Form Ct 945 2012: Fill & Download for Free

That is the core of the present controversy pending before the Supreme Court that is said to be awaiting determination in November of 2020. Here’s an excerpt from a news article on that suggesting that is exactly the issue before the Court: “A coalition of Republican state attorneys general, led by Texas, argued in February 2018 that the Republican-backed tax-cut law of December 2017 had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA's penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts' 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find unconvincing the argument that the entire law should fall. "If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an 'all or nothing' proposition," wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.” The Future Of The Affordable Care Act In A Supreme Court Without GinsburgIt’s one of the reasons the Republicans have been willing to do anything to get their current nominee on the Court before the election. In his shortened interview with 60 Minutes (I think that was where), Trump said of his administration’s attempt to destroy the entirety of ACA, when asked about protection for people with pre-existing conditions, that he would have a “beautiful plan” to propose in its place. The Republicans have been promising to repeal and replace for more than a decade now, and still have not announced any plan, or even the broad outline of a plan, to replace ACA. They are entirely focused on repealing it.Here’s the titles to look for on the Supreme Court’s website:California v. Texas, No. 19-840, 945 F.3d 355(5th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 1262 (2020).Texas v. California, No. 19-1019, 945 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 1262 (2020).Oral argument scheduled for November 10.Issues: (1) Whether the Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional now that Congress dropped the penalty for not securing ACA-compliant coverage to zero; and (2) if that provision is unconstitutional, whether that provision is severable from the rest of the ACA or renders the entire ACA invalid.There’s a good discussion of these cases at Supreme Court Case: Protecting the Affordable Care Act. Unable to get this done via legislation, the Republicans hope their appointees on to the Supreme Court will deliver the first of several rulings on their wishes - first ACA, then delivering the election to Trump, and finally, Roe v. Wade and women’s health rights.Here’s the list of pleadings: Supreme Court of the United StatesYou’ll find the research materials you are asking about there.

At it’s core: I think it is a fundamental, collective, belief that fusion power is impossible.The human race has collectively said: this is not happening, not happening soon or never going to happen. Anyone (group, company, university, individual) claiming a path to fusion is not taken seriously.This becomes a chicken and the egg situation - a vicious cycle. We can’t get fusion without funding, support, leadership and help. But - not getting support, means we can’t get fusion funding, which makes fusion harder to achieve, which in-turn kills support, which means we can’t get fusion funding, which…Right now, there are lots of examples of fusion research teams in need of a very small amount of funding for fusion; but they can’t seem to get the attention of investors, private or public. These include:The Levitating Dipole Experiment at MIT. This concept is from a highly respected team of researchers (speifically Jay Keasner and Micheal Manual of Columbia). Starting in the late 1990’s they built a large team and machine. They showed a steady amount of fusion, with one of the best transparent get-out-the-fusion-information effort of any group. They were gearing up for ignition experiments and they needed just 3 million dollars over several years, when their funding was cut in 2011. The US government cut the funding to support ITER.The HOMER machine at University of Wisconsin-Madison. This group studies IEC fusion - specifically fusors. They run a <10 person team on a funding of less than ~1 million dollars per year. A fusor cannot get net power, but multiple off-shots and spin-off IEC approaches have been proposed based on the fusor approach. These include: polywells, magnetically insulated fusors, a Los Alamos proposal called POPS, penning trap variants and beam-on-beam