Bb.1 Introduction Bb.2 Site Description: Fill & Download for Free

This is kind of a long read, with a good bit of copy-paste stuff ( so you know it’s kind of long ).WAR is imperfect but should not automatically be dismissed, usually by grumpy people who feel that since they do not understand something, it has no value. ( you know who you are )The number is an estimate, and the value for a player does have context within his league ( or the whole MLB ) for just that year.So, what is ‘replacement’? It’s a guy who is a so-so dude of some AAA quality, who would give a big league team around a .294 winning percentage if you were fully stocked with them. The value used to be estimated at .32.As a practical test, i’ll give the numbers for the Toronto Blue Jays of 2018 ( randomly picked ):Their position players were a 13.5 WAR; their pitchers were a 9.5. This comes out to an estimated 70.628 ( the replacement level team of 47.628 + 13.5 + 9.5 ) wins ( rounded to 71 ). Their actual result was 73, so not bad.So how are WAR numbers computed? The site Baseball-reference explains their use/computation:The idea behind the WAR framework is that we want to know how much better a player is than a player that would typically be available to replace that player. We start by comparing the player to average in a variety of venues, then compare our theoretical replacement player to the average player and add the two results together.There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework. We have taken the utmost care and study at each step in the process, and believe all of our choices are well reasoned and defensible. But WAR is necessarily an approximation and will never be as precise or accurate as one would like.We present the WAR values with decimal places because this relates the WAR value back to the runs contributed (as one win is about ten runs), but you should not take any full-season difference between two players of less than one to two wins to be definitive (especially when the defensive metrics are included).Position Player WAR Calculations and DetailsWAR for position players has six components:Batting RunsBaserunning RunsRuns added or lost due to Grounding into Double Plays in DP situationsFielding RunsPositional Adjustment RunsReplacement level Runs (based on playing time)The first five measurements are all compared against league average, so a value of zero will equate to a league average player. Less than zero means worse than average, and greater than zero means better than average. These five correspond to the first half of our equation above ( Player_runs - AvgPlayer_runs ). The sixth factor is the second half of the equation ( AvgPlayer_runs - ReplPlayer_runs ).Rbat, Batting RunsFor batting runs we use a linear weights system based on Tom Tango's wOBA (weighted on-base average) framework, but we add a number of improvements to our calculation of wRAA (weighted runs above average).Weights are based on the offense of a particular league season rather than all of major league baseball.Pitchers are excluded from the league wOBA calculation, so the run totals are not biased against players in seasons with DHs.We estimate CS totals for seasons in which we lack CS dataFrom 2003 on, we differentiate between infield singles and outfield singlesFor all seasons, we differentiate between strikeouts and other outs. In early baseball, pre-1920 or so, this is especially vital because error rates were high and DP rates were low, so there was a lot of benefit to putting the ball in play.We include Reached on Errors for seasons that such data is available. For other years, we estimate the rate of ROEs and add that into our non-SO out values.Runs due to SB and CS are computed with wRAA, but we subtract them out from the batting total and add them into the baserunning total.See How we compute wRAA for WAR for a full rundown of what we do.Rbr, Baserunning RunsBaserunning runs come from two places:Stolen Bases and Caught Stealing runs as calculated above for wRAA (see above for a link to an explanation of this), andNon-Basestealing baserunning which includes items like 1st to 3rd on singles, outs on the bases, tagging up on fly balls, scoring from third on a ground ball, etc...This explanation describes the techniques used to estimate non-SB/CS baserunning contributions during the play-by-play era, 1953 to the present.Obviously baserunners can advance while on first, second and third, but the mix of opportunities available to them is different for each of the three bases they may occupy. So for each player we track the number of occurrences for each of the following events for each base:( this part I am snipping; it’s the set all possible outcomes that can happen for a runner on base, except