Colliding Plasma Toroid Clean-Energy Breakthrough
Modified high-density plasma toroids will be collided to produce both
electricity and heat for homes, and to power road vehicles and aircraft. How
sustainable is this process environmentally?
| "The discovery of a new plasma toroid is a
very significant discovery in plasma physics, and plasma scientists
will be enormously excited about it."
-- Clint Seward (March 8, 2006)
Inventor and CEO of Electron Power Systems, Inc
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2006
ACTON, MASSACHUSETTS, USA -- Imagine being able to fly in an aircraft that is
safe from explosions and fuel fires. Imagine being able to heat your home and to
generate electricity for your own use, with about five percent of the fuel input
it now takes just to get warm. Best of all, no carbon dioxide will be released.
Fig. 1 Schematic of neutron tube
An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to
110 kV, then directed to hit a hydrogen target (also deuterium), which
produces neutrons, and also heat as a waste product.
Accelerator Neutron Generators," by David L. Chichester and Jim
Simpson, The Industrial Physicist, December 2003/Janaury 2004.
American Institute of Physics. With permission.
It sounds as if this is going to be possible in only a few years according to
Electron Power Systems, Inc. (EPS).
EPS has discovered a new, high-density plasma toroid that remains stable in
atmosphere with no need for external magnetic field confinement. MIT scientists
have independently confirmed the plasma toroid discovery and have co-patented
EPS Inc. is pursuing the next step of building a device based on this discovery,
capable of consistently colliding two of these high density plasma toroids to
produce clean energy without any atmospheric emissions. Based on early
calculations, the company projects that this breakthrough neutron-tube
technology has the potential to reduce the fuel input for energy generation
compared to fossil-fuel power plants by a staggering twenty to one ratio. (Ref
1.) The cost savings will be significant, and could be even greater than
20:1 if the price of oil continues to rise, and as long as the alternate inputs
continue to be available at competitive prices.
By using their high-density Electron Spiral Toroid (EST) Spheromak, which
remains stable for hundreds of milliseconds, EPS expects to improve the
already-existing neutron-tube technology. Once the working prototypes can be
built, in two years if funding allows, the company foresees two main directions
of development for this technology.
One, still using deuterium with its neutron and gamma emissions, will provide
new capabilities for security and military uses. Enhanced explosives detection
will be possible within a short time frame, and steerable beam weapons could
also be based on this spheromak . Another main direction for development, using
the same external structure but with a modified fuel process not emitting
radiation or neutrons, is being planned for the home consumer market. The time
frame is a bit longer; four or five years is an optimistic estimate for these
products to appear. Already on the drawing board are car engines and household
Interim Stage: the High-Energy “Neutron Tube” Technology
The central basis for this futuristic energy concept is the high-density EST
Spheromak, which was patented by MIT scientists and Clint Seward of EPS. (Ref.
2) This high-energy EST-spheromak neutron tube will produce a much larger
number of collisions – and energy – than previously possible with earlier
neutron tubes. The EPS design calls for the production of stable ESTs in a
shallower vacuum at each end of the tube and colliding them to maximize neutron
output. The high-output neutron tube is potentially a heat source suitable for
Because the EST has been shown to be stable without the need for powerful
magnetic confinement, the cost of building these units is expected to be much
lower than most fusion devices studied to date. As discoverer Clint Seward
explains: “We routinely confine the plasma toroids with very low pressures of
1/1000 atmosphere. This is possible because of the self-organized nature of the
plasma toroids which minimizes the plasma forces. An important part of the
plasma toroid is the internal magnetic field that causes the self-organization
and the stability.”
Because charged particles hold to defined patterns in relation to each other,
pressure within the self-organized plasma is inherently low. Held by interacting
forces in fixed positions, electrons form their own shell or layer. Similarly,
the ions form patterns in a separate shell. Both layers have a matrix-like
formation. (Ref. 3)
A Well-Known Technology’s Evolution
In the 1970s under a University of Miami project, Daniel R. Wells collided two
D/T (deuterium-Tritium) plasma toroids. (Ref. 4) These
adhered without coalescing, although the surfaces interpenetrated causing ions
to fuse. However, the low density and short duration (only 35 microseconds)
limited the energy output that it was possible to obtain from colliding that
type of toroid.