with Gabor Lensing. Will any of these ideas work? maybe. Will some ideas fail? Probably. Have we really tried them? No - we have not funded the research. For 20 years, the HOMER machine and group have taught us most of the things we know about fusors. They also produced two amazing startups: Phoenix Nuclear Labs and Shine Medical. PNL recently set a world record for building a 1 million dollar machine which can do 132 hours of continuous nuclear fusion and Shine signed a 100 million dollar deal with GE Healthcare to mass produce medical isotopes. Research at HOMER, pays off. So it was a real shame when at a recent IEC conference, I overheard staff member Richard Bonomo talking about hosting a bake sale to keep the doors open.CT Fusion. This a fusion startup from Thomas Jarboe group at University of Washington. This group developed the Dynomak, which uses a new inductive way to heat plasma. You can think about it like a tokamak - but with 2 fewer magnetic coils, much better theoretically trapping and a better heating mechanism. It actually evolved from the HIT-SI spheromak machine. They could not get funding from the government - because it was all slated for ITER - so they started a company. The company is trying to raise 30 million dollars over several years. A software startup can get that amount in a heartbeat - but fusion companies? They can’t seem to get the credibility, because again, fusion power is considered impossible.Energy Matter Conversion Company. In 2014, this company put out a landmark paper in Physical Reviews X, stating that they had seen plasma diamagnetism reject the outside magnetic field - leading to what I have argued, could be the worlds best plasma trap. They have the equipment, the professionals and the right publication record, but they are struggling to raise the funds. The company is trying to raise 30 million over a few years, but is having a real problem raising interest.I could go on…. If you added together all the funding they are seeking, it would count as nothing compared to the upside they are offering. I mean, 75 million dollars was invested in the Spider-man Broadway musical, but we can’t raise a few million for a potentially civilization-changing technology?Below is a flow chart of many of the fusion approaches that are out there (citations). For every one - there is group, team, university or individual trying to make things happen. They are all struggling against this “fusion power is impossible” mindset.So why has this happened? Here are a couple other barriers to fusion:Ignorance. Most of the world has not heard of fusion, does not understand it and does not know about its many variants, problems, tools or history.Poorly Explained. Fusion is very, very poorly explained from the science community. They write peer reviewed, jargon filled papers, that satisfy their own community and maintain their jobs. There is little incentive to explain the work to the general public.Wild Claims. Fusion has been beset with wild claims, from cold fusion to bubble fusion to the MIGMA, ect.Its Pro Bono. You cannot make money selling fusion power, since fusion power does not exist yet. You can make money doing fusion making neutrons and (very soon) radioactive isotopes. Hence, money/job security is always a problem.Bad Past Decisions. Fusion research has been cut in the past, in 1986 the Reagan administration famously closed a just-finished-giant-fusion project without even turning it on. Scientists disagreed then and some still disagree today with how funding is done.Hazy Need. Today, this is probably changing - but in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s it was hard for the public to see the need. Contrast that with the US oil shocks of the 1970’s — when congress moved very fast in alternative energy.More concretely, (in the USA) Dr. Stephen O Dean has written extensively about the barriers to fusion research at the US Federal level. Dr. Dean has been head of the Fusion Power Associates since ~1980 and has been the communities leading voice for funding in Washington.He has been there through the good and the bad times. In 2012, he wrote: “search for the ultimate energy source” which is a summary of federal support for fusion. Don’t read it. It is a litany of committees, titles, funding figures and peoples names. I can summarize the book in three figures.Dr. Dean really makes the case that since the 1980’s, fusion has never