the SB/CS results )The results of all the baserunning in a season becomes the average, then when you look at an individual player’s results they become a small formula: each base gained is worth an average of about .2 of a run, and each out you make on the bases is worth about .48 of a run ( lost ). Now we return to the copy and paste stuff…..Reached on Error RunsReaching on an error may not seem like a skill we need to measure, but there is evidence that batters can have a large, non-random impact on the amount of time they reach base by error. Tom Ruane of RetroSheet did a large study showing exactly this.In our original version of WAR this was a separate factor, but we've rolled this into wRAA for WAR, so ROE runs are now rolled into the batting runs.Rdp, Grounded into Double Play RunsGIDP avoidance is something that batters can have a significant impact on. Slow right-handed power hitters (e.g. Jim Rice) will ground into a ton of double plays, while someone like Carl Crawford won't.Our run value for non-SO outs takes into account the league average # of DPs incurred by these number of outs. So everyone is assumed to ground into a certain number of DPs, but we know that this skill can allow some players to beat out the back end of the DP when other players wouldn't.GIDP opportunities are any infield ground ball with a runner on first, less than two outs and at least one out is recorded on the play. The play must not be scored a hit as well.The difference in runs scored between a "double play" and a "double play avoided" is, on average, .44 runs, but it can vary by the run environment of the league. The league GIDP rate is then calculated and:R_gidp = .44 × ( GIDP_OPPS_player * GIDP_RATE_lg - GIDP_player)2011 Best: 4.7 runs by Johnny Damon, 2011 Worst: -4.8 runs by Albert Pujols.Rdef. Fielding RunsFielding measures obviously have a lot of controversy surrounding them. Previously, Baseball-Reference used Sean Smith's Total Zone Rating for all seasons. With our 2012 update, we have switched to using Baseball Info Solutions Defensive Runs Saved for seasons since its introduction in 2003, and TZR for previous seasons.Fielding Runs: Defensive Runs SavedDefensive Runs Saved (DRS) is the most sophisticated public system available. It includes 8 factors:Fielding Range Plus/Minus Runs Saved based on BIS-trained scorer observations and batted ball timing to determine the velocity of each batted ball.Outfield arm runs saved based on exact counts of baserunner advancements and kills and the velocity of the hit ball.Infielder double plays based on opportunities and rates they were turned based also on batted ball velocity.Good play-bad play values which include 28 positive play types. For example: HR-saving catches, backing up a play, blocking a pitch in the dirt, and 54 misplays like missing the cutoff man, failing to anticipate the wall and allowing extra bases, not covering a base, pulling a foot off the bag, etc...Bunt FieldingCatcher SB/CS data (which is tweaked by the pitchers caught)Pitcher SB/CS data (which is tweaked by the catchers behind the plate)Catcher handling of the pitching staff via things like pitch framing and pitch callingSee the Fielding Bible Volume III for a full run-down of the system.2011 Best: Austin Jackson 29 runs, 2011 Worst: Logan Morrison -26 runs.Fielding Runs: Total Zone RatingTotal Zone Rating is a fielding measure developed by Sean Smith and is used in WAR for all seasons prior to 2003. Total Zone Rating (TZR) is a non-observational fielding system that relies on various forms based on the level of data available ranging from basic fielding and pitching stats to play-by-play including batted ball types and hit location. As much data as is available is used for each season.When play-by-play is available, TZR will use information like ground balls fielded by infielders and outfielders to estimate hits allowed by infielders. It uses baserunner advancement and out information to determine arm ratings for outfielders, double play acumen by infielders and arm ratings for catchers.From 1953-2002, Runs Saved or Cost are calculated for:Fielder fielding rangeOutfield armsTurning the Double Play for infieldersCatcher ThrowingFor seasons we lack play-by-play data (pre-1953), we use information on opposition hitting, pitcher and batter handedness, fielding stats and more to estimate fielder opportunites and outs produced.For seasons where observational data is not available (pre-2003), we believe TZR is the best system for estimating player defense.Rpos, Positional Adjustment RunsIf you take a quick look at the batting performance by defensive position, you'll quickly see that teams are willing to sacrifice offense at "defensive" positions (stats are prorated to 650 plate appearances).