but these circumstances may not be permanent. There are plenty of scenarios in which Israel would not be able to manage security threats without American assistance. Thus, Israel has an overriding interest in maintaining its relationship with the United States and in ensuring Iran never becomes a nuclear state. So any sense that the United States is moving away from its commitment to Israel, or that it is moving in a direction where it might permit an Iranian nuclear weapon, is a crisis. Israel's response to the Iran talks -- profound unhappiness without outright condemnation -- has to be understood in this context, and the assumptions behind it have to be examined.

More than Uranium
Iran does not appear to have a deliverable nuclear weapon at this point. Refining uranium is a necessary but completely insufficient step in developing a weapon. A nuclear weapon is much more than uranium. It is a set of complex technologies, not the least of which are advanced electrical systems and sensors that, given the amount of time the Iranians have needed just to develop not-quite-enough enriched uranium, seems beyond them. Iran simply does not have sufficient fuel to produce a device.

Nor it does not have a demonstrated ability to turn that device into a functioning weapon. A weapon needs to be engineered to extreme tolerances, become rugged enough to function on delivery and be compact enough to be delivered. To be delivered, its must be mounted on a very reliable missile or aircraft. Iran has neither reliable missiles nor aircraft with the necessary range to attack Israel. The idea that the Iranians will use the next six months for a secret rush to complete the weapon simply isn't the way it works.

Before there is a weapon there must be a test. Nations do not even think of deploying nuclear weapons without extensive underground tests -- not to see if they have uranium but to test that the more complex systems work. That is why they can't secretly develop a weapon: They themselves won't know they have a workable weapon without a test. In all likelihood, the first test would fail, as such things do. Attempting their first test in an operational attack would result not only in failure but also in retaliation.

Of course, there are other strategies for delivering a weapon if it were built. One is the use of a ship to deliver it to the Israeli coast. Though this is possible, the Israelis operate an extremely efficient maritime interdiction system, and the United States monitors Iranian ports. The probability is low that a ship would go unnoticed. Having a nuclear weapon captured or detonated elsewhere would infuriate everyone in the eastern Mediterranean, invite an Israeli counterstrike and waste a weapon

Otherwise, Iran theoretically could drive a nuclear weapon into Israel by road. But these weapons are not small. There is such a thing as a suitcase bomb, but that is a misleading name; it is substantially larger than a suitcase, and it is also the most difficult sort of device to build. Because of its size, it is not particularly rugged. You don't just toss it into the trunk, drive 1,500 miles across customs checkpoints and set it off. There are many ways you can be captured -- particularly crossing into Israel -- and many ways to break the bomb, which require heavy maintenance. Lastly, even assuming Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, its use against Israel would kill as many Muslims -- among them Shia -- as Israelis, an action tantamount to geopolitical suicide for Tehran.

A Tempered Response
One of the reasons Israel has not attempted an airstrike, and one of the reasons the United States has refused to consider it, is that Iran's prospects for developing a nuclear weapon are still remote. Another reason is difficulty. Israel's air force is too far removed and too small to carry out simultaneous strikes on multiple facilities. If the Israelis forward-deployed to other countries, the Iranians would spot them. The Israelis can't be certain which sites are real and which are decoys. The Iranians have had years to harden their facilities, so normal ordnance likely would be inadequate. Even more serious is the fact that battle damage assessment -- judging whether the site has been destroyed -- would be prohibitively difficult.

For these reasons, the attack could not simply be carried out from the air. It would require special operations forces on the ground to try to determine the effects. That could result in casualties and prisoners, if it could be done at all. And at that the Israelis can only be certain that they have destroyed all the sites they knew about, not the ones that their intelligence didn't know about. Some will dismiss this as overestimating Iranian capabilities. This frequently comes from those most afraid that Tehran can build a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. If it could do the latter, it could harden sites and throw off intelligence gathering. The United States would be able to mount a much more robust attack than the Israelis, but it is unclear whether it would be robust enough. And in any case, all the other problems -- the reliability of intelligence, determining whether the site were destroyed -- would still apply.

