Fusion goes forward from the fringe

EMC2 Fusion

Plasma shines within EMC2 Fusion's WB-7 device, the predecessor to the WB-8 inertial electrostatic confinement vessel currently being used for fusion experiments.

A Navy-funded effort to harness nuclear fusion power reports that its unconventional plasma device is operating as designed and generating "positive results" more than halfway through the project.

The latest quarterly update from EMC2 Fusion Development Corp. comes amid other signs that seemingly oddball approaches to fusion research may not be all that oddball after all. Just last week, General Fusion announced that Amazon.com's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, was part of a $19.5 million investment round to further the company's plan to take advantage of a technology called magnetized target fusion. Another billionaire, Paul Allen, is an investor in Tri Alpha Energy, which is working on its own hush-hush fusion project (and occasionally publishing its research).


EMC2 Fusion doesn't have tens of millions of venture capital to play with — but it does have a $7.9 million Navy contract to test a plasma technology known as inertial electrostatic confinement fusion, also known as Polywell fusion. The idea is to accelerate positively charged ions in an electrical cage to such an extent that they occasionally spark a fusion reaction, releasing energy and neutrons. The concept was pioneered by the late physicist Robert Bussard, and carried forward by the EMC2 Fusion team in Santa Fe, N.M.

Some of the leading team members went on leave from Los Alamos National Laboratory to work on EMC2. Rick Nebel, the Los Alamos engineer who led the company since Bussard's death in 2007, retired from the company last November. Taking his place as acting chief executive officer is Jaeyoung Park. The 41-year-old physicist says he's given up his position at Los Alamos to focus fully on EMC2.

"We had a lot of milestones to meet in the last six months or so," Park told me today. "It's been pretty hectic."

Working on a Wiffle Ball
The company currently employs eight or nine full-time technical staff members, and relies on about two dozen external consultants, Park said. The ultimate objective is to build a 100-megawatt demonstration fusion reactor, and Park hopes that the current small-scale experiment will show EMC2's scientists and their "customers" in the Navy whether this is realistic.

"If this machine works as we hope it will work, it will probably establish a firm technical foundation," he said. "People may say, 'It's a big jump and you shouldn't be doing this.' But every year that the energy problem doesn't get solved ... costs tens of billions of dollars. Sometimes waiting too long is not a good thing. If you look at the solutions, you might say, 'Can we afford to wait?'"

So how far along is EMC2? The current experiment is known as WB-8, which follows up on WB-5, 6 and 7. "WB" stands for "Wiffle Ball," which describes the spherical swiss-cheese look of the plasma containment cage. The $7.9 million contract covers work to see whether Bussard's fusion concept can be scaled up to a size capable of putting out more power than it consumes.

Although fusion is the process behind the power of the sun and an exploding H-bomb, physicists have never been able to achieve a net energy gain in a controlled fusion reaction. But based on the experiments so far, Park thinks there's a chance that it could be done in a sufficiently large Wiffleball reactor, costing on the order of $100 million to $200 million. That sounds like a pretty good deal, especially in comparison with the $3.5 billion that's been spent so far on fusion research at the National Ignition Facility and the $20 billion expected to be spent on the international ITER fusion project.

Driving the fusion Ferrari
WB-8 didn't cost anywhere near that much. Park estimated that the parts alone cost on the order of $2 million, which he compared to the cost of a vintage Ferrari. "I'll take this machine any day over a Ferrari," he joked.

"It's a very nice machine," he said. "I like what we have so far. It's quite well-built, relatively flexible to actually explore a lot of areas and find what's best. Achieving the plasma for fusion is obviously a tall order. ... You don't just push the pedal on a Ferrari and drive the car. Like an F-18 or a stealth bomber, you have to learn how to operate it properly."