Subsequently, during a recent STTR joint project with MIT, EPS demonstrated in
their laboratory an accelerated EST Spheromak. This was done with a
well-established magnetic-coil accelerator technology, now in wide use, which
can be scaled up for adding energy needed for this neutron-tube process.
The innovative EST Spheromak is expected to overcome former limitations by
producing ion density calculated to be 2500 times greater than Wells was able to
achieve. Being a function of density squared, fusion results from the EPS
process should be significantly improved as compared to the TRISOPS project. (Ref.
As inventor Clint Seward explains, “Today's neutron tubes collide heavy
hydrogen ions (Deuterium ions, or D) to produce a neutron and energy and a
helium ion. … Because the hydrogen ion beam has low density, EPS plans to
replace it with a high-density hydrogen ion plasma toroid, and collide it with a
second high density H ion plasma toroid.” As both are Deuterium based, this
may be called the D/D process.”
And their ambitions go beyond that. By replacing the low-density deuterium ion
beam, a source of neutrons, with normal hydrogen (protium) and boron-11, EPS
plans to make the “neutron-tube” (Ref. 6)
technology safe for consumers while still releasing energy from a “nuclear”
Initial Application: Larger-Scale Explosives Detection
As a company, EPS’s first stage of development will be to use the D/D process
to produce a higher output of energy and neutrons than previously possible from
neutron tubes. Since explosives detection is in urgent and high demand, and
because it needs a relatively low level of neutrons (higher than the older type
of neutron tubes, but lower than energy applications), the first
commercialization of the EST Spheromak will be explosives detection.
Already in use are thousands of low-density neutron tubes of the earlier design.
This is a proven technology which safely collides hydrogen ions to produce
low-level neutrons for use in medical testing and industrial process control.
Neutrons from existing technology are already being used to detect explosives
hidden in small luggage. But the higher neutron output from an EST Spheromak
neutron tube will be able to detect explosives concealed in a larger mass, such
as in vehicles and even in shipping containers. By speeding up border checks and
customs procedures, the EPS technology should greatly benefit both security and
Demand from security services for this technology is expected to fund the
development of yet higher-output EST-spheromak designs capable of generating
Anti-Missile Defense Applications
Besides security monitoring, there’s another potential source of development
funding: Defense. The fact that the technology can generate a powerful beam has
already suggested a direct military application.
Clint Seward says that his company’s EST Spheromaks will be revolutionary for
“…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 compositions."
In the Technology Review of Electron Power Systems, written by an independent
consulting group for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in July 2004, is a
report titled “Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons (KEWs).”
This article states that these novel plasmas 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.”
The same report mentions that the EST Spheromak concept is much more compact,
manageable and directly useful to the military than high-vacuum-dependent
plasmas being studied at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. In housings
several meters long, with bulky magnetic field generators of the type used for
Tokamak reactors to contain the reaction by means of electromagnetic pressure,
the resultant 0.5 to 1.0 meter plasmas must be reduced in diameter to be useful.
The KEW report contrasts the vacuum plasmas with the microscopic-scale EST
Spheromak beam, which has 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.”
"Based on their reading of MIT's extrapolation from AFRL's compact-toroid
acceleration experiments for vacuum plasmas, impact velocities of 600 km/sec,
possibly several times higher, may be possible.” (Ref. 7)
Thus it appears that the science-fiction battles with particle-beam weapons are
closer to becoming reality.
Space travel is also projected as being possible using the EPS spheromak neutron
tube. However, planetside applications should be developed first, to ensure a
stable environment from which to launch exploration of the solar system and
possibly beyond. (Ref. 8)
Though warfare scenarios are unpleasant to contemplate, the peaceful electrical
generation, home-heating, and transportation uses do depend on the successful
defense of the nation’s airspace and borders.
