All I saw on that was a slideshow about how great it's gonna be. We kinda already know that. I presume that there are more details elsewhere, but that link didn't get me to any.
Of course, these guys just looking for money from the true believers never have scientifically interesting stuff to tell us - if they did we'd hear about it as product that worked and groan about their IP monopoly on it. Unless history is no guide.
H->Li has always been my "theoretical favorite" reaction, but practically speaking, Li ions floating around tend to deposit on insulators and...fast alphas are hard to reliably detect in a sea of fast protons...So it's hard to work with in a research setting. Once you have the math hammered and can do things feedforward with some confidence, that one is definitely worth looking at, despite a resonance nearby that's endothermic (never mentioned by the fanboys, and if they don't they're spewing bafflegab here).
If someone has cracked tunneling in a sense other than just piling the rocks together and waiting (which is what I'm refining), well then. All quantum physics is then "wrong", and they'd better be ready for the Feynman criteria. With no uncertainty principle, there'd be things even nicer than controlled fusion possible - and of course no need to sell the benefits - you'd own the solar system at least.
What I've been up to on that kind of thing is simply getting the info on how close and for how long things have to be to have a decent chance to tunnel into fusion. I'd not seen that quantified anywhere before, it took some real digging to get a probability vs time and distance curve going, even a pretty approximate one. When I did that and looked at the numbers, it turns out that indeed, it's not a ridiculous idea to attempt to create far better conditions than what you'd get with thermal setups and random banging around. The required distances are on the order of a deBroglie wavelength of a 50kev electron (hint), which is commensurate with the Schrodinger wavelength of a deuteron (well, within a few effective diameters, the tunneling probability falls off very quickly with distance). The idea being if you can get a bunch of D coming in to a focus so the density would've become high in the absence of repulsion, and then bring in electrons that are, due to their relative speed, small enough to get between the D ions (normally they are not, and by a fat factor) - you could get the D's to hang around in proximity long enough to vastly increase the likelihood of fusion.
What's interesting is this does pass at least the simplest Feynman smoke tests. It explains why we don't see it in nature - it's not a trivial thing to set up. It explains how what I actually had happen, could have happened without magic or totally new theories of how it all works. The time scales make sense too.
We'd have D's in proximity for around a nanosecond in my scheme, in bunches approaching and passing through a focus. In the scheme of nuclear timescales, that's an eternity - those tend to be 10
-20 or 10
-22 kinds of times for tunneling to happen or various quark oscillations. If you can get 10
-11 tries to tunnel, per pair, more or less...the odds go up a good bit.
Normally, electron wavefunctions are FAR too big for them to help us here. They just don't fit, or localize well enough to be "between" a couple of D ions. It's part of the reasons atoms are so big compared to the pieces that make them up. So, what if we have a bunch of D's trying to get together because we put a bunch of directed kinetic energy into them and aimed them at one another, and at the last instant (well, nanosecond or so) when they're starting to get close and repel one another, preventing fusion, we bring in a bunch of electrons (we had them anyway, but now we have use for what was an annoyance) in, with enough relative velocity so that they "fit" and temporarily reduce or eliminate the repulsion? While this is juggling a lot of fast moving stuff on timescales that are not in normal human intuition...the thing to keep track of is how one fast thing might be geologically slow compared to another fast thing...in this model, the deuterons and electrons are dog-slow compared to nuclear oscillations, even though in this example the deuterons are dog-slow compared to the electrons (>> factor of 60).
In our patent application I described a waveform to cause first acceleration and bunching of deuterium ions towards a central focus, followed by a polarity switch on a much faster timescale once the D's were inside the grid (electrostatically shielded from the grid-tank field) to bring in the otherwise bothersome electrons at the right instant - that's possible as they move a lot faster than D's in the same fields due to less mass. Seems obvious at some level. The thing is, the details of the waveform that will produce the desired results in the presence of a rapidly changing field due to the D ions themselves moving and being at varying densities during the cycle is not only not trivial, it's not even theoretically solvable with current mathematical techniques - it's a fractal and would have to be finite-element-simulated like the weather or some gravitational/orbit problems. For a few entities, that's doable. We have 10
-18 or more here - and a far longer time-scale span between the things that matter. So, while in my mind, it's a simple exponentially falling initial waveform - over a few uS, which is what we've been working to get a measurement on for the last two years (it ain't easy) - followed by a kickback to high positive voltage on the nanosecond time scale - the exact details of the shape of the initial falling part - which will have to account for the repulsion caused by the ions getting closer to the focus and each other, as well as the distortion in the applied field that creates - are problematic. Even in an ideal case this waveform, which is also "big" at 50kv or so - has to have a bandwidth spanning 100's khz to 100's mhz - and no extant RF source does that anything like easily and for sure not at 50kv. So I'm having to push the state of that art along with the rest to even try this.
I just couldn't come up with a better explanation for
what actually did happen during my accidental super high output. This one likely explains the ones Farnsworth had too - mine was during a self-oscillation that was hard to reproduce - the details do matter here - and his likely the same or at least that's possible with what I saw in his setup with parasitic inductances and capacities.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.