( bunch of hitting stats showing the avg results sorted by defensive position )When one quantifies these differences and also looks at the changes in fielding performance when players move to different positions, we can estimate the average differences between positions.Current values (per 1350 (150*9) innings played) are:C: +9 runsSS: +7 runs2B: +3 runsCF: +2.5 runs3B: +2 runsRF: -7 runsLF: -7 runs1B: -9.5 runsDH: -15 runsP: see Pitcher Positional AdjustmentSince fielding performances change over time, these values will vary as you travel back in time. For example, first basemen in the early 1900s through the 1940s were required to be better fielders than they are today. They were still the worst fielders on the infield, but the position had more of a defensive focus then than the corner outfield positions did.*stuff here about formulas and a table of adjustment numbers for each big league season and some adjustment of pitcher positional adjustment*WAA, Wins Above Average and Runs to Wins CalculationOur calculation of Runs to Wins is detailed on the runs to wins calculation page. To summarize, we are using PythagenPat along with the league average run environment and the player's contributions on offense and defense to adjust that run environment, and then plugging it into PythagenPat to get a win percentage, then computing wins above average from that.The runs adjustments are based on Rbat, Rbr, Rdp, Rdefense, Rpos.Replacement LevelReplacement level is something of a touchy subject with non-sabermetricians, and probably the least understood of the ideas here.Currently, we set replacement level at .294 winning percentage (changed from .320 in March 2013) for the major leagues, which means there are30*162*(.500-.294) = 1,000 Wins above replacementin the major leagues as a whole.The wins, and therefore the runs, are further divided between pitchers and position players. We assign 41% to the pitchers and 59% to the position players. This corresponds to the salaries of free agent pitchers vs. hitters over the last four seasons.On offense, this division and replacement level corresponds to 20.5 runs over the course of 600 plate appearances. So, if a team replaced a league-average starter with a replacement player we'd expect a 20 run difference in their run differential. We call this 20.5 runs the Replacement Level multiplier.For pitchers, the replacement level starts with the replacement level pitcher's runs allowed per out, RpO_replacement. This value is the league average runs allowed per out multiplied by (20.5-1.8)/100). In this example, 20.5 is the league's replacement runs per 600 PAs and 1.8 is an empirical factor that makes the final result mostly closely align the sum of all player replacement runs to the desired league total.For pitcher, runs_above_rep is then runs_above_avg + RpO_replacement * Outs pitched.Now, for some leagues the competition was not that good, so the replacement runs multiplier will be smaller because the average player is worse relative to the replacement player. However, this is really only a case when looking at pre-World War I seasons and the World War II seasons. For example, we view the average player in the 1884 Union Association (the weakest major league by a wide margin) as a replacement level player, so the multiplier is zero for that league.Also when the season is not 162 games, there are fewer wins to go around, so strike-shortened or 154 game seasons have fewer wins and a multiplier less than 20.5.Finally, the leagues are not always equal in their quality levels as evidenced by things like inter-league play and player performances when shifting leagues. Taking these differences into account, assign slightly different multipliers to the leagues, but centered on 20.5 for 162-game seasons and 19 for 154-game seasons. One example of this is the post-war integration. The National League integrated far more quickly than the American League and was a higher quality league until the 1970s.Replacement level for MLB and the WAR assigned to a league by year and league.