The second stage of EPS’s corporate development stems from research using the
D/D (deuterium) process to develop useful energy output levels for
commercial-scale electrical power production. Due to the risks associated with
neutrons, sales of technology based on the D/D process are expected to be
limited to electrical utilities and military customers. The requirement for
shielding to block ionizing radiation would make them too expensive and risky
for home installations.
According to theoretical models the technology can be scaled up, though not
indefinitely; ion stability may not be possible at the very high energy levels
required above one meter in size. (Ref. 9) Seward says,
“The size of the plasma toroid is not as important as how fast they can be
produced. We observe them as produced at up to 200 per second. We calculate that
we can obtain one megajoule per collision.” (Ref. 10)
To achiever greater energy output past that point, multiple units could be
housed together to boost output to the level required for a large hospital or
apartment block, a subdivision, or a larger community. Even with the required
shielding, a deuterium-based EST Spheromak 100kW generating station would be
only one-third the size of fossil-fuel electrical generators of the same output.
If many local clean-energy stations were established using the neutron tube
technology, losses from transmission lines would be reduced, while stability of
the local supply would be enhanced.
A third priority for the EPS company is achieving home heating and production of
electricity for the household. This means redesigning the former “neutron-tube”
– a name that’s no longer applicable once neutrons are eliminated – as a
device that can legitimately boast the name “Clean-Energy Tube™”. This
will employ the PB11 (protium and boron-11) as the preferred fuel for civilian
and consumer applications.
Clint Seward definitively clears up any confusion over naming the housing for
the reaction as opposed to the EST spheromak events that occur within it. He
describes a spheromak as the toroidal configuration of the plasma. It is not the
structure in which it resides, which need not be spherical – as evinced by its
current tubular shape – nor made by the same process. “The D version plasma
toroid is a spheromak, the B version plasma toroid is a spheromak, and the P
version plasma toroid is a spheromak, the difference being the kind of ions each
has. (Note: B=boron, P=proton, D=deuterium).” (Ref. 11)
In his book on spheromaks, P.M. Bellan writes that the question often arises as
to whether a spheromak is a device or a plasma configuration. He defines the “spheromak”
as the plasma toroid configuration itself since there is no single way to
produce them and hence no “spheromak generator,” unlike a tokomak for
example. (Ref. 12) Seward emphasizes, “the spheromak is
the plasma ring, and not necessarily the device.” He states that the
definitions written by scientists from Cal Tech, Los Alamos, and Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories are the most accurate.” (Ref. 13)
This C-E Tube will use the hydrogen/boron process, producing energetic helium
ions that will enable electricity to be produced directly without either
neutrons or radioactivity. (A valuable gas, this helium could be collected from
generators for re-sale.) Direct electricity eliminates the need for
heat-to-electric generation systems, avoiding losses of energy that occur due to
real-world inefficiency of trying to implement the idealized Carnot Cycle. The
Carnot heat cycle has to assume perfect thermal shielding and no loss of energy
– which is considered impossible due to Entropy.
The alternative process collides boron-11 (B) with protons (P) – protons are
hydrogen ions – to produce three helium ions, but no neutrons, and hence no
radioactivity. Although more difficult to implement, the hydrogen-boron process
also offers a higher efficiency level from its collisions. Thus the EST
Spheromak B/P device is expected to be very effective and competitive when made
in compact sizes for home heating
EPS has been working on concept designs for home co-generators that can produce
both heat and electricity, and Seward hopes this will be the first product put
onto the market for the general public. The EST spheromak is small, about 1
centimeter. Based on calculations done by EPS, one spheromak will produce up to
one mega-joule of energy. If electricity can be produced right in the home,
typical energy losses in the transmission wires of approximately 15% could be
The low cost of operating a PB11 spheromak as an electric generator (currently
estimated as a 20:1 saving) is based on fossil-fuel prices as of this year. If
oil prices continue to rise as predicted, the savings differential may become
even greater. This would more rapidly make up for the rather steep capital
outlay involved to install a home heating system priced at USD $12,000. (Ref.
