Helion Energy to demonstrate net electricity production by 2024

[Munchausen]

This is all very exciting and nice reading as an evening pastime but perhabs you shouldn't get your cylinder head gasket blown over this recent announcement.

I get the skepticism. Anyone who knows me knows I'm a skeptic, with a pretty reliable and accurate BS detector.

But I respectfully disagree that we shouldn't get our cylinder head gaskets blown over the D - T news. Rather:

NOW is THE time to get our cylinder heads blown over Helion's D - T confirmation!

I've been modeling Polaris for the last couple of years. I've learned a lot about it in the process. It's not at all like the topology I thought it was half a year ago. I've just posted on a new thread regarding a recent critique by Lackner, et. al. 2026 in the Journal of Fusion Energy. It's a thoughful analysis, but almost entirely irrelevant (I've desribed why in a separate, more technical rebuttal: https://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6614). And admittedly, just because Lackner et. al. concerns are essentially irrelevant doesn't mean Helion will succeed.

The reason Helion WILL succeed is because they've proven that all the blockers have been addressed. The remaining obstacles may present challenges, but NONE of them are challenges money can't solve. And they now have plenty of money! The parameters Helion is operating under are now either disclosed or easily calculated. There's little ambiguity at this point, and modeling to verify has become dead simple, and repeatable.

Meaning, in the worst case, they will demonstrate net but not in a commercially viable way. The chances of that are extremely low, in my opinion - there's a VERY high chance of commercially viable electicity generation, I believe. Regardless, it's virtually certain that we'll see a Helion topology reactor demonstrating net fusion by the end of this decade. Not "20 years from now".

And I'd be shocked if net energy hasn't been demonstrated by 2028. I think it's more likely than not that we'll see net energy demonstrated by Polaris before year end. And that in five years, Helion will be producing low cost electricity, and the number of people who have NOT heard of Helion will be about the same who haven't heard of Tesla, or Google. In other words, fasten your seat belts, our head gaskets are about to be blown!

I would still like to see that triple product plot... As I understand it, Helion has found a way to somewhat lessen the demands for a robust positive energy exchange. But that might offset the necessary constraint for the triple product with an order of magnitude or perhabs two. Not make it irrelevant.

Hopefully you are right and we will see pulsed FRC energy production very soon. However, what is not correct is that the world is not watching. You have presented a paper from three german physicists and one english professor in mathematics who obviously found Helion's approach worthy of scrutiny and critique.

If the Helion company prove it's worth there will be a surge in interest and resources will be reallocated to copy cat projects. It will not all look nice. More like closed doors military crash programs than academia. Whether intellectual property rights will be respected can also be questioned.

[TallDave]

Lawson triple product generally assumes a continuous process. Helion's reactors are intended to produce discrete chunks of gain (around 5-10MJ for Orion). This is why Helion doesn't like discussions of Q.

The closest comparison would be how much electricity they recovered vs how much they lost. We can infer from their last blog that so far they have not produced significant gains with Polaris, though 1) they are expected soon and 2) they have achieved the necessary temperatures. They have told us that recovery is more than 90% of input energy (without fusion).

Note however that gain scales at B^3.77 as well as something between the square and cube of the radius (not 100% how this works for their elongated cylinder). So we can indeed expect orders of magnitude improvement in the months ahead.

https://www.helionenergy.com/articles/h ... -t-fusion/

There are already some ongoing attempts to imitate Helion but the nano-second FPGA timing is not something you can throw together, nor are the specialized materials available off the shelf. They probably have a good decade's head start.

That said, the market for new power is surprisingly small so I think their current valuation is accurate. Eventually they might be able to cart thousands of these into space aboard Starships, where they have innumerable advantages, particularly above HEO where they don't need a vaccum chamber or nearly as much shielding.

[Munchausen]

Lawson triple product generally assumes a continuous process. Helion's reactors are intended to produce discrete chunks of gain (around 5-10MJ for Orion). This is why Helion doesn't like discussions of Q. The closest comparison would be how much electricity they recovered vs how much they lost.

Yes thats correct, the Helion approach might offset necessary numbers in the triple product chart by an order of magnitude or se. We still want to know where they are. In this chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_cr ... rvath.webp

There are already some ongoing attempts to imitate Helion but the nano-second FPGA timing is not something you can throw together, nor are the specialized materials available off the shelf. They probably have a good decade's head start.

