The ITER
Letters and Feedback
Eugene Sittampalam
Updated 9 August
2006
From a recent letter
to the Joint European Torus (JET) directorate, the following lines may be
worthy of note here first.
The JET tokamak today being the best testing ground for
understanding the physics and technologies necessary for the eventual ITER, I
shall gladly contribute US$25,000/- upfront for the crucial test (The ITER Test)
that I have proposed. The payment shall be made without publicity. The lab may,
of course, go public with the test results.
The test request
was also extended to the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA).
In web forms and
e-mails between 23 March and 2 April 2006, the letters were, in essence, as
follows.
To: huoyuping@163.com, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org,
predh@yahoo.com, mori@naka.jaeri.go.jp, gslee@kbsi.re.kr,
belyakov@niiefa.spb.ru, sauthoff@pppl.gov
Cc: mark.westra@efda.org, spearsw@itereu.de
Subject: ITER
viability
Dr.
Dr. M. Gasparotto,
Dr. P. Kaw,
Dr. M. Mori,
Dr. Gyung-Su Lee,
Dr.
Dr. N. Sauthoff,
Participant Team Leaders, EFDA
Dear Learned Team Leaders,
Feasibility of fusion power
Nothing can be more convincing here than a
down-to-earth test of the underlying theory – especially in light of disturbing
findings in a related field since fusion research got under way over a half
century ago. Removing blinkers, do kindly access for perusal The ITER Test,
where I have outlined that test. It's a simple and low-cost one that could be
carried out in existing facilities. (I am an engineering consultant by
profession, having also worked for some leading US-based international project
management consultancies in the past; Discover
April 2002, pp 66-71, has a feature on my research work and includes a
short biography.)
Proponents or critics, we are but an
insignificant number even banded together; but we, who are more in the know of
the subject, owe such a final test and review to that less enlightened and unwary
majority, the paying public. It becomes even an ethically pressing need when
vested interest tries to gloss over the fact that not even a single experiment
so far has come anywhere near breakeven point for fusion-energy viability.
The personal offer of US$25,000 in advance
toward the test cost, sans publicity, is also a token of my sincerity. On your
part, the test would serve as token of the EFDA’s own sincerity and
transparency to the paying public.
Your early response would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam
It was indeed heartening to receive a “non-negative” response though from just one of the above leaders, a top plasma physicist with hands-on experience with fusion reactors for the past several years (not to mention his other impressive credentials).
A series of useful exchanges ensued daily for a week. Lines of note from my end of the correspondence may be summarized as follows.
(Lines from the other end may not be proper here without the esteemed gentleman’s consent.)
(1) Tritium. We now take for granted the fuel particles to remain stable till fusion time (as gasoline molecules would until ignition); that is, for instance, the half-life of the radioactive T to be unaffected during its sojourn through the harsh interior of the tokamak. However, observations elsewhere in the field reveal half-lives to generally drop exponentially in extremely violent atmospheres. In other words, the T half-life of 12.4 years could plummet even to seconds in the tokamak
To rule out this premature depletion, the JET today could check out for any undue amounts of the more stable isobar, He-3, that would result in the decay of T.
He-3 and electrons produced in the decay of T would go only to drain off energy, contaminate the plasma, and damp out any envisaged plasma burn. Increasing the size of the reactor, as in the ITER, would only compound the problem, making the key issue of self-sustained burn only an ever-receding target.
(2) Deuterium. The neutron flux that you find to be in agreement with theory need not necessarily be from the expected fusion of D and T (that is, to He-4 and neutrons). Part of the neutrons could well be from the dissociation of D itself and even of the He-3 from (1) due to the propounded intrinsic property of multi-nucleonic nuclei.
The above two concerns could be addressed with the proposed test, which shouldn't take more than a day at the JET.
Finally, considering your
time, it would be most understandable should you cease further communication
with me. However, if you find the suggested test to be reasonable, I shall
gladly make available that US$25,000 to any lab that you would care to suggest.
