There's a lot to read up on! Lerner's focus fusion is a direct perpetuation of all that well-funded work, whereas you're clutching at 50 year old experiments that didn't work to try to argue for Polywell.
I'm surprised to learn that WB-6, WB-7, and WB-8 happened 50 years ago. Do you have a link?
And to say the experiments of 50 years ago didn't produce neutrons (your criteria of success) is another surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_plasma_focus
This DPF network was organised by Sing Lee from 1986, taking advantage of the fact that even a small DPF can be used to study all the plasma phenomena that a big DPF has access to. A simulation package, the Lee Model,[8] has been developed for this network but is applicable to all plasma focus devices. The code typically produces excellent agreement between computed and measured results,[9] and is available for downloading as a Universal Plasma Focus Laboratory Facility. The Institute for Plasma Focus Studies IPFS[10] was founded on 25 February 2008 to promote correct and innovative use of the Lee Model code and to encourage the application of plasma focus numerical experiments. IPFS research has already extended numerically-derived neutron scaling laws to multi-megajoule experiments.[11] These await verification.
Lots of experiments. A paucity of results.
Several groups have claimed the DPF could prove viable for fusion power, even producing temperatures high enough for p+B11 fusion and that the powerful magnetic field can reduce electron-ion collisions and thus reduce bremsstrahlung losses; in contrast, the high magnetic field is theorised to aggravate cyclotron radiation losses. Another advantage claimed is the capability of direct conversion of the energy of the fusion products into electricity, with an efficiency potentially above 70%. So far only limited experiments and computer simulations have been done to investigate the capability of DPF for fusion power. Eric Lerner's approach to fusion power using the DPF, termed "Focus Fusion", was explained in 2007 at Google's Tech Talks.[12] On November 14, 2008, Lerner received funding for continued research, to test the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion.[13]
And yet. These devices are rather easier to build than a Polywell, but have so far not shown evidence of net power.
This is surprising given:
The fact that the plasma energy density is constant throughout the range of plasma focus devices, from big to small, is related to the value of a design parameter that needs to be kept at a certain value if the plasma focus is to operate efficiently. The critical 'speed' design parameter is {{I \over a} \over \sqrt{p}}, or the current linear density divided by the square root of the mass density of the fill gas.[5]
For example for neutron-optimised operation in deuterium the value of this critical parameter, experimentally observed over a range of machines from kilojoules to hundreds of kilojoules, is: 90 (kA/cm)/(Torr)1/2 (780 kA/(m·Pa1/2)) with a remarkably small deviation of 10% over such a large range of sizes of machines.
Thus if we have a peak current of 180 kA we require an anode radius of 1 cm with a deuterium fill pressure of 4 torrs. The length of the anode has then to be matched to the risetime of the capacitor current in order to allow an average axial transit speed of the current sheath of just over 5 cm/microsec. Thus a capacitor risetime of 3 microsecond requires a matched anode length of 16 cm.
So the possibility of net power should be demonstratable on a table top with very modest eqpt requirements and modest vacuum pumps. It is going on past 20 years for this line. Where is the beef?
I will grant that none of the experiments to date looks very good. Not Toks. Not DPF. Not Polywell.
Still I'd say that Polywell was the most promising of the approaches. If for no other reason that that it is the least explored in its present form.
You said 10%; are you reconsidering? It seems like a clear enough stance. Loser donates some token sum (say 50 bucks) to EMC2/whatever organism takes donations for ITER.