Park said that the WB-8 experiment was about 60 percent complete, which roughly matches how much of the $7.9 million has been spent so far. He acknowledged that EMC2 was originally aiming to finish the experiment by this time, but said the realities of government funding — including continuing resolutions, shutdown threats and other budgetary snags — have dictated a slower pace.

"We decided at some point that it's not a good idea to follow the timeline directly, because if you follow the timeline and not the moneyline, you've got a big problem," he told me. "The reality is that we have to follow the timeline given by the funding profile rather than the timeline given by the date."

The last little experiment?
Park figures that the money provided under the WB-8 contract should last until the end of the year, depending on how efficiently the EMC2 team is able to stretch the money out. By then, the engineers in New Mexico and their backers in the Navy should know whether it's worth going ahead with the next step, perhaps even with the big demonstration reactor. Park hopes that WB-8 will be the last small-scale experimental machine EMC2 will have to build.

"This machine should be able to generate 1,000 times more nuclear activity than WB-7, with about eight times more magnetic field," said Park, quoting the publicly available information about WB-8. "We'll call that a good success. That means we're on track with the scaling law."

Don't expect weekly updates about EMC2's progress. "Currently all our funding comes from the Navy," Park said. "That's our customer. Our customer desired that we keep most of our progress confidential. ... They're somewhat concerned about making too much hype without delivering an actual product."

But if WB-8 and the follow-up studies are successful, the Navy won't stand in EMC2's way. 

"Our understanding is they want us to be successful," Park said. "They want us to provide something for our sponsors. They also want us to do well commercially as well, as long as we remain US-owned and control the technology."

And if WB-8 fails?

"Sometimes breakthroughs happen, and sometimes you can never solve it, and then maybe it's time to give up — at least for me," Park said. "But I can positively say I tried everything."

More on the fusion quest:


Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2

Man, I hope this does work out... Fission energy always seemed more like the wave of the future to me- clean, no messy isotopes to clean up after, and no pollution. But controlling the fusion reaction has always been the issue hasn't it? I'm not a physicist, but I do get jazzed about potential alternative energy sources.

  • 6 votes
Reply#1 - Tue May 10, 2011 8:58 PM EDT

You mean fusion. Fission is what powers our nuclear reactors today and produces all that radioactive waste.

  • 8 votes
#1.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 9:29 AM EDT

Best of luck to EMC2, as well as ITER and the NIF teams... "Fusion is the power of the universe"!

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:09 PM EDT
Reply

This is awesome! I wish these guys all the success in world.

  • 10 votes
Reply#2 - Tue May 10, 2011 9:21 PM EDT

Absolutely! I'll second that motion and then some. Fusion power stations. Fusion cars. Fusion powered vessels, aircraft, space-craft, video games. Maybe by the middle of the century we can tell the Saudis to pound sand and go virtually oil-less. PLEEEZE PLEEEEZE PLEEEEEEEZE!

I probably won't live to see it, but my daughter and my grandchildren will benefit from this new technology and so will our ultimate exploration of space.

You go guys!

  • 7 votes
#2.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 9:01 AM EDT
Reply

 I wish this team success. There is a Canadian team in Vancouver that is using pistons around a sphere (timed with nuclear bomb like precision) to transmit an energy wave to compact and cause a plasma to fuse. There is also an Italian effort that seemed to be doing well. You often here about these efforts and then nothing. I would love to have the author publish a list of such experiments and their current status. That would an excellent and exciting read.

  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Tue May 10, 2011 9:29 PM EDT

Agreed russel. That would make for an impacting story. Maybe there is something we are missing,

    #3.1 - Tue May 10, 2011 10:11 PM EDT
    Reply

    Awesome stuff, crossing fingers this is successful!

    • 2 votes
    Reply#4 - Tue May 10, 2011 10:14 PM EDT

    Polywell is an interesting technology. The voltage requirements for the cage are huge, but not impossible.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Tue May 10, 2011 10:57 PM EDT
    charlsDeleted

    Wasn't there an old test preWW2 of launching protons at a gold leaf with high electrostatic charge? It seems to me that some gold atoms were changed. If the target was lithium7 would some helium be produced?