No, they are not. There are clearly some peculiarities in the Helion programme. One is making quartz vessels in house. A simple AI question makes it clear that there are about four world leading enterprises in high quality quartz vessels in Germany alone. Amongst them a company delving into advanced 3d-printed techniques for complicated structures and an experienced company in Sweden and one in France.

Another peculiarity is switching extreme currents into coils at extreme precision. Not far from away where I sit there is a company making up a substantial part of the GDP of the Kingdom of Sweden from expertise in precisely that subject. A friend of mine was offered a position as an engineering archivist at that company.

There are also companies with long standing experience in capacitor manufacturing and capacitor banks.

[sdg]

I would still like to see that triple product plot... As I understand it, Helion has found a way to somewhat lessen the demands for a robust positive energy exchange. But that might offset the necessary constraint for the triple product with an order of magnitude or perhabs two. Not make it irrelevant.

It's a reasonable question. but with a potentially unsatisfying answer for those who are used to focusing on the triple product threshold for evaluating steady state fusion ignition topology energy gain.

Specifically, if "somewhat lessening" the triple product requirement includes a more than two order of magnitude reduction, then yes, the triple product is "not irrelevent". Modeling "apples to apples" regarding net energy thresholds does show an approximate 200X reduction in triple product requirements for Helion vs Tokomak. this is because, assuming D - He3 for Helion:

* Beta = 1 for Helion, .05 approx for Tokomak
* B field recovery > 90% for Helion, zero for Tokomak
* Ti/Te produces about a 3X fusion collision rate boost over 500 microseconds vs. Tokomak Ti = Te
* High fuel density approx 10^23 m^-3 for Helion, 1 to 5 X 10^20 for Tokomak
* Brem/Synchrotron/Transport losses are also reduced by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (at least) Helion vs Tokomak, due to short pulse vs steady state.
* aneutronic dominated direct energy capture for Helion, neutron dominated 100% thermal energy capture for Tokomak

So yes, the triple product isn't quite "irrelevant", it's just highly misleading and difficult to interpret, since an "apples to apples" comparison based on dynamic plasma physics results in a physical triple product requirement comparison on the order of 200X reduction for Helion regarding net energy gain. Consequently, placing Polaris (or Orion) on the Wikipedia triple product chart you reference is non-sensical. I can add details for specific questions on that estimated multiplier, if interested.

[sdg]

Hopefully you are right and we will see pulsed FRC energy production very soon. However, what is not correct is that the world is not watching. You have presented a paper from three german physicists and one english professor in mathematics who obviously found Helion's approach worthy of scrutiny and critique.

Yes, I concede fusion Europe is watching Helion, now. Finally. Unfortunately, almost exclusively through Tokomak tinted glasses, however, if Lackner is any indication. Helion observes EU-fusioneers watching them as "small specs vanishing in Helion's rearview mirror".

Lackner et. al. 2026 to me is a near-perfect, but rather unflattering, metaphor for EU-fusion dogmatic flat-footedness. Here's why:

Kirtley 2023 was published in JFE in July 2023. Lackner et. al. 2026 just came out in February, more than 2.5 years later. Lackner's response is essentially UNRESPONSIVE to Kirtley, as they completely miscalculated relevant timeframes and subsequently obsessed on applying irrelevant Ti = Te fusion criteria and fusion reaction time scales COUPLED with completely ignoring Helion magnetic field recapture efficiency of > 90%, despite the fact that these two factors, explicitly described in Kirtley 2023, are central to Helion's topology and net energy viability. Helion's recent confirmation of Polaris D-T results adds to the basis for head-gasket blowing "rational exuberance".

BTW, the Helion Ti/Te fusion collision boost Lackner obsesses over accounts for only about 3X improvement over Tokomak - not nothing, but NOT CLOSE TO BEING THE MAIN advantage. The 90% recapture, the short reaction time, Beta = 1 field strength, high density fuel (mostly unspent but recycled), and the (mostly) aneutronic direct-to-electricity topology is what accounts for the phenomenal superiority of the pulsed sub-ignition FRC design.

I am quite certain that Lackner and team are intelligent, highly competent subject matter experts - for analyzing steady state fusion ignition topologies. But more than two and half years to write a response that PROVES they completely misunderstood Kirtley 2023 is not a good look. It's hard to NOT conclude that Lackner and team have some sort of inexplicable belligerence in willingness to understand pulsed FRC aneutronic fusion. What can we conclude from this completely non-responsive "response"? What does it say about the future of EU-fusion?