*table of numbers for each big league season*Calculating the Replacement runs for a current player takes a bit of a conversion going from the league total WAR to a player-by-player basis. Even then we don't end up exactly on the button for the desired number, so we re-center on the desired number by assigning the difference to players based on their playing time.WAR_rep, Replacement Level WinsOur calculation of Runs to Wins is detailed on the runs to wins calculation page.Fine-Tuning Replacement LevelAfter we make a first pass through the calculations, we determine how the league's current total WAR differs from the desired overall league WAR. We then add or subtract fractional replacement runs from each player's runs_replacement total based on their playing time, and recompute WAR_rep with this adjustment included.WARWAR = WAR_rep + WAAPitcher WAR Calculations and DetailsBasic inputsAt its most basic level, our pitching WAR calculation requires only overall Runs Allowed (both earned and unearned) and Innings Pitched. Since we are trying to measure the value of the pitcher's performance to his team, we start with his runs allowed and then adjust that number to put the runs into a more accurate context.Determining what the Average Pitcher would have doneOnce we have the pitcher's runs allowed and innings, we set about figuring out what an average pitcher would have done if placed in the same setting as the pitcher we are studying.xRA, Level of OppositionBack to 1918, we have gamelogs for every major league pitching appearance. This means that we can, with certainty, determine which team's pitchers we're facing. For each season, we also know the average runs per out for each team and we can adjust this number into a neutral context using park factors. Then, based on this, we can determine what the average number of expected runs would be for this set of teams faced.This can have a major impact in situations where there is a set of dominant offensive teams and some pitchers face them multiple times while others may never face them. For example, pitchers for the 1927 Yankees never faced Murderers Row.Handling InterleagueFor seasons with interleague play, we only include the non-interleague games and interleague home games to determine the teams' season average in run scoring. So this would exclude, on average, nine games from a team's average. Our reasoning is that including nine games the Red Sox don't have a DH will skew their offensive averages lower when most pitchers are facing them with a DH.To account for these out-of-league road games, we then add or subtract 0.2 runs to the team's averages depending on whether they have or do not have a DH in the game. So for the 2011 Red Sox, all AL pitchers or NL pitchers facing them in Boston are expected to give up 5.49 runs per game, but if the Red Sox go to Philly we expect them to score 5.29 runs per game.When we are in-season, we use the run-scoring averages for offenses for the last 365 days.The pitcher's expected runs allowed is then the sum of his opposition's run scoring weighted by the innings he faced each team. We call this xRA.xRA_def, Adjusting for Team DefenseA great deal of work has recently gone into the study of Defense-Independent Pitching Stats (DIPS). We agree with the validity and importance of most all of this work, and some would argue that you shouldn't charge the pitcher for runs allowed in the way we do since it is often not the pitcher's fault, but the defense's. Our view is that, while the pitcher may have been unlucky or lucky in certain ways, we are trying to measure the value of the recorded performance--not its repeatability--and that we can account for defense in different ways.To account for defense, we find the overall team defensive runs saved, which uses Baseball Info Solutions' Runs Saved from 2003 on and Total Zone before 2003. We then compute the number of balls in play allowed by the team and the number of balls in play allowed by the pitcher, and assign the negative of the proportional team defensive runs to the xRA_ppf values.xRA_def = (BIP_pitcher)/(BIP_team) * TeamDefensiveRunsSavedxRA_sprp, Adjusting Averages for Starters and RelieversIn the current MLB environment, relievers have much lower ERAs than starters. Relievers come in, throw gas for an inning or less, and then leave, so for recent years we set this difference league-wide at .1125 runs/game and then from 1960-1973 it is set at .0583 runs/game. This adjustment for starter/reliever ERAs is really only applicable since 1960, and if you look at the difference in starter and reliever ERAs, it is clear that there are two eras of bullpen usage. From 1960-1973 there was a slight starter/reliever effect, and then in 1974 we start to see the current dichotomy.Before 1960 there is no starter/reliever adjustment.PPFp, Custom Park FactorsSince we have gamelogs, we can also customize our park factors to the parks the pitcher actually pitched in. This can have an impact in a division like the NL West where you have three fairly extreme pitcher parks and two fairly extreme hitter parks. Usually, pitchers' custom park factors are less than a point away from their teams' park factor, but on occasion it can be multiple points. For pre-gamelog seasons, we use the team's park factor. All park factors are 3-year average.xRA_final, League Average Pitcher PerformanceIn computing the player's wins above average, we usexRA_final = PPF_custom * (xRA - xRA_def + xRA_sprp_adj)WAA, Converting Runs to WinsSee Runs to Wins. This provides us with WAA (wins above average).WAA_adj, Adjusting for LeverageAs RA_replacement_adj currently stands, starters would be far, far more valuable than relievers; e.g. most average starting pitchers would be viewed as more valuable than Mariano Rivera in even his best seasons. The flaw in our reasoning above is that closers and many relievers are used in the highest leverage situations. These situations have a much larger ability to impact the outcome of the game than 0-0 top of the 1st, so we adjust the RA_replacement_adj with a leverage multiplier. An average leverage is 1.0, while many closers will approach an average of 2.0 for the season while mopup relievers might be at 0.7. This is applied only for relief innings and the leverage we use in the leverage at the beginning of the pitcher's outing. This way a bad pitcher can't bump up his leverage (and WAA) by walking the bases loaded and striking out the side every time.WAA_adj = WAA * (1.00 + leverage_index_pitcher)/2The leverage is averaged with 1.00 because of chaining of bullpens. If the closer goes down, the manager is not going to use the AAA callup as the closer. The AAA callup will move to the back of the bullpen while everyone else will move up one slot in the pecking order and the top setup man will become the closer. Modifying the leverage in this way accounts for this difference.See a full description of leverage and how it is calculated.One other adjustment occurs here: we re-center WAA for the league at zero, so that the average is exactly zero. This factor is put in this value, which is why you will see some non-zero values in WAAWAR_rep, Setting Replacement Level for all PitchersAs with the hitters, we have a replacement level set for each league based on the competitive level of the league. See the replacement level explanation in the WAR for position players page for a full discussion of the multipliers.See Runs to Wins for an explanation of how we convert the replacement level into wins between the average player and the replacement level player (WAR_rep).Fine-Tuning Replacement LevelAfter we make a first pass through the calculations, we determine how the league's current total WAA and WAR differs from the desired overall league WAR. We then add or subtract fractional WAA and replacement runs from each player's WAA or runs_replacement total based on their playing time, and recompute WAR with this adjustment included.Computing WARWAR = WAR_rep + WAA + WAA_adjHow this Compares to FanGraphs Pitcher WARFanGraphs has a long and detailed rundown of their WAR calculation, so we won't fully rehash it here. Our WAR starts with runs allowed by the pitcher and compares it to the league average pitcher (adjusting for quality of opposition), parks pitched in, and quality of defense behind the pitcher.FanGraphs' WAR begins with FIP, which is a fielding independent pitching stat comparable in scale to ERA that is computed using only pitcher dependent stats.FIP = ((13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP-IBB))-(2*K))/IP + lg_specific_constant(around 3.20 or so)In FIP, hits allowed and non-strikeout outs recorded have no role in the calculation other than in the number of total innings pitched. The assumption is that once the ball is put into play (other than a home run) the entire outcome is determined by random chance and team defensive quality. This is definitely true to a greater degree than fans likely believe, but we disagree as to whether this is the best measure of the value of a pitcher's historical performance.I've crafted some admittedly extreme cases below to illustrate situations where the approaches differ. For most situations, FIP and Runs Allowed Average (RA, essentially what we use) will be very close and are strongly correlated, but there are a number of cases each year where there are large disparities between the two metrics.Situation #1, Pitcher A throws a perfect game with 20 strikeouts, Pitcher B throws a perfect game with no strikeouts.FIP: Pitcher A -1.40 FIP, Pitcher B, 3.20 FIP, RA: Pitcher A 0.00 RA, Pitcher B 0.00 RA.Situation #2, Pitcher A throws one inning w/ sequence, HR, ground out, fly out, BB, BB, BB, fly out, Pitcher B throws one inning w/ sequence BB, BB, BB, HR, SO, SO, SOFIP: Pitcher A 25.20 FIP, Pitcher B 19.20 FIP, RA: Pitcher A 9.00 RA, Pitcher B 36.00 RA.As I said, in the average case the two methods will arrive at similar results, but on the edge cases the differences can be quite dramatic.