received the funding it needed to develop. Moreover, from federal prospective, the motivation has drifted from fusion power to fusion science to an esoteric research topic. This really happened in the mid-nineties when the panel which drives funding changed its’ name to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee – not the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee.So in conclusion….Fusion power is impossible - at least that is the collective world view.About 120 years ago human powered flight was also considered impossible. There was a collection of underfunded and ignored small teams trying to make it a reality. The public was not paying attention. The government (specifically the US government) had a high paid team of researchers working on it, who were trying to make a high powered device to fling people into the air. Then - out of nowhere - two brothers, with no college degree, and whom nobody had ever heard of - invented flight. So, impossible technologies? Sometimes, they can be tamed.Citations:A. "The dynomak: An advanced spheromak reactor concept with imposed-dynamo current drive and next-generation nuclear power technologies" Fusion Engineering and Design,Sutherland, Jarboe, Morgan, Pfaff, Lavine, Kamikawa, Hughes, Andrist, MarklinB. Jarboe, T.r., B.s. Victor,B.a. Nelson, C.j. Hansen, C. Akcay, D.a. Ennis, N.k. Hicks, A.c. Hossack, G.j. Marklin, and R.j. Smith. "Imposed-dynamo Current Drive." Nucl. Fusion Nuclear Fusion 52.8 (2012): 083017.C. McGuire, Thomas. "The Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor." Thursday Colloquium. Princeton University, Princeton. 6 Aug. 2015. Lecture.D. Park, J. "High-Energy Electron Confinement in a Magnetic Cusp Configuration." Physical Review X.N.p., 11 June 2015. 06 Nov. 2015.E. Wobig, H., T. Andreeva, and C.D. Beidler. "Recent Development in Helias Reactor Studies." 19th IAEA- Fusion Energy Conference. IAEA FT/1-6, n.d. 04 Apr. 2016.F. Wesson, John; et al. (2004). Tokamaks. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850922-7.G. Spitzer, Lyman. "The Stellarator Concept." Physics of Fluids (1958): n. pag. 4 Apr. 2016.H. Perea, A., R. Martin, J.l.Alvarez Rivas, J. Botija, J.r. Cepero, J.a. Fabregas, J. Guasp, A. Lopez Fraguas, A. Perez-Navarro, E. Rodriguez Solano, B.a. Carreras, K.k. Chipley,T.c. Hender, T.c. Jernigan, J.f. Lyon, and B.e. Nelson. "Description OfThe Heliac Tj-Ii And Its ecrh System." Fusion Technology 1986 (1986):673-78.I. Miller, R.l., and R.a. Krakowski. "Modular Stellarator Fusion Reactor Concept." Los AlamosLA-8978MS (1981): 1-161. 4 Apr. 2016.J. Proc. of 20th International Stellarator-Heliotron Workshop (ISHW), Max Planck Institute, Greifswald,Germany. Greifswald, 2015.K. Grieger, G., J. Nührenberg,H. Renner, J. Sapper, and H. Wobig. "HELIAS Stellarator Reactor Studiesand Related European Technology Studies." Fusion Engineering and Design25.1-3 (1994): 73-84. 4 Apr. 2016.L. Haines, M. G. "A Reviewof the Dense Z -pinch." Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion Plasma Physics andControlled Fusion 53.9 (2011): 093001.M. Jarboe, T. R. "Review of Spheromak Research." Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 36.6 (1994): 945-90.N. Slutz, Stephen A., and RogerA. Vesey. "High-Gain Magnetized Inertial Fusion." Phys. Rev. Lett.Physical Review Letters 108.2 (2012): n. page 4 Apr. 2016.O. "Mirror Systems: Fuel Cycles, loss reduction and energy recovery" by Richard F. Post, BNES Nuclear fusion reactor conferences at Culham laboratory, September 1969.P. "Overview of LDX Results" Jay Kesner, A. Boxer, J. Ellsworth, I. Karim, Presented at the APS Meeting, Philadelphia, November 2, 2006, Paper VP1.00020Q. Krishnan, Mahadevan."The Dense Plasma Focus: A Versatile Dense Pinch for Diverse Applications." IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science40.12 (2012): 3189-221. Web.R. Hedditch, John."arXiv.org e-Print archive Physics ArXiv:1510.01788." Fusion in a Magnetically-shielded-grid Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Device. ArXiv, 7Oct. 2015. Web. 22 Dec. 2015.S. Robert L. Hirsch,"Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of Ionized Fusion Gases", Journal of Applied Physics, v. 38, no. 7, October 1967T. Park, J., and R. A. Nebel."Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere." Physics of Plasmas 12.5(2005): n. pag. AIP. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://scitation.aip.org/content...