14) However, using a relatively rare element as part of a fuel-input system
could cause the price of boron to rise, and calculations of cost saving which
are based on its current low price may have to be revised somewhat in the
The transportation sector is the next major priority after home heating. The
efficiency of an internal-combustion engine is limited by the amount of energy
inherently contained in a given type of fuel, as well as by the practical
limitations on the Carnot cycle to about 30% of the possible energy of 1.184
watt-hours (wh) per kilogram. A D/D pair of ESTs has about 2.0E10 wh/kg, or
2.6E6 times the energy of gasoline. By these calculations, then, one kg of EST
Spheromak fuel may provide usable energy equivalent in output to 2,600,000 kgs
of gasoline. (Ref. 15)
Expected to be comparable to the prices of traditional internal-combustion cars,
the initial cost of the C-E Tube vehicle is similarly expected to be made up
quickly in dramatic fuel savings. Again using current prices, the average fuel
cost of $2000 per year would drop to only about $100 per year when replacing
gasoline with boron and hydrogen as fuel. (The price of oil may continue to go
up, increasing this advantage, but only as long as the price of boron does not
escalate at a greater rate.) Even so, a supply system to sell fuel inputs for
C-E Tube vehicles will be required. Along with their developing of the “hydrogen
highway” supply system, Seward recommends that existing energy companies
consider taking up this alternate business opportunity to compensate for reduced
sales of gasoline in the future.
Although road vehicles would be an early focus of EPS Inc., aeronautics would
not be far behind. There would be an even greater transportation efficiency gain
for an aircraft that does not have to carry tons of fuel. Concerns about
lingering jet-exhaust “clouds” affecting climate, and the trend toward
making larger and larger aircraft to carry more passengers have compelled the
inclusion of bigger and bigger fuel tanks. Fifty percent of the weight at
takeoff is fuel. Consequently, emissions into the atmosphere are increasing.
Therefore, Seward thinks that the C-E Tube power system for air transportation
should be an even higher priority as a first application of the later-stage EST
spheromak technology than road vehicles. While plenty of designers are working
on hybrid cars, no one is building hybrid airplanes. As Seward points out, the
batteries would have to be too heavy to make this feasible. (Ref.
The entire C-E Tube flying machine could be much smaller and lighter and still
transport the same number of people. A fuel mass reduction of 250,000 to one is
a very significant reduction in the weight that must be lifted and propelled
forward. Since most of the injuries and loss of life associated with crashes of
traditional aircraft is due to their having large tanks of explosive fuel on
board, an airplane powered with a C-E Tube should achieve a greater safety
record than the internal-combustion plane. Without big tanks of combustible
fuel, this C-E aircraft could never be used as a “flying bomb”. Passengers
seeking peace of mind in flight would naturally choose to ride in the safer air
Since exposure to radiation would be less of a concern in cargo planes, it may
even be possible to move ahead with a D/D neutron tube for that part of the air
transportation sector, especially for computer-guided drone cargo craft. The
reduction in quantity of fuel to five percent of current consumption will more
than compensate for the added weight of radiation shielding. Cost savings passed
on in lower air freight rates would be attractive to vendors who need this
Environment and Health
science adviser to PES, zeroes in on the fact that a neutron generator bombards
deuterium into a solid metal-deuterium-hydride target to release fast neutrons.
“ Being a serious radiation hazard, it is surprising the white paper does not
address this at all. Are the neutrons absorbed or are they just decayed with
their very short half-life? Neutrons are thermodynamically unstable and are
kinetically unstable when free; they release energy when they decay to a proton,
electron, and antineutrino.” Rauen wondered whether this meant that a neutrino
was absorbed instead of antineutrino released.
