[omellet]

The article lists several other fusion approaches that are also in development. Does anyone have a real sense of the likelihood of any of these actually working? I'm optimistic, but also naïve about the engineering challenges.

[arethuza]

There are a lot of fascinating engineering issues with projects like ITER - which are starting to scale up towards a commercial scale fusion plant. For example the ITER cryostat is apparently the largest high-vacuum chamber ever built:

http://www.iter.org/newsline/294/1792

[apaprocki]

The sad part is that the Tokamaks were being defunded in order to fund ITER, which wasn't even built yet. I'm not sure what wound up happening. I visited the one at MIT and got to see it fire live from inside the control room, but the postdocs were all sad that we were canning working primary research for what seemed like a complicated construction boondoggle. I hope they found another way to fund the research!

[ZenoArrow]

I don't understand what you mean by "The sad part is that the Tokamaks were being defunded in order to fund ITER". ITER is a tokamak, the world's largest (if/when it's completed), so funding for tokamaks is not a problem.

[Ygg2]

That has little to do with ITER. They could fund tokamaks by diverting some cash from other budgets.

[the8472]

If there were consensus on which technology is going to work and which one isn't we wouldn't need the parallel research.

They all work if we're assuming spherical, frictionless cows in a vacuum.

[rpedela]

Not sure, but I am personally rooting for Lawrenceville Plasma Physics because if it works, it is the best one in terms of economics, has no radioactive by-products, and is small enough to fit into ships, trains, large planes, and spacecraft. Also they have overcome 2 out of 3 major challenges with little funding. They are working on the last one, plasma density, now.

Regardless, I would be excited no matter who did it first and I want it yesterday.

[ZenoArrow]

I'm the same, I'm also rooting for Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. I think partly I like their approach (dense plasma focus) because of the promising results they've had with it (despite criminally low funding) and also, on a less important but nonetheless compelling note, it seems to be the most elegant fusion approach.

Aside from the potential for aneutronic fusion (essentially zero radioactive waste), and reactors small, cheap and safe enough to put in residential neighbourhoods, it's the way that they're using the instabilities in the plasma to their advantage. Reactors like the tokamak try to control the plasma, whereas dense plasma focus reactors use the natural instability in order to compress the plasma in a way that leads to fusion. So instead of fighting against nature, you make use of what nature gives you.

If any investors are reading, you really are looking at potentially the best investment you've ever made. If I was a millionaire I'm absolutely sure I'd invest. Even if a different fusion device wins the race, you'd still have a device capable of exploring the dynamics of plasmas, as well as a useful tool to explore magnetic fields. It's almost a no brainer.

http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/