      Reply#7 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:07 AM EDT

      Successful fusion power would not mean humanity has solved the problem of man made Global warming. All power generated by fusion will become heat, heat that will warm the Earth.

      The use of Fusion power would be better than fossil fuel, but without population control and conservation, the energy use by mankind will, eventually, become a problem.

      George Bamber's story, "Why the Sea is Boiling Hot" is a good illustration of this.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#8 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:33 AM EDT

      "all power generated by fusion will become heat"

      Can you please explain that. I'm 99% sure that's not true, but I'll gladly admit it if I'm incorrect...

      • 2 votes
      #8.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:53 AM EDT

      Alex you must have sleep though you basic science course on states of energy.

      Besides do you actually think fusion creates electricity directly. Like almost everything else it will heat water to drive a generator. Still all electricity eventually becomes heat when used.

      He is exactly right the main problem is the massive population growth of the world. Even in 200 years global warming will have little impact. In 200 years the world population will be so high we will not be able to produce enough food.

      • 2 votes
      #8.2 - Wed May 11, 2011 6:48 AM EDT

      The heat from electricity generation is negligible. What's causing global warming is the trapping of the Sun's energy by the atmosphere.

      As for fossil fuels and fusion, its sad to compare the money spent on this research compared to the the amount of subsidies we give oil and coal corporations. Or even for corn ethanol.

      Hopefully, fusion will be perfected sooner rather than later. The number of people made ill or killed due to the use of fossil fuels is pretty significant. And with the way things are going, you would not want to be alive in 150 years. There are 11 measures of sustainability and we have already crossed 3 of the thresholds.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boundaries-for-a-healthy-planet

      • 4 votes
      #8.3 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:19 AM EDT

      The heat generation from fusion reaction is often the energy source. In some fusion models, the heat is transferred to another modality (eg. turn water into steam, which turns a turbine) and from that, electricity is produced. The heat isn't simply allowed to escape into the atmosphere. I don't see this as a cause of global warming at all.

      Population growth rates are lowering every year. Current estimates from the UN indicate that maximum population will be reached in about 2040-2050 with a low max of 7.5 billion and a high max of 9.0 billion.

      • 3 votes
      #8.4 - Wed May 11, 2011 11:08 AM EDT

      The Earth naturally radiates energy into space as well as absorbing massive amounts of energy in the form of sunlight. I don't know the numbers, but I believe that the total energy absorbed in the form of sunlight on a daily basis absolutely dwarfs the total heat generated from all man made sources. That's one of the common arguments for expanding solar technology... "If we could just harness all that excess sunlight!!"

      It's the increasing levels of CO2, as well as water vapor, methane etc., which are changing the balance of this equilibrium. It's not the heat your car engine produces which is a long term problem, it's the CO2, which alters the way that the heat dissipates. The increasing CO2 is like an insulating blanket, decreasing the amount of heat which radiates back into space.

      If we could perfect the use of fusion as an energy source, we could cease (or greatly decrease) pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere from coal and oil burning, and eventually (over centuries) the carbon would be reabsorbed, returning the atmophere to something more similar to pre-industrial age CO2 levels.

      Of course, if this is accomplished, and average temperatures continue to go up, then maybe the denialists are right, and it was the sun all along. But then, at least we would have a valid longitudinal experimental case... alter a variable, check the result, return the variable to it's normative state, recheck the results. So far, we haven't been able to do this. Perhaps one day fusion power will allow us to complete the climate change experiment.

      • 1 vote
      #8.5 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:03 PM EDT

      Hi Folks,

      In the case of the Polywell fusion reation the preferred reaction would be a P-B11 one. In this reaction the fusion creates He4 Nucli which when captured on the grid converts directly to electicity. No moving parts or excess heat to speak of. No need for steam, pistons, or turbines. Over 90% pure eletrical power.