Let the reader decide.

[sdg]

If the Helion company prove it's worth there will be a surge in interest and resources will be reallocated to copy cat projects. It will not all look nice. More like closed doors military crash programs than academia. Whether intellectual property rights will be respected can also be questioned.

Very true. Skipjack's link to the Chinese "artificial sun baguette" reactor is sobering (copied below for reference). It's an obvious rip-off of Helion's patented design. Does anyone really believe China will honor US intellectual property rights? We know China has previously explicitly rejected the validity of patents in priniciple, despite applying for and obtaining them at every available turn.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-02-09/W ... kKY/p.html

Unlike Europe, the "cat is out of the baguette" in China. Did I just spot an orange "tariff sheriff" president precedent?

Seriously, though, wars have been fought over far less consequential and ideological differences. Let's hope it doesn't come to that!

[TallDave]

the Chinese are quite nice generally, it is CCP that no one likes, particularly the Chinese themselves

they're trying to copy Elon too, but rocket science and fusion are hard

what's really fascinating is where Helion's tech could go with spin polarization

if it is possible in their machines, we could be looking at reducing D-He3 neutronicity by additional orders of magnitude and enabling considerably smaller, cheaper reactors

the main limitation of their tech is that it probably cannot exceed 100MWe due to the first-wall issues inherent to any pulsed design, but if you can put the core in a shipping container that's still world-changing

https://www.helionenergy.com/articles/m ... to-fusion/

[sdg]

the Chinese are quite nice generally, it is CCP that no one likes, particularly the Chinese themselves

Absolutely true! I've lived in China, and have travelled all over: coastal, inland, North, South. I even speak Mandarin (not very well, but enough to get around - it's an elegant language, and though the tones are tough for me, the grammar is much like English!

I have many mainland Chinese friends in China and here in the US. Nobody knows the oppression of the CCP better than China's citizens.

I don't know for sure that it would be a bad thing if China succeeds in copying Helion's design for use in China. And in any case, I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, eventually. Who knows, it might even happen under some Helion license (we can always hope, anyways). It would also probably force the US to push innovation more in a "healthy competition" way. But that's a rather rosy outlook. As with any technology we KNOW FOR SURE it will be used for both good and bad purposes.

In my opinion It would be a devastatingly BAD thing if China, under the CCP, were the sole or leading successful commercial supplier globally. Especially for the poorest and most exploitable governments in the world. I don't think that is likely to happen fortunately. And I agree that "fusion is hard", and Helion is ahead. But the "artificial sun baguette" in China is real, Their research is happening, and the "recipe" is easier than ever to reverse engineer, with readily available AI tools. I've been able to do a lot of that, including in the rebuttal to Lackner et. al. 2026 I posted.

[Munchausen]

I would still like to see that triple product plot... As I understand it, Helion has found a way to somewhat lessen the demands for a robust positive energy exchange. But that might offset the necessary constraint for the triple product with an order of magnitude or perhabs two. Not make it irrelevant.

It's a reasonable question. but with a potentially unsatisfying answer for those who are used to focusing on the triple product threshold for evaluating steady state fusion ignition topology energy gain.

Specifically, if "somewhat lessening" the triple product requirement includes a more than two order of magnitude reduction, then yes, the triple product is "not irrelevent". Modeling "apples to apples" regarding net energy thresholds does show an approximate 200X reduction in triple product requirements for Tokomak vs Helion. this is because, assuming D - He3 for Helion:

* Beta = 1 for Helion, .05 approx for Tokomak
* B field recovery > 90% for Helion, zero for Tokomak
* Ti/Te produces about a 3X fusion collision rate boost over 150 microseconds vs. Tokomak Ti = Te
* High fuel density approx 10^23 m^-3 for Helion, 1 to 5 X 10^20 for Tokomak
* Brem/Synchrotron/Transport losses are also reduced by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (at least) Helion vs Tokomak, due to short pulse vs steady state.
* aneutronic dominated direct energy capture for Helion, neutron dominated 100% thermal energy capture for Tokomak

So yes, the triple product isn't quite "irrelevant", it's just highly misleading and difficult to interpret, since an "apples to apples" comparison based on dynamic plasma physics results in a physical triple product requirement comparison of about 200X reduction for Helion regarding net energy gain. Consequently, placing Polaris (or Orion) on the Wikipedia triple product chart you reference is non-sensical. I can add details for specific questions on that estimated multiplier, if interested.