If I were starting over, I would try to get into the physics PhD program at the University of Washington. Ideally, under Dr. Thomas Jarboe, working on the HIT-SI spheromak. Maybe, I would try and take Derek Sutherlands’ spot when he graduates sometime next year.Seattle is a great city for fusion.Here is what is going on around the University of Washington. Realize that if you get into UW, you could plug into some, or all, of these other activities:MSNW: this startup company was founded in the 1990’s by Dr. John Slough, a former member of the University of Washington. The company is working on a Field Reversed Configuration for a fusion driven rocket for NASA.Helion: This is a fusion startup (also started by Dr. Slough) trying to develop fusion power based on the FRC concept. They got 1.4 million from Y Combinator which also has a strong presence in the Seattle region. Below is Washington State Governor Jay Inslee with Helions’ VP of development.General Fusion: about 3 hours away in Vancouver, is one of the best examples of a fusion startup. General fusion has been around since 2002, they have raised 100 million in private capital and are pursuing a magnetized target fusion approach. They are the world leaders in MTF technology.The Northwest Nuclear Consortium: This is “the only high school club in America with regular access to a fusion machine”. This group of kids do fusion, regularly in the basement of Carl Greinger’s home in the suburbs of Seattle. The kids have collectively won hundreds of thousands of dollars in college scholarships.Convergent Scientific Inc: This is a polywell startup in Bellingham Washington which has been around for 8+ years. They have raised 185K in capital, developed a GPU PIC code, and “herded” plasma into a small polywell for 20 seconds.Woodruff Scientific: This company is based around Seattle and was founded by Dr. Simon Woodruff. Simon has built some world-class connections and a great team of fusion consultants. They do specialty jobs for fusion experiments like the PLX at Los Alamos, the EMC2 power supply, small jobs for Tokamak Energy in England.CT Fusion: This company was founded by Derek Sutherland and Thomas Jarboe. They are attempting to raise 30 million dollars to build the dynomak, a spheromak with an new inductively driving plasma current drive.Of course, you already at the University of Rochester. You should obviously try and get a spot working under Dr. Riccardo Betti at the Laser Lab. They have (I would argue) the strongest ICF talent in the world.There are many different fusion approaches (citations below). Some of these are proven, some are just things people are scratching the surface with and some are untested new ideas, that will likely fail.Of all of these, tokamaks and ICF get funded - and the rest survive on small grants. There have been something like over 100 tokamaks built, planned or decommissioned around the world. Nick’s site, from JET, in England is a great source of information about all these machines. So if you want to do tokamaks, there are lots of options: PPPL or PSFC at MIT are places to start.Currently, the funding environment is heavily focused on ITER - but I think that will be changing. For one thing, there are lots of fusion startups/groups which are trying different ideas and changing the fusion landscape. Here is a summary of some of these groups from 2014 [73-105].Another experiment that is pushing for change (AKA not ICF and a tokamak) is Dr. Scott Hsu’s Plasma Liner Experiment at Los Alamos. They are doing cutting edge work in magnetized target fusion.Dr. Hsu is so high profile, that Congress invited him to speak about this fusion approach in April. He used the platform to advocate for a number of fusion concepts (FRC, Spheromaks, Polywells, the Levitating Dipole, ect..)There are many more labs and groups I have not mentioned. Message me if you need insights on any of them. I have lots of fusion answers on Quora you can check out. Also, I have: a fusion blog, a fusion twitter and I am currently working on a fusion podcast. Hope that helps.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...>’73. Sengbusch, Evan. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Makes First Commercial Neutron Generator Sale Closes Financing Round Comments." Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Phoenix Nuclear Labs, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.74. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Raises $590,500 from Angel Investors." http://Http://www.jsonline.com/. Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel, 10 Dec. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.75. Boulton, Guy. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Wins $3 Million Army Contract." Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel, 6 Oct. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.76. Sengbusch, Evan. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Makes Its First Commercial Sale - Phoenix Nuclear Labs." Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Phoenix Nuclear Labs, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.77. Klein, Alex. "Beam Fusion." Technology (FPGeneration). Beam Fusion, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2013.78. "How Many People Worked at FPGeneration." Message to Alex Klien. 5 Dec. 2014. E-mail.79. Newman, Judy. "Phoenix Nuclear Labs Gets 2 Army Contracts: wall street journal" host.madison.com | Madison Newspapers Inc.. Wisconsin State Journal, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.80. Gallaher, Kathleen. "Madison Groups Win Funding for Isotope Work." Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Sentinel, 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.81. LaMonica, Martin. "How to Fund an Atomic Startup | Xconomy." Xconomy RSS. Xconomy RSS, 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.82. Chang, Kenneth. "Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.83. Lerner, Eric. "FOCUS FUSION: EmPOWERtheWORLD." Indiegogo. Indiegogo, 5 July 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.84. Jafarov, Isayev. "Iran to Build Nuclear Fusion Producing Plant." Trend. Trend Iran, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.85. Laberge, Michel. "General Fusion Closes First Series A Funding with Support from Sustainable Development Technology Canada." General Fusion Completes US$9M Series a Funding (2009): n. page. http://Http://www.generalfusion.com. General Fusion, 4 Aug. 2009. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.86. Laberge, Michel. "General Fusion." Crunch Base. Crunch Base, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.87. Bartel, Mario. "Where Are They Now? General Fusion Gets Closer to the Sun - Burnaby News Leader." Burnaby News Leader. Burnaby News Leader, 2 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.88. "Tri Alpha Energy." Crunch Base. Tri Alpha Energy, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.89. Simmons, Gerald, and Dale Prouty. "Tri Alpha Energy - Notice of Sale of Securities - $646,710." SEC.gov | Home. US Security and Exchange Commission, 23 Feb. 2001. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.90. "How Much Total Investment Has LXXP Received?" Focus Fusion Society Forum. N.P., 22 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.91. Frisbee, Robert. "THE NASA-JPL ADVANCED PROPULS1ON PROGRAM." (1997) page. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/23572/1/96-0007.pdf92. Du Bois, Dennis. "Congratulations to Cleantech Open 2013 Regional Finalists - Energy Priorities." Energy Priorities. Energy Priorities, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .93. Slough, John. "FISO: MSNW LLC and "the First Realistic Approach to Fusion-based Propulsion"" Space for All. http://Http://hobbyspace.com/, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .94. Slough, John. "MSNW, LLC." NASA SBIR & STTR Program Homepage. NASA SBIR Program, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .95. Slough, John. "NIAC 2012 Phase I & Phase II Awards Announcement." NASA NIAC. NASA, 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .96. Westenhaus, Brian. "Funding Continues for Bussards’ Fusion Reactor." Funding Continues for Bussards’ Fusion Reactor. New Energy and Fuel, 23 Aug. 2007. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .97. Henry, Margaret. "Tokamak Solutions Secures Funding to Develop Powerful Neutron Source." UK Business Angels Association. UK Business Angels, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .98. Sykes, Alan. "Tokamak Solutions." Crunch Base. Tokamak Solutions, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .99. "Tokamak Solutions UK Ltd." http://Http://pseps.com/. PSEPS, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .100. Research Councils UK. "Development of a Small Tokamak with High Temperature Superconducting Magnets for Sale as a Fusion Research Instrument." Tokamak Solutions UK Ltd, Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .101. Sykes, Alan. "Tokamak Energy – About Us." Tokamak Solutions. Tokamak Solutions, 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .102. "Technology Strategy Board." Technology Strategy Board. Grants over 25K, April 2014, Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .103. Lerner, Eric. "Funding." Focus Fusion. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .104. Rambonnet, Martijn. "Introduction." Fusor Forum. Fusor.net, 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .105. Syed, Asher, and Micheal Ten. "Quora." What Are the Best Companies Right Now in Fusion Energy? Quora, 10 July 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. .