(The funds are now in National Savings in the
Letter
to President Bush
To: president@whitehouse.gov
Cc: abement@nsf.gov, mturner@nsf.gov, science_editors@aaas.org, nature@nature.com
Subject: Fwd: The ITER Project
Date: Apr 25, 2006 12:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Calls for
Major New Spending on Basic Research and Energy
State of the Union
address proposes doubling some basic research, new education, and energy
initiatives
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/201/1?etoc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics fights
back
The physical
sciences are strongly favoured in President Bush's 2007 budget request – but
researchers can't count their chickens yet
http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eWsb0J4QDd0Ch0uXC0E8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President George W Bush
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr President:
It was encouraging to read of your "serious national commitment to a
future science-based economy," as Dr Alan Leshner put it. However, on this
exemplary pathway, in particular, one has to be even more vigilant to avoid
waste. Today, there is a dire need in the science mainstream for a deeper and
coordinated understanding of the atomic nucleus; and a modern form of the Tower
of Babel is rising in southern France to manifest this benightedness, to which
US funds, too, are being diverted. Kindly accept also the forwarded for more on
this unfortunate turn of events, which still could be checked by your great
office by reason and fair play with regard to the "outside" and
unfunded research findings of mine that would also transpire below.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam
PS: As mentioned below, the signed hardcopy was rushed to Dr Bodman by FedEx on
the 18th; it was received there on the 21st.
----------
Forwarded message ----------
To: The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov
Cc: James.Decker@science.doe.gov, David.Garman@hq.doe.gov, Michael.Richard@hq.doe.gov, Richard.Burrow@hq.doe.gov,
prl@aps.org
Subject: The ITER Project
Date: Apr 17, 2006 1:47 PM
Dr Samuel W Bodman
The Secretary
Department of Energy
Dear Dr Bodman,
The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) – An Urgent Appeal For One Final Review
With the advent of the heavy-ion storage
ring at Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI), Darmstadt, Germany,
detailed study of atomic nuclei lifetimes has become possible. Hard evidence
that has since emerged from this facility, the only one of its kind today,
casts serious doubts, to say the least, on the very fundamentals of
conventional fusion power theory. The findings are reported in none other than
mainstream journals par excellence,
such as the American Physical Society's own Physical
Review Letters. Endorsements by the equally reputed International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) naturally follow for inclusion in their computer-based
Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF). Apparently, these disturbing
empirical facts concerning fuel stability under harsh environmental conditions
are yet to draw the attention of the ITER sponsors. Since a review here by DOE
will be second to none internationally, a timely action from you in the new
light could benefit all the funding agencies, not to mention the paying public.
For the convenience of those like you in high office with little time to
address individual public concerns, I have compiled the facts and proposed a
test in a short paper, The
ITER Test (http://www.sittampalam.net/ITER.Test.htm).
Do kindly access it for perusal; it would take only a few minutes to get the
overall picture of even what's really at stake here – the credibility of basic
physics research today in general. I can assure you the ramifications will be literally
cosmic!
The ITER Project is just the tip of the iceberg; yet its proposed US$12-billion
edifice, if completed, would go only to serve an entirely different purpose, as
– The
It was somewhat heartening, though, to receive a "non-negative"
response from one of the Participant Team Leaders of the European Fusion
Development Agreement (EFDA). The correspondence continued on a daily basis for
a week; and, despite a lapse the past week, it is not seemingly ended at this
writing. However, his queries on the GSI findings went also to reaffirm my
fears that basic research today has become far too specialized (to know more
and more about less and less), with such scientists, the cream of the academe,
getting increasingly hard-pressed for time to widen their scope to encompass
even closely related fields.
Nevertheless, a final review here by DOE, undeterred by vested interest groups,
could start to set things right, infusing also greater public confidence in
research spending.
Any response from you would be gratefully received.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam
PS: A signed copy of the above will follow by FedEx from
Simon Eugene Sittampalam
645
Tel: +9421
222 6851
E-mail: eugenesittampalam@gmail.com
Website: www.sittampalam.net
In connection with the above letter of 25 April
2006 to the White House, it may be of interest to note here the following.