      • 4 votes
      #8.6 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:02 PM EDT
      Reply

      the more experimenters we can get involved with fusion the better the chances that fusion won't be "just around the corner" forty years out!!...The Navy is sure one large outfit that could put working fusion online immediatly and be glad they did....of course most of us cosmic log readers would love to see it on things like the ISS powering ungodly power hungry vasimers and magnetic shielding and....(this list really does go on and on and on)....great rewards await the company that can build working fusion plants for the navy, let alone the rest of the power starved planet....

      • 3 votes
      Reply#9 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:38 AM EDT

      Thing with energy generation in space is that using steam generation for your energy needs is really, really bad; dissipating the heat would be a pain. Would be better if we could find a way to generate current directly, without going through the trouble of sublimating water.

      • 1 vote
      #9.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 6:38 PM EDT

      you could very well be right!!...but I for one see fusion as harvesting electrons directly as they are squezzed off the fusion pre-products....at least that's how I see it, the extra heat might be help in space though!! after all, space can be a very cold place, deep space doubly so...which brings up the point that external radiators should be quite thermally efficient...just an honest reply.

        #9.2 - Sat May 14, 2011 1:13 AM EDT

        This form of 'fusion' definitely involves direct conversion to electricity. There will still be waste heat, but nothing like that with a heat engine...

          #9.3 - Sat May 14, 2011 12:51 PM EDT

          Yes, Frank , there could be less waste heat, which is a good thing. The electricity produced will still end up as heat in the end though, which means there is a limit to the amount that can be safely generated and used without affecting the Earth's climate. Population control will, in the end, become necessary.

          • 1 vote
          #9.4 - Sat May 14, 2011 5:31 PM EDT
          Reply

          Why is it that Eric Lerner and Lawrenceville Plasma Physics never get any mention for their Dense Plasma Focus?

          They are very near completing their work.

          http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

          • 1 vote
          Reply#10 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:06 AM EDT

          Over a trillion for illegal Republican wars and these guys can barely get $20 million? So we can pretty much take for granted that if we had spent that trillion on fusion research we'd already be energy independent. Thanks Republicans, always screwing the country somehow.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#11 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:11 AM EDT

          How is it ALWAYS political??? go back to sleep troll.

          • 3 votes
          #11.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:06 AM EDT

          Jack-- your the same tripe that would be bellowing about how much money we wasted if this project doesn't pan out. You'd be calling it "the vast waste of the military industrial complex chasing pipe dreams." Stephen has it right. Go back to tending your bridge and menacing goats.

          • 1 vote
          #11.2 - Wed May 11, 2011 6:21 PM EDT
          Reply

          Jack, a trillion dollars would only be useful if there were enough qualified researchers. Look at all the money wasted by "crash" research projects during WWII.

          Also, if this device is proven to be hazardous, it would be better if it was small and the only one of its kind.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#12 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:15 AM EDT
          charlsDeleted
          Reply

          This is the stuff that powers the aliens flying saucers!

          • 1 vote
          Reply#13 - Wed May 11, 2011 6:05 AM EDT

          How do you know our secrets!?

          • 1 vote
          #13.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 6:55 PM EDT
          Reply

          I hope these guys all the luck. But nowhere in the article did it say that they were actually generating power. Is it?

            Reply#14 - Wed May 11, 2011 7:35 AM EDT

            Yes. It is producing power according to WB7, but I'm not sure if it is net. WB8 will hopefully answer whether scaling will give a net power.

            • 2 votes
            #14.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 12:09 PM EDT

            As I understand it, many of these projects are capable of generating some power in the form of heat from the fusion reaction, but it's always less power than it actually takes to get the reaction to happen. The challenge is to reach a net positive on a large scale.

