I don't have time to watch a three hour video, but usually one can post a comment after a youTube video, and whatever else is done, it would be worthwhile to do that to. It would probably not be too hard to make a counter video, albeit much shorter. 

As I write, it occurs to me that the torus is usually the shape of one form of attempt at fusion reactors, and laRouche used to push fusion very hard. Is this torus connected with that? Government-backed efforts at developing fusion reactors that take in less energy than they emit now go back well over half a century, with no success in sight yet. 

However, I have heard plausible sounding rumors of a completely different approach to fusion power, in which normal hydrogen would fuse with a mid-range nucleus such as nickel to produce an excited copper isotope that would then emit gamma ray energy. with the right choice of reaction, the pressures needed to facilitate this might be far smaller (and therefore temperatures  much lower) than with the usual attempts at hydrogen-deuterium or tritium fusion. energy yields per reaction would be a good deal lower too, but quite possibly enough to make this mode of  production of value. It would not necessarily yield any radioactive byproducts either. How much nickel would be needed to produce significant power with such a source is unclear — quite possibly there just wouldn't be enough, though the invnetor of the process I heard about claims there is plenty. 

Best,
Michael

On Feb 12, 2012, at 10:32 PM, Mitchel Cohen wrote:

> Hi Larry and Kamran (and all),
> 
> I would welcome a critique of that section of "Thrive" from Science-for-the-People.
> 
> This video is already a huge "hit" on the internet, and on WBAI. While some have taken issue with some of the quotes the video uses from, for instance, David Ickes, I'd urge SftP to stay away from that aspect and just focus on the science at the end of the film, which you've already pointed to.
> 
> I am curious, for instance, if there is any benefit to the Torus shapes it promotes, from a Buckminister Fuller standpoint. My guess is that it's all bogus, but it would be good to have that confirmed or rejected by expert scientists here and elsewhere.
> 
> I have been fighting within WBAI for several things but have made no headway, and this sort of easy-to-do comment from SftP would really help. One thing especially, I've been arguing for: More debate on the air. I don't mind Icke, or "Thrive", if each promotion is followed by real debate, honest debate, about the premium offered that sheds light on science, the current world situation, and history, since that's what "Thrive" purports to be about. But that minor detail -- the call for honest debate -- seems to have eluded WBAI Management and producers, no matter how many times I bring it up. 
> 
> I understand that the Program Director is afraid that having real debate would undermine the credibility and the sales of the Premiums offered, and sales right now take priority. I disagree. I will try to bring it up with management again, and this time do it as a public campaign.
> 
> I also disagree with this whole reliance on premiums sales. Thus far WBAI management has not provided us with a plan for switching over to a different funding model,