“ Anyway, this is a neat idea for a simple nuclear reaction. Let's see if they
can make the process intrinsically safe. “ (Ref. 17)
To this, Seward replies: “Ken Rauen raises a good point as to how this process
can be non-radioactive since it produces neutrons. The plan is to substitute the
boron proton process prior to commercialization.” Changing the name for the
new process, as is now in effect, helps avoid any misplaced concerns.
A colliding boron/hydrogen process is known to produce energy without neutrons
or radioactivity. Achieving this in the proposed C-E Tube would indeed represent
an environmentally-clean energy technology beyond the deuterium-based one
currently being used in the EPS experiments. However, this remains theoretical
until an actual working model can be demonstrated. Even with adequate and timely
funding, this could take several more years.
The researchers are working in laboratories with these devices, and presumably
would have first-hand experience of any side-effects from proximity. The
commercialization of neutron-tube technology for larger electrical generating
stations will have to include appropriate shielding for radioactivity. But the
PB11 Clean-Energy Tube for homes and for air and ground transportation would not
require this type of shielding.
Since Seward utilizes an electric arc to produce the plasma toroids, his
invention avoids microwaves which are commonly used in neutron tubes to create
plasmas. Thus the non-radioactive and non-microwave C-E Tube would be safer on
both counts, and avoid at least one of the EMF-safety concerns about a new and
unknown system. (Ref. 18) Since the C-E Tube vehicle
prototype has yet to be built, we will have to await its arrival in order to
scan it with a tri-field meter and make an assessment then. Meanwhile, if any
system other than combustion is powering the drive, electro-magnetic field will
be present. Owners of all hybrid and electric vehicles who are concerned about
EMF should consider finding ways to protect themselves from these fields. (Ref.
Experimental and prototype testing will have to set the parameters for how the
C-E Tube technology will stand up to vibration and random impacts which are both
hazards of road travel, and whether spillage would represent any hazard. As a
trace element, boron plays a nutrient role to strengthen bones, though its use
in calcium supplements is restricted and still not approved in some countries
due to concern about possible toxicity. In small quantities also, this element
promotes vigorous growth of certain food crops such as broccoli; a deficiency of
boron shows up in the brassica plant family as those brownish hollow gaps in the
stems or roots. (Ref. 20)
Since high concentrations from an unintended spill of the boron fuel could be a
problem, vendors planning a supply system will have to include containment or
neutralization methods should such accidents be determined to present a risk.
How far this may be toxic to humans is still in dispute, and since a car needs
to carry only a small amount – a few ounces at most – of boron, Clint Seward
considers that any predicted risk from a vehicular accident should be minimal. (Ref.
However, for plants there is a narrow margin between boron as a micro-nutrient
and toxic contamination. An article from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on
forest management states: “the reason that excess lime causes [boron
deficiency] is that aluminum hydroxide immobilizes boron rather than a simple
high pH reaction.” (Ref. 22) Since liming the soil
depletes boron, this simple procedure may offer a way to detoxify a boron spill.
Long-Term Boron Supply Doubtful
Recovery of any spilled boron may be a better option than just neutralizing
toxicity. In addition to environmental costs involved in mining, some deposits
have become exhausted. At the present rate of use, the higher-grade deposits may
be used up in about forty years, according to one source. (Ref.
23) However, others disagree. Clint Seward cites G. Miley’s book Fusion
Energy Conversion as predicting that there is enough boron for centuries of use.
According to that apparently knowledgeable source, even if boron runs out,
twenty-one other potential fusion processes could be developed to replace it.
As with any other element or mineral that is part of the natural chain of life
processes, the world supply of boron is not infinite. And one of the
highest-concentration deposits is in Turkey, which is in a region considered
politically unstable. That nation’s government wants to manage the 60% of the
world’s born for greater income and employment. But because the fuel borane is
already needed for US military aircraft, the Turkish boron deposit has already
been targeted by the IMF for “privatization” to transfer control – and
profits – to a “Western” multinational company such as the London-based
Rio Tinto mining conglomerate. (Ref. 20) Adding this
new use for boron in spheromaks will make financial or military conflict to
achieve such a takeover more likely.