>.U. Tuszewski, M. "Field Reversed Configurations." Nuclear Fusion Nuclear Fusion 28.11 (1988):2033-092. Web. 22 May 2016.V. Hsu, S. C., A. L. Moser, E.C. Merritt, C. S. Adams, J. P. Dunn, S. Brockington, A. Case, M. Gilmore, A. G.Lynn, S. J. Messer, and F. D. Witherspoon. "Laboratory Plasma Physics Experiments Using Merging Supersonic Plasma Jets." J. Plasma Phys. Journal of Plasma Physics 81.02 (2014): n. pag. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0323.pdf>.W. A, Levine M., Brown I. G, and Kunkel. "Scaling for Tormac Fusion Reactors." Scaling for Tormac Fusion Reactors. IAEA NIS, n.d. Web. April 1976.<Scaling for Tormac fusion reactors|INIS>.X. Berkowitz, J., K.o. Friedrichs,H. Goertzel, H. Grad, J. Killeen, and E. Rubin. "Cusped Geometries."Journal of Nuclear Energy (1954) 7.3-4 (1958): 292-93. Web. 16 June 2014.Y. Barnes, D. C., M. M. Schauer,K. R. Umstadter, L. Chacon, and G. Miley. "Electron Equilibrium and Confinementin a Modified Penning Trap and Its Application to Penning Fusion." Physics of Plasmas Phys. Plasmas 7.5 (2000): 1693. Web. 22 May 2016.<http://scitation.aip.org/content...>.Z. Kodama, R., P. A. Norreys, K.Mima, A. E. Dangor, R. G. Evans, H. Fujita, Y. Kitagawa, K. Krushelnick, T.Miyakoshi, N. Miyanaga, T. Norimatsu, S. J. Rose, T. Shozaki, K. Shigemori, A.Sunahara, M. Tampo, K. A. Tanaka, Y. Toyama, T. Yamanaka, and M. Zepf."Fast Heating of Ultrahigh-density Plasma as a Step towards Laser Fusion Ignition." Nature 412.6849 (2001): 798-802. Web.<http://www.nature.com/nature/jou...>.AA. Nuckolls, John; Wood,Lowell; Thiessen, Albert; Zimmerman, George (1972), "Laser Compression of Matter to Super-High Densities: Thermonuclear (CTR) Applications" (PDF),Nature 239 (5368): 139–142, Bibcode:1972Natur.239..139N, doi:10.1038/239139a0,retrieved August 23, 2014BB. Laberge, Michel. "An Acoustically Driven Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor." Journal of FusionEnergy J Fusion Energy 27.1-2 (2007): 65-68. 22 May 2016.<http://generalfusion.com/downloa...>.CC. Meyer-Ter-Vehn, J."Inertial Confinement Fusion Driven by Heavy Ion Beams." Plasma Phys.Control. Fusion Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 31.10 (1989): 1613-628.Web. 22 May 2016.DD. C, Schuurman W., Bobeldijk,and R. F. De Vries. "Stability of the Screw Pinch." Plasma Physics 11(1969): 1029. IOP. Web. 22 May 2016.<http://iopscience.iop.org/articl...>.EE. Sykes, Alan. "The Development of the Spherical Tokamak." ICPP,. Japan, Fukuoka. 22 May 2016.Lecture. <https://web.archive.org/web/2011...>

Right now, we cannot get fusion power, but, we can get fusion.Man first got controlled fusion almost 60 years ago in 1958 at the Los Alamos National Labs, using a pinch machine.In fact, the youngest person in the world to do fusion is Jamie Edwards, who fused the atom at 13. He was on The David Letterman Show (below) and received a letter from HRH the duke of York.Fusion is currently being used in commercial neutron generators and has been for over 10 years. The medical isotope market, is only 1 or 2 years away from using fusion for a commercial purposes. This is an ~1 billion a year market, globally. Below are several other markets where non-net-power fusion could make an impact.Medical Isotopes. Right now, you make radioactive isotopes by blasting metals in a special kind of fission reactor. These reactors are old and scheduled for decommissioning. You need the high neutron rates from the fission core. But, the company Phoenix Nuclear Labs in Wisconsin has developed a fusion-based product which can churn out ~1E11 neutrons per second doing fusion with just deuterium. This is already on the market, for a price point of ~1 million dollars. The company ran the machine for ~131 hours of continuous nuclear fusion, which (as far as I know) is a world record for the longest controlled fusion reaction ever done by mankind. Shine Medical is PNL sister company and it signed a 100 million dollar deal with GE Healthcare to distribute these isotopes, they also signed a deal with China’s largest radio isotope distributor. They building two isotope plants, one in Janesville Wisconsin and one in Indonesia. They are current dealing with the NRC regulation and certification process. Below is a picture of PNL’s CEO showing their work to Senator Tammy Baldwin.Neutron Radiography for Scanning. Non-net-power fusion makes neutron, you can shine these neutrons into things