A number of investors have asked us what our scientific peers think of our work. Here are some objective measures showing that our peers consider us to be leaders in the field.
One simple measure is invited presentations. At conferences, organizers invite the leading researchers to give longer presentations on their work—generally 25 minutes instead of the standard 12-15 minutes. LPPFusion Chief Scientist has been among the invited speakers for four of the last five years at the International Conference on Plasma Science and Applications, the main conference for researchers studying the Dense Plasma Focus device. He was among the invited speakers every year for the past three years at the International Workshop on Proton Boron Fusion, the main conference for pB11 researchers. So in both our areas of work, we’re recognized as leaders.
A broader measure of interest within the larger field of fusion research and the study of plasma is the number of citations our papers receive. Researchers cite as references the papers that they rely on as authoritative in a field. Our papers are cited far more than average. The two papers we published in 2023 have been cited 9 and 13 times, not counting our own citations. Our 2017 paper, first announcing our record high temperatures, has been cited 17 times and the one we published back in 2011, first laying out our research program, has been cited 27 times. For comparison, the average paper published in the journals we published in, Physics of Plasma and Journal for Fusion Energy, got only 2 citations.
While the work of Lerner and his colleagues on cosmology and astrophysics has stirred controversy on the internet, it has also been widely cited. His 2018 paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the oldest astronomy journal in the world, which showed evidence that the universe is not expanding, has been cited 20 times in peer-reviewed journals, far more than the average of 4.8 citations for that journal. None of the citing papers were attempts to refute the conclusions of the MNRAS paper.
Thus, by any objective measure, our peers hold our work in high esteem.
