I can’t evaluate your design but I can evaluate your messaging. You need to do something to distinguish yourself from cranks and scammers, like write it up in a paper and get it published - and stop referring to yourself in plural.

I've tried to distinguish myself from cranks and con artists by being realistic, and explaining the principle clearly.

This isn't LENR with some mystic explanation requiring new physics. This is hot, thermal fusion contained by a novel, but very simple to understand set of fields.

I've talked to many, physicists and am open to criticism about the design. If I don't know the answer to a question I admit it.

Since it's such a new device, there hasn't been any rigorous analysis of it yet, so there is nothing to publish. It's a chicken and egg problem.

Not sure about the plural thing? In my own field a paper using singular forms would really stand out. Why remind readers and reviewers that you are working alone in every single sentence? Genuinely interested to hear your reasons! This is an issue for the paper I am currently working on. Naturally I would prefer to use the singular where it is accurate, and if I were better established I would.

This answer explains nicely why the “editorial we” is OK in papers...:

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/choice-of-...

Short version: because it can be read as “we, the author and the reader”.

But the site above uses phrases like “we have been granted a patent”, which come across as somewhat dishonest, making it appear on first glance as though this is the work of a team, corporate body, or at least two collaborators (and two is a huge step up from one in terms of credibility of any idea).

I’m not saying there was any dishonest intention on the part of this author - I’m just suggesting that radical transparency is a good technique for introducing an idea to a skeptical audience, in a domain which is very noisy with bad actors.

I've had several mentors and advisors and am doing everything I can to be inclusive without giving away equity. There was a legal entity created, and I have applied for several grants. Each time, I have put together a team or had lined up collaborators who could help if the grant had been awarded.

I'm working with suppliers, and discussing the concept openly with everyone who is interested.

Most of the time however, I am working alone.

Should I pay someone to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for semantic reasons?

I believe a royal "WE" is appropriate, but I could be wrong.

Are you trying to start a business or do scientific research? I think you’ll struggle to get investors interested in an idea that hasn’t been validated, and you’ll struggle to get academics interested in helping a money-making venture.

You might need to make a tough call to do one or the other.

I'm not sure I really understand.

The research is obviously the most important thing at this point. Without validation it's all just conjecture.

I know I'll need solid evidence to back up the idea, but I've reached the end of my ability to evaluate the concept. I can't find a fatal flaw, and that's why I keep trying.

I'm really looking for an answer either way. I need help to prove it will work, or to show it's a dead end.

While it's in limbo I can't, in good conscience, drop it.

Do you really think having a patent and an LLC to organize under are fatal flaws?

I've been helping with messaging for somebody looking for demonstration funding for an experimentally proven clean oil recovery technology and it makes me feel hopeless seeing there are so many people struggling to demonstrate potentially game changing technologies, often because people investing or allocating money have little technical competence.

for those curious: http://www.envirotechdme.com

If I could offer you some pointers:

- Separate the Youtube account you use for this technology from the one you use personally.

- Specify in nontechnical language the advantage this tech has over similar fusion technologies. (still working on this myself)

- Seek peer review and then highlight that peer review directly on your website. My intuition is that most people or departments who are capable of funding a demonstration are not capable of validating the science behind your technology.

- I would recommend writing and attaching a succinct summary of your technology distinct from your patent, and devoid of the legalese and cruft that fills up a patent.

Thank you for your advice. Communicating a new idea effectively is quite difficult. I have been thinking about doing some explainer videos.

I took a look at your site and had some thoughts I wanted to share with you.

Sorry for the late reply, if you want you can give me a shout at dan@uncharted.systems

But does this person own all of the intellectual property?

I do.

Fusion physicist here. What's to prevent you from evaluating it yourself? I would start with Todd Rider's PhD thesis https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11412

See if you can convince yourself that the arguments he makes about non-equilibrium systems don't apply to your concept, and then write a white paper explaining your argument.

I've read Rider's thesis several times. The ions in my device have a thermal energy profile. The coordinated motion is a result of their rapid expansion and cooling in a very weak magnetic field.

The instant ions leave the hot thermal focus, each one flys off on its own independent cyclotron trajectory. Their collective motion results in another dense, hot, thermal focus one period later.

Also, get an SSL certificate for your website. It's somewhat hard to believe you are able to create a safe and effective fusion reactor while at the same time connecting to your website uses an outdated and insecure protocol.

>Someone please help me evaluate my design.

Have you submitted your research for peer review, and if not, why?

There's only a concept and very basic simulations. I need help doing the initial rigorous analysis.