            • 1 vote
            #14.2 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:09 PM EDT
            Reply

            7.9 BbbbbWwwwHhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........Million ? For research ??? Too funny. There are dog food companies that spend more on research. . . . . lol lol lol

            • 1 vote
            Reply#15 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:00 AM EDT

            Somewhere in the article it states that the experimental model consumes more electrical energy than it produces..BUT scaled up the math indicates it becomes energy productive... THAT'S why the testing... To Alex and john, Although the population explosion IS the cause of most global warming/fossil fuel burning/energy consumation, I will stipulate that there WILL be population correction in the form of wars/disease/starvation.... sad but inevitable.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#16 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:14 AM EDT

            Hilarious.

            Wealthy people spend more than this on houses.

            And they get tax breaks that make this look like chump change.

            And the oil companies, with record profits each quarter in the tens of BILLIONS of dollars.

            If a fraction of that were spent on fusion research, we'd have had it by now.

            Who's really pulling the strings?

            • 2 votes
            Reply#17 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:25 AM EDT

            Everyone uses oil so lots of it gets sold. That is where the profit comes from not from ripping people off.

            Apple has a profit margin of 25%. Google has a profit margin of 27%.

            Oil companies have a profit margin of 5 to 9 percent. How evil.

            http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=570568

            • 1 vote
            #17.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:04 PM EDT

            economykiller

            Nobody said it was evil. We just said we didn't have to be giving them additional taxpayer money.

              #17.2 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:02 PM EDT

              Jock, the "additional taxpayer money" that you talk about mostly comes in on rebates/refunds/reductions in the amount of taxes they pay to the government. Either that or tax credits (again serving to LOWER their taxes, not give them "additional taxpayer money") in exchange for them building new more efficient methods of drilling/refining oil. This is akin to the school bully taking your lunch money and then offering to give you some of it back if you build them their science project.

              But going back on target, yes, it would be nice if more money would be spent on projects like this. I would think that energy companies would be willing to invest more in something like this inasmuch as a patent on one of these technologies would be incredibly profitable not just now but in the long run.

              • 2 votes
              #17.3 - Wed May 11, 2011 11:51 PM EDT
              Reply

              http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010.html

              The Federation of American Scientists reports that over 5000 invention/patents are currently frozen under the pretense of national security.

              Folks, not all of these inventions are bombs.

              Some of these inventions are so amazing that they would make these fusion initiatives look like grade school science projects – and yet the designs behind them are nothing new and actually date back as much as 100 years. The reasons why these patents are held and that some devices (with or without patents) are confiscated have nothing to do with national security but everything to do with the corporate/military/industrial entities that could lose their power and control if these devices were released.

              If we were able to power our homes and run our vehicles with energy that is free, corporations would not be able to put a meter on it. So it is their best interests to continue the status quo and not release these patents.

              However, this technology CAN be brought into our society at a gradual pace, so there does not have to be any culture shock or economic upheaval (oil companies having massive layoffs, etc).

              THESE PATENTS NEED TO BE RELEASED.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#18 - Wed May 11, 2011 8:58 AM EDT

              Exactly, if we were all rational beings and thought logically of all the things around us then again we wouldn't have the problems in the world we have today!

                #18.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 5:20 PM EDT
                Reply

                Please understand that as a nation we really need to initially use a hybrid nuclear / thermonuclear reactor approach, pursuant to any pure thermonuclear approach for producing electrical power, unless we are going to use solar energy to power the concept of pure thermonuclear energy. (Even then it may still be advisable to use a hybrid nuclear / thermonuclear reactor approach.) This polywell approach at generating fusion reactions could potentially work very well in a hybrid nuclear / thermonuclear breeder reactor system, where the large number of neutrons produced by this polywell device could be put to very good use breeding nuclear fuel from large breeder stocks of thorium & U-238, while also burning up a great deal of our nuclear waste as fuel at the same time. - Rick Carter

                  Reply#19 - Wed May 11, 2011 9:02 AM EDT

                  PS - I think the real key to pure thermonuclear energy is to find some way of neutralizing the coulomb barrier, at which point thermonuclear energy will really become child's play. - RC

                    #19.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 9:06 AM EDT
                    Reply

                    @john-98241.....It will not heat water to steam to drive a turbine.

