Video Transcript
and having filed a patent on it because nobody seemed to have patented this configuration which we saw was the only one that would work to get rid of the grids. We said let's see if we can't get a program to see if this is a good idea and will work with the idea was to get a program that could produce practical nuclear fusion in a reasonable size which would yield useful energy without radiation hazards. It seemed like a perfectly sensible goal that we should have pursued but it didn't fit the model of the main programs simply because um it's too cheap too quick. This is I show this chart only because it's one of >> chat. You've got a career D. This guy was DOE physicist. He was Oakidge Los Alamos. He's the guy that helped invent too uh fusion reactors, you know, tokamax. And he's hating on them. And he just says right there, they weren't interested because it was too cheap, too easy, too quick to build. My man's just telling I just say it again, please. It's too cheap and too easy and too fast. Sorry, DOE is not interested. >> Configuration, which we saw was the only one that would work to get rid of the grids. We said, let's see if we can't get a program to see if this is a good idea and will work. where the idea was to get a program that could produce practical nuclear fusion in a reasonable size which would yield useful energy without radiation hazards. It seemed like a perfectly sensible goal that we should have pursued but it didn't fit the model of the main program simply because um it's too cheap too quick. This is I showed this chart only because it's one of the real practical engineering issues. It's there's physics in it but it's really an engineering problem. Arc breakdown in practical experiments uh what kills us is is arcing. arcing occurs no matter what. This is a curved partion curve for plain parallel electrodes for hydrogen. The point of this curve and not that I choose any particular number on the breakdown voltage is that we have to be very careful the pressure and the distance we have in the test setups. Never mind the machine. It's the test setups that kill it. If the product of the two is too big, our breakdown occurs at hundreds of volts. We're trying to run these things at 10 and 20,000 kilovolts or 10 Yeah. 10 and 20,000 volts. And of course, for playing parallel electrodes, it's one thing. You have if you have sharp points and corners and bolts and one thing and another the breakdown occurs more easily. This is an engineering problem not a physics problem. >> Oh good. >> Okay. So you have to control this is the other thing the voltage right the voltage. But these are all just he says right here. He repeats this a lot. He says this is an engineering problem not a physics problem. The physics is solved. He says this multiple times. He says we've got the physics figured out. This is how you make it happen. This is how you do fusion. This is how you mix together uh electric potential and magnetism to get fusion to work in a in a tiny little area. It's an engineering problem. These are just engineering problems that we had to solve. How do we get the material science to make it work? How do we get this thing that we're trying to get happen to occur with the right materials? >> Now, I want to show you some pictures of some of the devices we built. I might just say we started. >> Oh, there's a slide first. I'm sorry. There's a view graph. >> Yeah. >> Can you go off that? Yeah. Here we are. That was the second thing we The first thing we built was a small open polyhedral coil that we ran at a few hundred volts just to show that the scaling would work. And we did that. We took the program to not to the DOE because I came from the DOE AEC and I knew that was hopeless. No, it's not not a pjorative comment. The program at the DOE which we had created was this monstrous money machine that still goes today and people tend to protect their rice bowls and that's how human nature is and I knew >> bro why come on please guys come on he's just saying it man he's just saying it you don't even have to listen to this guy Ashen Forbes I just keep telling you I'm just a healthcare IT guy healthcare IT guy literally came out of nowhere on his holiday break here reviewing literal famous physicists that died in 2007 and he's saying he literally helped build the fusion program. He didn't even go to the DOE to make this happen. He's the guy why we have Tokamax. And even he was smart enough to know I'm not going to the DOE. It's too cheap. It's too easy. I knew they wouldn't be interested. >> They would never want anything that would threaten those rice bowls. And in fact, I went to Bob Hirs who worked with Farnsworth who was then research director at Arco and I asked him, Bobby, I said, 'What [snorts] do you think we should do? He do not go to the AEC. Do not go to a DOE because they'll never support it and they'll kill it. Take it to the DoD. So we did. We took it to the strategic defense office where Jim Einson who was an astrophysicist with the technical director. He understood it immediately like that. He said, "It's a great idea. We'll fund it." And funded it through the defense nuclear agency. And then later on it was funded through DARPA. This was an early DARPA program in 1989. The timelines are all matching up. The timelines are matching up. So, wait a minute. Now, it's getting weird. So, the guy that started building Tokamax didn't go to the DOE because he knew they're full of He knew that they weren't trying to do it. He knew they were wasting their time on on donuts and they weren't trying to solve anything. So, he goes to the DoD. He goes to DARPA, black ops, black programs. >> He built a pro machine that was 190 centimeters across. It had coils like that picture that I showed you. Wrong design in retrospect. It had it had all these big metal faces out here that were not magnetically insulated and we didn't know enough not to do that. In fact, the paper we wrote on the experiments here and published in '94 uh erroneously