But ultimately, the real reason Israel has not attacked Iran's nuclear sites is that the Iranians are so far from having a weapon. If they were closer, the Israelis would have attacked regardless of the difficulty. The Americans, on the other hand, saw an opportunity in the fact that there are no weapons yet and that the sanctions were hurting the Iranians. Knowing that they were not in a hurry to complete and knowing that they were hurting economically, the Iranians likewise saw an opportunity to better their position.

From the American point of view, the nuclear program was not the most pressing issue, even though Washington knew it had to be stopped. What the Americans wanted was an understanding with the Iranians, whereby their role in the region would be balanced against those of other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, the Arabian emirates and to some extent Israel. As I've argued, the United States is still interested in what happens in the region, but it does not want to continue to use force there. Washington wants to have multiple relations with regional actors, not just Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Israel's response to the U.S.-Iran talks should be understood in this way. The Israelis tempered their response initially because they knew the status of Iran's nuclear program. Even though a weapon is still a grave concern, it is a much longer-term problem than the Israelis admit publicly. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried hard to convince the United States otherwise, the United States isn't biting.) Since an attack has every chance of failing, the Israelis recognize that these negotiations are the most likely way to eliminate the weapons, and that if the negotiations fail, no one will be in a more dangerous position for trying. Six months won't make a difference.

The Israelis could not simply applaud the process because there is, in fact, a strategic threat to Israel embedded in the talks. Israel has a strategic dependency on the United States. Israel has never been comfortable with Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia, but there was nothing the Israelis could do about it, so they accommodated it. But they understand that the outcome of these talks, if successful, means more than the exchange of a nuclear program for eased sanctions; it means the beginning of a strategic alignment with Iran.

In fact, the United States was aligned with Iran until 1979. As Richard Nixon's China initiative shows, ideology can relent to geopolitical reality. On the simplest level, Iran needs investment, and American companies want to invest. On the more complex level, Iran needs to be certain that Iraq is friendly to its interests and that neither Russia nor Turkey can threaten it in the long run. Only the United States can ensure that. For their part, the Americans want a stronger Iran to contain Saudi support for Sunni insurgents, compel Turkey to shape its policy more narrowly, and remind Russia that the Caucasus, and particularly Azerbaijan, have no threat from the south and can concentrate on the north. The United States is trying to create a multipolar region to facilitate a balance-of-power strategy in place of American power.

Israel in 10 Years

I began by pointing out how secure Israel is currently. Looking down the road 10 years, Israel cannot assume that this strategic configuration will remain in place. Egypt's future is uncertain. The emergence of a hostile Egyptian government is not inconceivable. Syria, like Lebanon, appears to be fragmented. What will come of this is unclear. And whether in 10 years the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will remain Hashemite or become a Palestinian state is worthy of contemplation. None have military power now, but then Egypt went from disaster in 1967 to a very capable force in 1973. They had a Soviet patron. They might have another patron in 10 years.

Right now, Israel does not need the United States, nor American aid, which means much less to them now than it did in 1973. They need it as a symbol of American commitment and will continue to need it. But the real Israeli fear is that the United States is moving away from direct intervention to a more subtle form of manipulation. That represents a threat to Israel if Israel ever needs direct intervention rather than manipulation. But more immediately, it threatens Israel because the more relationships the United States has in the region, the less significant Israel is to Washington's strategy. If the United States maintains this relationship with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others, Israel becomes not the anchor of U.S. policy but one of many considerations. This is Israel's real fear in these negotiations.


In the end, Israel is a small and weak power. Its power has been magnified by the weakness of its neighbors. That weakness is not permanent, and the American relationship has changed in many ways since 1948. Another shift seems to be underway. The Israelis used to be able to depend on massive wellsprings of support in the U.S. public and Congress. In recent years, this support has become less passionate, though it has not dried up completely. What Israel has lost is twofold. First, it has lost control of America's regional strategy. Second, it has lost control of America's political process. Netanyahu hates the U.S.-Iran talks not because of nuclear weapons but because of the strategic shift of the United States. But his response must remain measured because Israel has less influence in the United States than it once did.