Future prices of this element will go up as the supply declines, though it is
difficult to predict when that may occur. As with oil, coal and other resources,
a time may come when the cost of obtaining boron as fuel, such as from less
accessible sites or in low-grade ore, makes it less attractive. Whether that is
centuries away or decades away depends on which analyst has made the best
calculations, as well as on how much boron consumption will rise with the
adoption of the C-E Tube.
Eventually, the boron-hydrogen fuel process could end up competing with
agricultural producers for a waning supply of what is for them an essential
No free lunch
Every energy application has a cost for the environment. When contrasted to
combustion-based energy, the benefits from the boron-based C-E Tube, of no
emissions and greater efficiency, put this longer-term supply issue into
perspective. Spreading out any negative effects over time is why it is
beneficial to develop many different energy systems. Doing so helps to stave off
the inevitable supply crunches so that the civilization is not dependent on any
single type of technology.
EST Spheromak Minimizes Waste Heat
Reducing waste heat is another of the EPS company’s research objectives. “Heat
is a particularly interesting discussion since our discovery will reduce waste
heat from cars by about 70%,” says Seward, “thereby reducing global warming.”
While the D/D neutron tube will produce heat energy comparable to what all
fossil fuel cycles produce, the C-E Tube will not. To move a car, with its
attendant low efficiency of about 20%, heat from gasoline combustion has to be
converted into power using a Carnot Cycle with its entropy losses. The remaining
80% of the energy not thus converted is the wasted heat. From a neutron tube,
waste heat cannot be reduced by much. However, as a replacement for fossil fuels
in electrical generating stations, an EST spheromak using the D/D process still
comes out ahead by not producing CO2.
The picture would get brighter after the arrival of the C-E Tube based on the
B/P process. Conversion of the spheromak tube to boron/hydrogen, Seward
explains: “will provide a spectacular potential improvement in efficiency and
reduction in waste heat.” Due to their high energy, helium ions move at high
velocity. Seward’s calculations predict that by passing them through a pickup
coil their energy can be converted directly to electricity at 90%+ efficiency.
“This one improvement will significantly reduce waste heat from cars by about
70% and reduce waste heat we now pour into the earth’s ecosphere”, he
states. (Ref. 24) The same can be said of a B/P home
heating co-generation device.
Solidity of the Research
Though they had identified problem areas in the original EPS data, NASA did
admit that the concept of “metastable” energetic plasma structures deserved
further research with a view to using these effects for propulsion and
electrical generation, as long as the work proceeded under strict peer review to
achieve a sound theoretical model. (Ref. 25) After a
stringent examination of this NASA analysis, and exchanges of views and data,
the EPS team and MIT published new papers confirming their experimental results.
Having tightened up the theoretical underpinnings of their EST Spheromak, the
researchers are now confident that they have resolved the issues. Therefore they
are ready to go ahead on the engineering of a working proof-of-concept
laboratory model to be built in the next two years, and are looking for funding.
Since MIT scientists are focusing on their DOE-funded Tokamak research, they are
not currently involved in the EST Spheromak project as a partner. However,
Seward looks forward to renewal of their expert participation once funding is
raised to cover additional research expenses at the university level.
$2.0M in capital is needed to complete the initial milestones and a further $8M
is required to complete additional ones. The $2M is earmarked for one senior
technical person to complete lab work; funding of consultants; instrumentation
in EPS labs and marketing.