tells you that the electrons got lost in the guns coming into the machine. They did not. They got lost after they got into the machine when they hit these metal walls that were not magnetically insulated. You can say it was trivially obvious to even those of meanest intelligence to see that would happen but it wasn't to us. And that was the DARPA program. Uh after that we we tended to abandon this we abandoned that closed box configuration and we set out and tried a little bitty machine 5 centimeter radius and this was made of solid state magnets. So it did not have the complete magnetic field. It had line cust around here. You can see the electron burn where the particles that come out run into the machine. We did that just to test the idea of the polyhedral configuration. And the next slide I guess yeah that was the second one we built. This was called WB2. WB2 is 10 centimeters in radius. And look at it. It's a beautiful machine but it's not sealed. These are all air core magnets and they're uncooled because there's no way to cool anything at this size and scale. And so we had all the problem of outing from the insulation on the coils that crumbmed up the vacuum system and all the coils are touching. That's how you held it together. You welded them right there. Bad mistake in retrospect, but that's what we did and we ran it. The next picture shows you one of the That's what happened when we ran it in 1994, September, October 94. >> Am I looking at a sun? Certainly seems like I'm looking at a sun. What is it? 1994 they did. Yeah. Okay. They got some plasma orbs, chat. Anybody that says they don't have some plasma orbs, just send them this clip right here. This right there it is. They got some plasma orbs. There it is. I'm looking at a plasma orb. That's a plasma orb. Plasma orbs are real. No more debunking plasma orbs. Boom. Bada bing, bada boom. By the way, this is like 35 years ago. 35 years ago, just FYI. Or wait, yeah, a long time ago. >> We actually achieved a whiffle ball. We This was the whole point. We achieved a ba one condition, but at very low energy because the drive systems were very low energy. We cascaded in the middle. It brought the energy way down. But it was a whiffle ball. We ran all these tests on air because Maxwell doesn't care if it's fusion or air, whatever it is, air or argon. >> And here you can see the high density in the core. And you can see the particles coming out through the cost and they they they turned around to other cost. This was done in September 1994, the first desk like this. And we thought, my god, what's happened? We got an arc we don't want. A month later in October 13th, we ran it again and finally realized we produced a whiffle ball machine. And that was a great and wonderful thing. It took us a month to understand what we were doing. Meanwhile, I >> Yeah, bro. The DoD was very Did you imagine how dumb anyone that thinks this is fake? How dumb would you have to be? Honestly, that he rolls up with this and he's like, "Hey, I made some miniature sun in my little magnet device. I mean, we welded it together. We shouldn't have welded it together, but there you go. Here's some images of the literal sun I created in the middle of it. Are you interested in this? I'm making miniature suns over here on Earth. Dude's the original Doc O. This is like This was the the writers of Spider-Man 2 probably were just like friends with him or like big fans or something because there it is. That's the power of the sun in the palm of your hand. Damn, that's crazy. I just can't stop staring at it. That's just crazy. Look at that. >> Talk at a meeting in Pittsburgh by the Navy Westing House and the American Nuclear Society on Advanced Technology for the 21st century on this program before we had really understood we had the whiffle ball. And the talk was apparently successful because the ANS wanted us to give it as a talk at their annual meeting in Washington in May. And I turned to our contract monitor and said I said what should we do? Should we accept this invitation? He said no. Now that you got this thing working, no more talks. Don't go to any more physics conferences. Don't write any papers. Just lay lay quiet. Just do your work and don't don't publish. So for 11 years, we had an embargo in publishing. And that's why it's difficult to talk about it because there's >> Oh, that's normal, Chad. It's very normal. 11-year embargo on publishing scientific papers. That's how science works, right? >> So much stuff. We have hundreds of technical documents. The next slide, that was WB3, which was the larger version of WB2 and and it was built by only by budget limitations. We didn't really have any bigger. We were running out of money and everything else had ground including the emitters. The emitters came in from the side over there. >> And what happened was we trapped electrons and you can see they beautifully came out the corners just like that WB2 picture. And 95% of the current went straight to the coils to the walls into the cage. 95% saw the walls in the cage as an attractor for for electrodes. They went back to their their original birth. It would not work. We can't do it that way. Next slide. We've tried also ECR. We we wanted to ionize neutrals. Find a way to control neutral ionization because if you can't keep the neutral population down, it will flood the core and make the will go away. And so we tried what's called electron cyclron resonance oscillation. You put microwaves at 2.45 four or five gigahertz into this thing and every time if there's an 860 or something like that G line surface at that line that resonates EV over MC it resonates with the microwaves and you can ionize the neutrals very quickly in that situation and we did this this was ionizing inside the machine. The next next slide shows us testing an ionizing it outside. We proved that we could indeed ionize using magnetron radiation from microwave oven $99 Sony oven. We took the power took the tube tube and the power supplies out and >> hold up chat. I think