1. Before the letter was this Science news item of 1 February 2006:
Bush Calls for Major New Spending on Basic
Research and Energy.
Within Department of Energy's science office,
nuclear physicists
may be the biggest winners of all. A 20% increase ($87 million).
2. Ten days after my letter, that is, on 5 May
2006, was this Science news item on
the same subject:
…the White House wants to take an $87 million bite out of
the $606 million program for efficiency research and technology at the
Department of Energy.
Coincidence? Perhaps!
If not, hope the White House will consider
sparing just 1% of that bite out – half toward the proposed test and half as a grant
toward my continued (and so far unfunded) research. The latter half, of course,
is one of those high hopes; or, as the song goes – high as apple-pie-in-the-sky
hopes!
In conclusion, here are the correspondences
with EFDA JET, perhaps, the most crucial of all to date.
To: maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org
Cc: mark.westra@efda.org, spearsw@itereu.de, nature@nature.com, science_editors@aaas.org
Subject: The ITER Test
Date: Wed, Jun 7, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Dr Maurizio Gasparotto
Participant Team Leader
for
EFDA
Dear Dr Gasparotto,
This is to kindly bring to
your notice the latest and unexpected response from an ITER office outside
In response to my query of 4 June, two months after some useful correspondence, I received something more than I had expected of a top-ranking and mainstream scientist:
"We … have not ignored your concerns and
the references you cited. I have sent the information to our chief scientist
for his views and am awaiting his findings."
A final and early consensus would be that much easier should you, too, care to take up the investigation with your own team of scientists and engineers. (I shall be forwarding this to the other team leaders for that purpose.) In essence, it would be to answer these simple questions that even the lay public (paying for the project) could pose to the EFDA:
· Are we quite certain of the stability of deuterium and tritium up to temperatures where they are expected to fuse?
· If yes: Does any literature carry the empirical verification for these two specific particles?
· If no: How is it even ethical then for us to build the ITER – all theories, predictions, and extrapolations aside – before unequivocally confirming that these two particles will be there at all, intact at around a hundred million degrees Celsius, to fuse and produce the energy?
Again, I hope you will not take this amiss. In the light of my greater work , I feel I have also a civic duty not to keep quiet but to bring such matters to the attention of the people at the top, like yourself.
In earlier instances, too, a mainstream few did lend me a sympathetic ear. Clearly, it's a sign of their personal conviction that truth and reason are the only way forward in science, without letting dogmatic theories, self-interest, complacency, and such get in the way. Two worthy of note here are:
1.
The KamLAND Test. Prof Giorgio Gratta of
2.
The NASA Tests. Drs James Williams, Dale Boggs, and Jean
Dickey of JPL were not opposed to my reasons for a more detailed study of
the Moon's orbit. Call this also sheer coincidence, but within four years,
with unusually swift approval of funding from NASA and NSF, a new facility
called the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) to
examine the Moon's orbit with millimeter precision was already coming up in
Finally, I shall continue to refrain from 'naming names' of responding ITER individuals who are accommodative of my views since the project may consider it unbecoming of its team members. This is the reason I have not revealed the identity of any to date. However, I could request them to contact you directly if it would be of some mutual help. [In (1) and (2) above, I was generally supportive of those fields of study – the reason for my naming the four researchers. It's unfortunate I cannot say the same of the ITER Project.]
Thank you for your time.
With kind regards,
Eugene Sittampalam
A polite rebuttal to the above came from Dr
Duarte Borba, EFDA Head of Office and Associate
Leader for JET:
From: Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
To: eugenesittampalam@gmail.com
Cc: "Pamela, Jerome" <jpamela@jet.uk>, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, "Mlynar, Jan" <jmlynar@jet.uk>, "Carpenter, Chris"
<chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk>
Subject: Re: The ITER Test
Date: Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 9:49 PM
Dear Eugene
Regarding your questions
1-
Are we quite certain of the stability of deuterium and tritium up to
temperatures where they are expected to fuse?