Experimental-stage lab costs can run fairly high due to having to have experts
on hand to analyze and tweak the physical setup on a continuous basis. On
PhysOrg forum, Erich Knight posted in December 2004 a statement from Seward
describing the stages involved. He remarked that cash outlay is required for
each step: for creating each EST, for activating the collider to bring them
together, for taking the measurements, and finally for the expert analysis of
the results. It added up, to about a $5k investment for each EST capture. In
those days, in order to further the research, Seward was even working with
investments as small as $5000 to $10000 -- considered peanuts in the
venture-capital field. (Ref. 27)
The $8M investment will be used to build the first high-output neutron-tube
prototypes. This work is to be done by a qualified outside contractor chosen by
Electron Power Systems, Inc. is a privately held corporation. It is currently
operating as a research company, and applies for research contracts. There is a
history of $6.0M received for the work already done to characterize the physics
of the technology. To date four “angel” investors have invested a total of
$384K. Although in the one-off experimental setting, each spheromak costs about
$5k to create, though with increasing standardization of processes and
structures, these unit costs should come down.
The researchers leading the EPS startup team all have a strong scientific
background. As the company grows, no doubt qualified managers will be added as
the need arises.
CEO Clint Seward, who discovered the technology, has designed its
applications. Prior to founding EPS, he was a general manager in a high-tech
company, and obtained experience in engineering management and marketing. Seward
holds a Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering from University of
Michigan, and a BS from West Point.
Chief Consulting Scientist Chiping Chen, Ph.D. has worked with EPS since
1993. It was Dr. Chen who determined that no other published data existed for a
spheromak that remained stable in atmosphere, and devised equilibrium equations
for it. With Missile Defense Organization funding, he was able to demonstrate
this equilibrium, eventually also achieving the long-sought EST stability, as
reported in published papers. Dr. Chen is a Principal Research Scientist, MIT
Plasma Science and Fusion Center.
VP of Engineering DeWitt (“DC”) Seward has worked with EPS in a
consulting role since 1992 when funding permits. His background includes product
engineer designing survey equipment for Trimble Navigation Inc. using the GPS
technology. He is presently a product engineer in a wireless technology company.
DC holds a Masters of Science in EE from MIT.
# # #
Company Website: ElectronPowerSystems.com
Ref. 1: Executive Summary from EPS, Inc.
Ref. 2: Electron Spiral Toroid; US Patent 5,773,919;
June 30, 1998.
Ref 3: Email from Clint Seward to Sterling Allan,
23 Feb 2006
Ref 4: Documentation such as “Daniel R. Wells,
Paul Edward Ziajka, and Jack L. Tunstall. Hydrodynamic confinement of
thermonuclear plasmas TRISOPS VIII (plasma liner confinement). Fusion Tech.,
9:83, 1986.” listed at: https://public.lanl.gov/cbarnes/bib/spheromak_biblio/node1.html
Ref 5, 7: https://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=359
Ref 6 Due to confusion arising from using
the same name for the radioactive and non-radioactive processes, in an email to
Clint Seward, 26 February 2006, the author asked for a way to distinguish the
two verbally. He said, “What I am fishing for is a different name for a tube
in which a boron-hydrogen event occurs that doesn't need powerful
electromagnetic confinement, so that I can write about these different devices
being put into houses or cars without reference to dangers associated with
neutrons.” I also suggested calling the non-radioacive version a “tubomak”
by way of stimulating some brainstorming. Mr. Seward replied with his choice of
name, the Clean-Energy Tube™.
Ref 7: https://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=359
Ref 8: https://www.niac.usra.edu;
click on studies 9801, click on final report, Seward.
Ref 9: “Theoretical Analysis of the Electron
Spiral Toroid Concept: an Update” June, 2002. “The NASA report concludes
that the EST cannot be scaled up to the extent that EPS claimed in its NIAC
report [Seward 1999], and on this point EPS agrees. The NASA report correctly
shows that the ion stability condition cannot be practically satisfied at that
high level of energy. EPS agrees it overlooked the implications of the ion
stability condition in that analysis.”
Ref 10: Email, C. Seward to author, 5 March 2006.
Ref 11: Email from C. Seward to author, 27 Feb 2006
Ref 12: “Spheromaks: A Practical Application of
Magnetohydrodynamic Dynamos and Plasma Self-Organization” (Imperial College
Press, London, 2000) quote cited by Seward appears on page 4.