he said we can get our reactions going with a microwave oven. I think that's what I just heard right there. >> Full-way rectified the power supplies and drove it that way. And that was fine. The problem with it is that in later tests we found that well I'll show you the machine which it did. We'll talk about next slide. Oh, that was the lady who's the president of the company. She's smiling because uh she she we wouldn't have a company if she hadn't been there. She took care of all the administrative garbage if you pardon me for saying that. uh releases and not like that first one which had those big plates and see if we >> so these are the different iterations of his devices that they made. Okay, >> very hastily in July and August of 2005 and we ran it in August and September and early >> I bet the ratios here matter as well. >> October to get beta equal one beta and then we ran it in November. Could I have the next slide? >> Uh did you hear what you just said right there? I'm skipping through some of this. Let me just go back a few seconds here. raptors from coil to coil through those. So there was a local magnetic field and this we built very hastily in July and August of 205 and we ran it in August and September and early October to get beta equal one beta and then we ran it in November. Could I have the next slide? >> Beta equals 1 beta. So again guys, you only have to remember if you're a norm, you only have to remember a few things. A neutronic fusion means clean fusion reactions. Beta equals 1. Very important to remember when you go look at the noobs with their metal donuts and they're trying to do fusion and you just laugh at them. [laughter] >> Noobs. >> They're their betas are like 0.1. You need a beta of one 100% 10 times greater a lot more girth if you know what I mean. That's the coil system. Go ahead next one. And that's how it looked finally when it went in the tank. And then go ahead. And that was it in the tank. It was really a very lovely machine. Uh I think that's the is that the last? Oh no, I'll go skip from W. That was WB6. I'll come. WB6 worked. It worked like a champ. It did everything we had imagined that we should have done in the beginning. And it proved that that we had all all missed the obvious. For 15 years, none of our consultants, none of our review panels, none of our opponents, none of us, none of me, none of my staff saw this these obvious facts when we finally saw them in 2005. Built that machine. And when we ran it at 12 kilovolt drive and 10 kilovolt wheel depth, it produced a pulse of DD fusion to 10 kilovolts, which is very low energy. That was about 1* 10 the 9th fusions per second. That's 100,000 times or more higher than Hersian Farnsworth ever achieved in any experiment they ever did. It's a world record. It was only a short >> There you go. How crazy is that world record these guys did? So he's like, we were able to get fusion to happen at like what was it 100,000 or million times more than Farnsworth was ever to produce. So essentially what he's saying there is that we unlocked it. We figured it out. So he kind of showed you the six different apparatus. If you guys want to watch the whole video, check them out. You want to learn about the individuals >> in about a quarter of a millisecond. Doesn't sound like much on my watch, but it's several thousand electron transit times in the system. So from the point of view of the electrons, it's steady state. They don't know any better. They live on a different time scale. They're moving at 10 to the 9th centimeters per second. So next one. >> Wait, right there, too. I'm so glad I accidentally played those two parts because that's I wanted to mention that he just gave a head nod to relativity. He said you have to keep in mind the electrons are moving at 10 to the 9th. You have to think of the time scales of the electron and how this is all working. This is a head nod to our counterrotating uh fusers or our counterrotating current because of relativity. You have to think about what how the electrons are moving and how time is flowing for the electrons themselves. >> And in the process of this program, I've skipped over this, but we built a very simple thing, several very simple things called MPG, magnetic polyhedral grid. We wanted to try to see if we couldn't get somewhere with the scaling business by using water cooled copper tubing and a single turn coil. We could only run this at 2,000 amps because of the cooling limit. So we we turn the water into steam, we couldn't drive it any harder. But the trouble is with only a single turn the amper turns and the coils were so small we could only get about 70 to 100 gallons out of these things. So the B fields were really small. But nevertheless we were able to run this with a 30 kilovolt drive and a 27,000 volt pit deep deep well and it made fusions but the fusions were limited by the fact that we didn't have enough current and couldn't hold enough density with those low fields. We could only get a ball in the center about four to five centimeters going. >> So what he's explaining right here is they started to use electromagnets. You don't need to use a permanent magnet. So he's saying why let's just see if we want to scale this up. Let's use little m let's scale it down using electromagnets and let's see if we used electromagnets if we could get this to occur and he said yes it works. You can do it that way as well. So you could use permanent magnets, you could use electromagnets. You just have to create your negative potential well in the middle. So the reason why we're doing this is because we're looking at the material science way for how do you build this so that it doesn't melt? How do you build this so it's light enough so that it can fly around in the sky? It can't be super heavy magnets. You're going to pull that off, right? >> And it was producing about 1* 10 to the 5th fusions per second steady state. But it did prove the polyhedral principle. Again, the next one and we were That's it in the tank. Go ahead.