Yes, very certain indeed, deuterium is stable and tritium decays very slowly (12 year decay rate) and this is independent of the temperature up to the required fusion temperatures (100 MioC).
2-
If yes: Does any literature carry the empirical verification for these two specific
particles?
This has been verified experimentally at JET (www.jet.efda.org) showing that the fusion process occurs as expected under the conditions foreseen in ITER and in a future fusion Reactor.
For more details please see:
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/history-of-jet.html
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/news/2005/yop/oct05.html
During 1997 the JET operations included a three months' campaign of highly successful experiments using a range of Deuterium-Tritium fuel mixtures.
During these experiments, JET operated at the same temperatures of future fusion facilities like ITER. The results were of major significance. JET set three new world records: 22 MJ of fusion energy in one pulse, 16 MW of peak fusion power a 65% ratio of fusion power produced to total input power.
Best Regards
On behalf of Dr Pamela (EFDA Leader) and Dr. Gasparotto (EFDA Associate Leader for Technology)
EFDA JET Close Support Unit
Culham Science Centre
OX14 3DB Abingdon
tel +44 1235 465270
fax +44 1235 464800
email: Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org
It was indeed good of Dr Borba
to have responded in a seemingly official way for JET. After researching their specific
references further, my response followed after eight days. The subsequent
exchanges to date are reproduced below.
To: Duarte Borba
<Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
From: Eugene Sittampalam
<eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>
Cc: Jerome Pamela <jpamela@jet.uk>, Maurizio Gasparotto <maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org>,
Jan Mlynar <jmlynar@jet.uk, Chris Carpenter <chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk>
Subject: Re: The ITER Test
Date: Jun 20, 2006 1:41 PM
Dr Duarte Borba
EFDA JET Close Support Unit
Culham Science Centre
OX14 3DB Abingdon
Dear
Thank you for your kind reply. To consider the subject closed, I shall greatly appreciate just one further clarification from you.
You state: "Yes, very certain indeed, deuterium is stable and tritium decays very slowly (12 year decay rate) and this is independent of the temperature up to the required fusion temperatures (100 MioC)."
However, these do not seem empirically substantiated anywhere to date, even in the references (1 and 2, below) you were good enough to cite in support.
On the other hand, your conclusions here may have been derived from (2); that is, interpreted from lines such as,
(a)
"JET unambiguously
observed alpha particle heating in the deuterium-tritium experiments of
September 1997."
(b)
"The alpha power was 3%
of the total heating power absorbed by the plasma"
(c)
"The afternoon following
the press conference (31st October 1997) brought our best high power results so
far. Shot number 42976 reached a fusion power of 16.1 MW and Q rose to
0.65."
Unfortunately, quoting from (3) in this context,
(d)
"The figure [Fig. 3]
includes for comparison some ion cyclotron RF heated (ICRH) pulses, which had
been used before the tritium experiment to test the feasibility of detecting
alpha heating."
(e)
"The effect of ICRH is
very similar to that of alpha heating because it couples mainly to the
plasma."
(f) "The alpha and ICRH power sources are identical in their effects."
Adding one more from (3) for my comment below,
(g) "It will also be noted that the data in Fig. 2 shows an increase of sawtooth period with increasing tritium concentration. The reason for this is being investigated."
As such,
· Statement (a) would be unquestionable only if D and T are to be unaffected by temperature, as now assumed in tests. However, this nuclear stability is no longer observationally true in general (see The ITER Test).
· Therefore, for (b) and (c), by virtue of (d), (e) and (f), we cannot "unambiguously" rule out other ions – of He-3 and electrons from the stepped-up decay of T – to create this illusion of alpha heating.
· In (d), even if alpha particles had been used in those ICRH pulses, one has now to ascertain the stability of even alpha particles at those temperatures. In fact, (f) would be a foregone conclusion if all H and He isotopes at around a 100 MioC are to be dissociated into their constituent nucleons.