Thanks for taking your time to make this explanation!

Just a little detail: The "B Field recovery". Should it be understod as back EMF or back pressure from an expanding high beta plasmoid?

[Skipjack]

Just a little detail: The "B Field recovery". Should it be understod as back EMF or back pressure from an expanding high beta plasmoid?

If I understood your question correctly:
I would probably frame it as back EMF. The expanding high-β plasmoid changes the magnetic flux linking the external coils (because the FRC excludes/redistributes flux), which induces a voltage in the coil circuit. With the right switching, that induced voltage returns magnetic energy to the capacitors. ‘Back pressure’ is maybe another way to describe the same thing, rather than something completely different.

[mvanwink5]

FRC & external coils act like a transformer, power flows in a controllable direction, controlled by the electronics.

[sdg]

Just a little detail: The "B Field recovery". Should it be understod as back EMF or back pressure from an expanding high beta plasmoid?

Good question, especially because my abbreviated "B field recovery" is a bit ambiguous. Short TL;DR answer: Yes.

More specifically and accurately, the B filed recovery is the plasma formation, acceleration and compression energy that is recoverable at > 90%. That's all considered "B field energy", but so is the plasma pressure opposing it, and in particular the fusion "boost" plasma pressure that is captured as back EMF in the reaction chamber coils.

As an electrical engineer, the efficiency and elegance of this design is extraordinary: even the accelerating magnetic field energy (in the two accelerator portions on opposite sides of the reaction chamber) is recoverable, saved back into the capacitor bank, such that the only loss is copper coil resistive loss that produces nuisance heat in the coils. The rest of the accelerating energy goes into Work (strictly defined in the physics sense) accelerating the toroidal plasmas toward collision from formation. So as to B-field "accounting", that acceleration Work gets added to the plasma formation energy "account" B-Field total - the supersonic kinetic speed helps create and shape the final compressed and stationary fusion plasmoid. The B field compression energy in the center reaction chamber is similarly recoverable and added to that B-field "account".

This recoverable energy calculation and application to fusion conditions is readily determined both theoretically and experimentally in Trenta and Polaris. This is because in physics and electrical engineering, we can apply the proven principle (or "law") of "superposition" which in this case means that the recoverability behavior observed under "no fusion" conditions can be accurately applied to fusion conditions, assuming all other operating conditions are the same.

In practice, the two conditions aren't EXACTLY the same, but the differences are small and known, and exist as second order effects that can be easily characterized and modeled to attain very high predictive accuracy of gain and other characteristics under fusion conditions. (It's why EEs are "spoiled": the math nearly perfectly predicts reality - electrons are incredibly "obedient" to mathematics - compared to say Civil Engineers, who regularly work with estimates of things like (and I'm serious): the strength of dirt). Helion's topology is fundamentally a simple, high capacity resistive/inductive/capacitive - RLC circuit with precision timing, tuning, and control.

Helion is actually claiming 95% recapture, not the more conservative > 90% capture often stated for similar FRC-based designs generally. This is no doubt based on initially conservative estimates that have been exceeded in actual implementations (Trenta and Polaris). In this number, they are talking about EMF formation/acceleration/compression recovery efficiency.

There are other losses: bremsstrahlung/synchrotron/transport losses in the plasma that will result in chamber wall and diverter/separator heating. For Helion toplogies, bremsstrahlung and transport losses dominate (synchrotron loss is minuscule). But these losses are manageable as conventional engineering design issues. Not significantly different than designing a power substation transformer converting high voltage power line AC to lower voltage local distribution for domestic electricity supply for example. Does the transformer produce heat? Yes, of course, for transformers, this is typically about 1-2% of the operating power. Is addressing that heat solvable? Yes, in a thousand different ways or more. Pick the most inexpensive and reliable approach that you can design. If you find a better design in a year, add it in and save a few bucks, or increase reliability and gain some uptime, or both.

The main point: The Helion design seeks a sub-ignition temperature aneutronic magnetic plasmoid fusion energy "boost", captured directly as back-EMF on the plasma-forming electromagnet coils transmitted back into the same capacitors that provided the electricity creating the plasma in the first place, such that the boost is greater than all the losses in the electromagnet and the plasmoid. The prize? Excess DC electricity! The fuel? Tiny amounts of D - He3. This topology recovers 95% of the substantial energy required to create the fusion plasmoid, unlike Tokomak, which has no comparable recovery mechanism.