Ref 13: https://www-ferp.ucsd.edu/spher.html
As of the time
of writing this article, the definition on Wikipedia
still included this paragraph to which Seward had objections: "A Spheromak
is a controlled fusion reactor design in which the fusion plasma is
electromagnetically confined within a spherical electromagnetic field geometry.
Deuterium plasma or deuterium/tritium plasma is injected into a spheromak. This
places a small star like ball of fusion plasma inside of the spherical
electromagnetic field, inside the spheromak. ... The core of a spheromak may be
a hollow iron or steel sphere that is wrapped with up to 100,000 superconducting
steel electromagnetic solenoid coils that are cooled by a liquid helium cooling
Ref 14: Executive Summary for Electron Power Systems
Ref 15: EPS Document #051115 “A high-energy Neutron
Tube for Explosives Detection and Clean Energy”
Ref 16: Email from C. Seward to author, 5 March
Ref 17: Email from "Ken Rauen" to NEC-TechRev@yahoogroups.com
Ref 18: Concerns about “electrosmog” especially
microwaves are still officially dismissed. However, suppression of independent
data is alleged, (https://omega.twoday.net/stories/1142664/)
and reporting continues from unofficial sources, e.g.:
while those observing and experiencing symptoms categorically reject industry
claims of safety for microwave-based technologies, e.g.: https://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega107.htm,
“anecdotal” report linking symptoms to technology; and https://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/adverse_..._transmitter.html
Ref 19: One approach to protecting oneself is to
apply a device to the electromagnetic-field source, e.g.: https://www.tachyon-energy-products.com/prius-disks.htm,
while another option is a portable or wearable device to lessen the effects on
the body. (E.g.: engineer George T. F. Yao’s microcrystalline pulsor® devices
(from www.essentia.ca, click on EMF
protection links); or wearable radionically-enhanced clay tokens such as: https://www.emfbalance.ca/HatmonyToken.html.
Ref 20: https://www.turkishtime.org/nisan/60_en_1.htm
Ref 21: https://www.veseys.com/store.cfm?product=908
Re: Boron solubor 20%: A necessary trace element for the prevention of brown
heart (water core) in turnips and rutabagas. Also beneficial for use on
cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, carrots and onions. Apply as a
foliar spray about 4-6 weeks after planting. 1 tbsp/gal of water for 150' row.
Ref 22: “Forest
Nursery Notes”, Summer 2001.
Ref 23: “SmartGuard Borate-Treated Wood
Products Introduced Product Review - Environmental Building News September 2000 How
Sustainable is Boron?”
Ref 24: Email from C. Seward to author, 27 Feb. 2006
Ref 25: NASA report “Theoretical Analysis of the
Electron Spiral Toroid Concept” (NASA/CR-2000210654), December 2000.
Ref 26: Articles listed in June 2002 update.
1. Chen, C., Pakter, R., Seward, D. C. (2001). “Equilibrium and Stability
Properties of Self-Organized Electron Spiral Toroids.” Physics of Plasmas.
Vol. 8, No. 10, pp. 4441-4449. October 2001. *
2. Guss, William J., Chen, C. (2002). “Equilibrium of Self-Organized Electron
Spiral Toroids.” Accepted for publication in Physics of Plasmas. Will publish
August 2002. Available from EPS, Inc. on request.
3. Seward, C., Chen, C., Guss, W., Seward, DC. (2002) “Electron Spiral Toroid
(EST) for Energy Storage.” Final report for DTRA contract no.
4. Seward, C., Chen, C., Ware, K. (2001). “Ball Lightning Explained as a
Stable Plasma Toroid.” PPPS-2001 Pulsed Power Plasma Science Conference. June
Ref 27: https://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=359
Electron Power Systems, Inc. <email >
42 Washington Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Ph: 978 263-3871
# # #
Page posted by Sterling
D. Allan March 7, 2006
Last updated December 24, 2014