· Even the "best" figures noted in (c) are still dismally low after all these decades of trials. In the new light, they are but the result of low DT content (or none at all) at those temperatures. Hence, achieving (in all likelihood, if at all, proton-proton) fusion in such one-shot manner, as in the hydrogen bomb, should not be considered a great achievement towards sustainable fusion.
·
And a final proof is
perhaps seen in (g): The sawtooth rise in temperature
is effected not by alpha heating but by electrons from the increasing
(beta-minus) decay rate of T; the peak temperature is where He-3 (the other
decay product) finally dissociates en masse into its constituent nucleons –
higher the initial concentration of T, more the (decay) He-3 ions in the 'pot'
and longer their period to attain 'boiling' point; and the sawtooth
crashes when (so-called binding) energy is instantaneously absorbed in the
rapid dissociation process. ("The reason
for this is being investigated." Would much appreciate
knowing your conclusions as well.)
Hence, as you may agree, stability tests specifically for D and T would be the only logical next step forward. The item next suggests a simple and low-cost procedure whereby D and T could be investigated even separately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Culled from
Since our concern here is primarily stability of D and of T half-life with temperature rise, one could consider simpler tests such as the following.
At the various plasma labs already experimenting with tritium, presence of any undue helium-3 could be checked out in the plasma chambers when each experiment is over; that is, for any classically unaccountable amounts of He-3 from the premature decay of T. This would entail analyzing the chamber walls as well. [Note: Detection of any excess He-3 would confirm that T half-life had indeed dropped; but its absence, though, would not conclusively bear out stability – since T (and any He-3) could have instead dissociated into its constituent nucleons. Hence, the presence of He-3 only could be of consequence here, not its absence.]
Other plasma labs, too, could investigate the half-life of T, and even the stability of D and He-3, with increasing temperature, say, in steps of 10 million degrees Celsius. (Classically, T has a half-life of 12.4 years; and D and He-3 are both stable and occur in nature.)
The above may seem trivial at the JET, but the findings should, nevertheless, be of immense help to all concerned in "energy from fusion" (which, though most unfortunate, will still not be viable for us due to even more fundamental reasons; see Fusion Energy ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is most understandable that your eminent team would have neither the time nor the funds to perform to every public fancy. This is the reason for my offer to pay all cost and sundry in advance and without question. Hope the JET-EFDA will consider this test proposal favourably to bring about an early resolution to one of the costliest and most protracted projects in the history of science.
Thank you again and best regards,
References:
(1) http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/history-of-jet.html
(2) http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/news/2005/yop/oct05.html
(3) JET pre-print
=======================================================================================================
From: Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
To: Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The ITER Test
Date: Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 7:02 PM
Dear Eugene
The Deuterium-Tritium fusion reaction produces an alpha particle and a neutron.
You are correct in pointing out that the presence of alpha particles is difficult to detect and there are a number of publications devoted to the study of the effect of alpha particle heating in the JET experiments with Tritium.
However, your argument is not valid since the neutron on the other hand is “easy” to detect and the measured fusion power comes from the detection of fusion neutrons a relatively straightforward measurement with “Today’s” technology, not from the fusion alphas.
In the Deuterium-Tritium experiments at JET, the numbers of neutrons measured agree with the expected fusion reactions, demonstrating experimentally that fusion reactions occur, as expected, under the same conditions (temperature, density) as in ITER.
In other words, the “The ITER Test” you propose has already been done at JET.
Best Regards
[NB: The bold-text emphases, too, are Dr Borba’s]
=======================================================================================================
To: Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
From: Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The ITER Test
Cc: jpamela@jet.uk, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, jmlynar@jet.uk, chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk
Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 5:28 PM
Dear
Thank you for the exceptional patience and politeness shown in responding to my letters. However, I shall not test those great qualities of yours (all too rare these days) any further, but end our correspondence with a final comment and request here. (An answer is not expected but, of course, would be most welcome anytime.)