and get a read on what is in them. You do this by detecting the intensity of both reflected and absorbed neutrons. The market people have talked about is scanning shipping containers at seaports. The main competitor to neutron scanning is Gamma ray scanning (which produces images like the one seen below). I have seen this done by academics and small companies, but, I do not think there is a commercial effort to make it a reality.Neutron Radiography for oil exploration. Again, people have talked about this for decades, but I have not seen it done. Basically the same idea as above, except looking for pockets of oil.Helium Production. The primary method for non-net power fusion is using a fusor, which is the “root” technology for all the aforementioned products. What is great about the fusor is that it is: small, cheap, continuous in operations and it works. What is bad about it is that it will never make net power. But, you can fuse hydrogen and make helium. A few years ago, Helium prices were rising globally, so much that, people speculated about using fusors to manufacture helium through fusion. IDK if anything ever came from this.Now - if we got net power from fusion, the technology would move into a totally different market. You must understand, that over the 60 years of fusion research, lots of ideas have been put forth for a fusion reactor. They are shown below by family and type [A-CC].Many of these ideas were barely funded. Certainly, some of these ideas suck and will never work. Right now, fusion funding and work has focused heavily on a few ideas (the tokamak, laser fusion, spherical tokamaks and stellorators) with many other concepts being left out in the cold. Many people are sick of waiting for these large projects to move forward, so private companies have sprung up to pursue fusion. The two most famous ones are General Fusion and Tri Alpha Energy, in Vancouver and Los Angels, respectively. Jeff Bezsos has invested in General Fusion and Paul Allen has invested in Tri Alpha Energy. In May 2015, Tri Alpha announced the longest stable Field Reversed Configuration in the world, in a Physics of Plasma paper. They held the plasma stable for the duration of the machine run.There are several smaller groups trying to gather interest from investors on fusion. A few i like are CT Fusion (spun out of the University of Washington) EMC2 inc (which spun out of tens of millions in Navy funding) and the Plasma Linear Experiment from Los Alamos.So what would be the “beach head” markets for commercially viable fusion power?In 2011, I did a nice analysis of the break-in markets for commercially viable fusion power. The three beach head markets I identified were: (1) the military (2) water desalination and (3) steel making, coal mining or tar sands.Chart Citations:A. "The dynomak: An advanced spheromak reactor concept with imposed-dynamo current drive and next-generation nuclear power technologies" Fusion Engineering and Design,Sutherland, Jarboe, Morgan, Pfaff, Lavine, Kamikawa, Hughes, Andrist, MarklinB. Jarboe, T.r., B.s. Victor,B.a. Nelson, C.j. Hansen, C. Akcay, D.a. Ennis, N.k. Hicks, A.c. Hossack, G.j.Marklin, and R.j. Smith. "Imposed-dynamo Current Drive." Nucl. Fusion Nuclear Fusion 52.8 (2012): 083017.C. McGuire, Thomas. "The Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor." Thursday Colloquium. Princeton University, Princeton. 6 Aug. 2015. Lecture.D. Park, J. "High-EnergyElectron Confinement in a Magnetic Cusp Configuration." Physical Review X.N.p., 11 June 2015. 06 Nov. 2015.E. Wobig, H., T. Andreeva, andC.D. Beidler. "Recent Development in Helias Reactor Studies." 19thIAEA- Fusion Energy Conference. IAEA FT/1-6, n.d. 04 Apr. 2016.F. Wesson, John; et al. (2004).Tokamaks. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850922-7.G. Spitzer, Lyman. "TheStellarator Concept." Physics of Fluids (1958): n. pag. 4 Apr. 2016.H. Perea, A., R. Martin, J.l.Alvarez Rivas, J. Botija, J.r. Cepero, J.a. Fabregas, J. Guasp, A. LopezFraguas, A. Perez-Navarro, E. Rodriguez Solano, B.a. Carreras, K.k. Chipley,T.c. Hender, T.c. Jernigan, J.f. Lyon, and B.e. Nelson. "Description OfThe Heliac Tj-Ii And Its ecrh System." Fusion Technology 1986 (1986):673-78.I. Miller, R.l., and R.a.Krakowski. "Modular Stellarator Fusion Reactor Concept." Los AlamosLA-8978MS (1981): 1-161. 4 Apr. 2016.J. Proc. of 20th InternationalStellarator-Heliotron Workshop (ISHW), Max Planck Institute, Greifswald,Germany. Greifswald, 2015.K. Grieger, G., J. Nührenberg,H. Renner, J. Sapper, and H. Wobig. "HELIAS Stellarator Reactor Studiesand Related European Technology Studies." Fusion Engineering and Design25.1-3 (1994): 73-84. 4 Apr. 2016.L. Haines, M. G. "A Reviewof the Dense Z -pinch." Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion Plasma Physics andControlled Fusion 53.9 (2011): 093001.M. Jarboe, T. R. "Review ofSpheromak Research." Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion Plasma Physics andControlled Fusion 36.6 (1994): 945-90.N. Slutz, Stephen A., and RogerA. Vesey. "High-Gain Magnetized Inertial Fusion." Phys. Rev. Lett.Physical Review Letters 108.2 (2012): n. page 4 Apr. 2016.O. "Mirror Systems: FuelCycles, loss reduction and energy recovery" by Richard F. Post, BNESNuclear fusion reactor conferences at Culham laboratory, September 1969.P. "Overview of LDXResults" Jay Kesner, A. Boxer, J. Ellsworth, I. Karim, Presented at theAPS Meeting, Philadelphia, November 2, 2006, Paper VP1.00020Q. Krishnan, Mahadevan."The Dense Plasma Focus: A Versatile Dense Pinch for DiverseApplications." IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science40.12 (2012): 3189-221. Web.R. Hedditch, John."arXiv.org e-Print archive e-Print archive Physics ArXiv:1510.01788." Fusion in aMagnetically-shielded-grid Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Device. ArXiv, 7Oct. 2015. Web. 22 Dec. 2015.S. Robert L. Hirsch,"Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of Ionized Fusion Gases", Journalof Applied Physics, v. 38, no. 7, October 1967T. Park, J., an R. A. Nebel."Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere." Physics of Plasmas 12.5(2005): n. pag. AIP. Web. 22 May 2016.<Periodically oscillating plasma spherea)>.U. Tuszewski, M. "FieldReversed Configurations." Nuclear Fusion Nuclear Fusion 28.11 (1988):2033-092. Web. 22 May 2016.V. Hsu, S. C., A. L. Moser, E.C. Merritt, C. S. Adams, J. P. Dunn, S. Brockington, A. Case, M. Gilmore, A. G.Lynn, S. J. Messer, and F. D. Witherspoon. "Laboratory Plasma PhysicsExperiments Using Merging Supersonic Plasma Jets." J. Plasma Phys. Journalof Plasma Physics 81.02 (2014): n. pag. Web. 22 May 2016.<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0323.pdf>.W. A, Levine M., Brown I. G, andKunkel. "Scaling for Tormac Fusion Reactors." Scaling for TormacFusion Reactors. IAEA NIS, n.d. Web. April 1976.<Scaling for Tormac fusion reactors|INIS>.X. Berkowitz, J., K.o.Friedrichs, H. Goertzel, H. Grad, J. Killeen, and E. Rubin. "CuspedGeometries." Journal of Nuclear Energy (1954) 7.3-4 (1958): 292-93. Web.16 June 2014.Y. Barnes, D. C., M. M. Schauer,K. R. Umstadter, L. Chacon, and G. Miley. "Electron Equilibrium andConfinement in a Modified Penning Trap and Its Application to PenningFusion." Physics of Plasmas Phys. Plasmas 7.5 (2000): 1693. Web. 22 May2016.<Electron equilibrium and confinement in a modified Penning trap and its application to Penning fusion>.Z. Kodama, R., P. A. Norreys, K.Mima, A. E. Dangor, R. G. Evans, H. Fujita, Y. Kitagawa, K. Krushelnick, T.Miyakoshi, N. Miyanaga, T. Norimatsu, S. J. Rose, T. Shozaki, K. Shigemori, A.Sunahara, M. Tampo, K. A. Tanaka, Y. Toyama, T. Yamanaka, and M. Zepf."Fast Heating of Ultrahigh-density Plasma as a Step towards Laser FusionIgnition." Nature 412.6849 (2001): 798-802. Web. <Nature Research: science journals, jobs, information and services....>.AA. Nuckolls, John; Wood,Lowell; Thiessen, Albert; Zimmerman, George (1972), "Laser Compression ofMatter to Super-High Densities: Thermonuclear (CTR) Applications" (PDF),Nature 239 (5368): 139–142, Bibcode:1972Natur.239..139N, doi:10.1038/239139a0,retrieved August 23, 2014BB. Laberge, Michel. "AnAcoustically Driven Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor." Journal of FusionEnergy J Fusion Energy 27.1-2 (2007): 65-68. 22 May 2016.<http://generalfusion.com/downloa...>.CC. Meyer-Ter-Vehn, J."Inertial Confinement Fusion Driven by Heavy Ion Beams." Plasma Phys.Control. Fusion Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 31.10 (1989): 1613-628.Web. 22 May 2016.DD. C, Schuurman W., Bobeldijk,and R. F. De Vries. "Stability of the Screw Pinch." Plasma Physics 11(1969): 1029. IOP. Web. 22 May 2016.<http://iopscience.iop.org/articl...>.EE. Sykes, Alan. "TheDevelopment of the Spherical Tokamak." ICPP,. Japan, Fukuoka. 22 May 2016.Lecture.<https://web.archive.org/web/2011...>