JET literature talks of "shots" and "seconds" in the context of fusion output; and these results are to find extrapolation in the larger ITER. One could agree that, from the frozen DT pellets injected into the plasma, the few seconds of alpha production and heating are possible, that is, before the fuel itself dissociates in the freezer-to-furnace environmental change – as evidenced by the (classically enigmatic) "sawtooth." Unfortunately, these results cannot at all be seen as something that could be usefully extended towards net output in any device whatever the size.
In other words, alpha production cannot be totally ruled out in the fleeting trial runs – richer the fuel, more can be the alphas; the extended sawtooth period would also support this; but can one extend that alpha heating even a second longer without changing the fuel mix?
Hence, to unambiguously resolve the problem once and for all – why not check out samples of D and T separately for stability at increasing steps of, say, 10 million degrees Celsius? (The same could be conducted for helium isotopes to make the study even more robust.) Complacency in such a high-cost venture – especially in light of the disturbing findings elsewhere in the field – could only be seen by the paying public as one of the greatest scams in the history of science (nothing personal, of course!).
Thank you again and best regards,
=======================================================================================================
From: Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
To: Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The ITER Test
Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 9:20 PM
Dear Eugene
In
other words, alpha production cannot be totally ruled out in the fleeting trial
runs – richer the fuel, more can be the alphas; the extended sawtooth period would also support this; but can one extend
that alpha heating even a second longer without changing the fuel
mix?
I do not fully understand your question, but I can say that Fuelling, Alpha Heating and Exhaust are important research topics of both JET and ITER experiments.
Hence,
to unambiguously resolve the problem once and for all – why not check out samples
of D and T separately for stability at increasing steps of, say, 10 million
degrees Celsius?
JET has indeed performed a large number of experiments using different fuel mixtures, including pure Tritium and pure Deuterium (Also Hydrogen and Helium), at different temperatures 10-300 MioC.
Best Regards
=======================================================================================================
To: Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
From: Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>
Cc: jpamela@jet.uk, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, jmlynar@jet.uk, chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk, ponti.sittampalam@halliburton.com
Subject: Re: The ITER Test
Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Dear
Sorry for not being clear on that paragraph. In the earlier letter, I mentioned that the heating could well be due to He-3 and electrons from the stepped-up decay of T and not necessarily from alpha particles. It was not implied that one could totally rule out the latter. In fact, this is also the crux of the argument I am trying to get across. I can accept that alpha particles are indeed being produced, but my question is – to what extent? D and T are surviving to 300 MioC – but what percentage of it? From the sawtooth signals it does not seem an encouraging 100%, but more towards an extreme low when the sawtooth crashes.
"JET has indeed performed a large number of experiments using different fuel mixtures, including pure Tritium and pure Deuterium (Also Hydrogen and Helium), at different temperatures 10-300 MioC."
Though refreshing, I'm sure stability of D and T was not in the scope of study, since nuclear properties would have been taken as absolute (a priori) – as Einstein assumed the pi-meson half-life to be, and chose to dilate time!
Again, since nuclear
stability was never in question in plasma research to date, the test request
kindly stands. So does my offer to pay for it in full and upfront. I have the
funds with National Savings there, and a certified Lloyds
cheque could even be hand delivered to you in a
week by my brother, Ponti (who is with Halliburton in
Best regards,
PS: Since it is also for the betterment of science, I feel I could mention – in confidence here – the name of another great gentleman who cared to exchange views with me just as you did. He is Dr [name withheld from the web page here, but could be revealed confidentially to individuals on request]. Perhaps, you already know him personally. He was quite accommodative of my views (his latest to me was: "I have sent the information to our chief scientist for his views and am awaiting his findings"). He, too, could help bring about an early resolution here (and shut me up for good!). Cheers!
Finally, a paper is due for submission to a leading mainstream journal for possible publication. The preprint may be accessed on: www.sittampalam.net/NaturePreprint.pdf.
In the paper, one would find also the fundamental prerequisite for fusion efficiency: an isotropic environment coupled with a rhythmic process of systematic fuel intake followed by product discharge.
The ITER lacks
both isotropy and rhythm; but flogging of the dead horse goes on!
Eugene
Sittampalam
9 August
2006