                    "A spherical metal collector, charge to +1.22 million volts, surrounds the whole affair. It uses electrical repulsion to slow the outbound alphas. This same repulsion pushes electrical charges down power cables which are connected to the Polywell, and the electrical energy is removed, to be used in our planets power grid."

                    Taken from 

                    Perhaps you were sleeping when you posted that comment.

                     

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#20 - Wed May 11, 2011 9:19 AM EDT

                    You had to be mean about it huh :P

                    • 1 vote
                    #20.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:29 PM EDT
                    Reply

                    Thanks for another great Polywell interview Alan.

                    Best of luck to Mr. Park, let's hope those losses are scaling at B^.25*r^2!

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#21 - Wed May 11, 2011 10:57 AM EDT

                    Hmmm.

                    1. The entire world's population could be housed, at Manhattan density, in the state of Texas.

                    2. Global Warming is nonsense.

                    3. The Polywell fusion concept does -NOT- heat water -> steam -> turbine -> generator -> electricity. It creates electricity directly.

                    4. The seas are -NOT- boiling.

                    5. Energy companies would make money whether we use oil, fission or fusion. So the idea that energy companies oppose the discovery of fusion power is complete nonsense.

                    6. Many of the tax breaks that energy companies are getting are -for- R&D into alternative energy. So really, what precisely is your point?

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#22 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:06 PM EDT

                    I don't want to move to Texas. (Nice place to visit, tho)

                    • 2 votes
                    #22.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 1:33 PM EDT

                    Me Niether!!!LOL

                    • 1 vote
                    #22.2 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:19 PM EDT

                    1. The entire world's population could be housed, at Manhattan density, in the state of Texas

                    I love this assumption, because its hilarious. I Don't know how many people die from lack of house per year, but im betting it is in a fairly small ratio in comparison to people who die from not having food to eat. Food, productive soils, and rainfall are taken so for granted in this country that many think the problem with overpopulation is lack of apartments.

                    So yes, if we housed the worlds population at 47 people per acre in texas, they could all live there. For a couple of weeks. I'm curious to know where they would get their food and water.

                    2. Global Warming is nonsense.

                    Oh it's real enough. Environmental destruction is generally lumped into this category, even though the very real problem of the loss of ariable land is a much more urgent threat to the stable existance of first world human societies than the gradual warming of the planet over the next several centuries.

                    • 2 votes
                    #22.3 - Wed May 11, 2011 4:27 PM EDT

                    "1. The entire world's population could be housed, at Manhattan density, in the state of Texas."

                    Whereupon they would commence starving to death.

                      #22.4 - Wed May 11, 2011 7:57 PM EDT

                      "2. Global warming is nonsense."

                      Well, you pretty much lost all your scientific credibility right there. Even a scientist who disagreed with the prevailing consensus would know that the argument for AGW is not "nonsense."

                        #22.5 - Wed May 11, 2011 7:59 PM EDT

                        I don't think Texans want to live in Tex-ahatten either.

                          #22.6 - Thu May 12, 2011 3:17 PM EDT
                          Reply

                          wow..talk about a gamechanger...

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#23 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:00 PM EDT

                          Fantasy time - Imagine if there was no need to sink trillions into defense, imagine if the world didn't hate each other so much that we need to protect ourselves from ourselves.

                          Imagine the scientists getting an infusion of several tens of trillions of dollars to figure a way to make it work or know for sure to look in other directions. If humans wanted to they could probably solve their future energy problems within 10-20 years, they have the prowess to do it. The only logical conclusion is they do not want to. So why do they complain so much?

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#24 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:38 PM EDT

                          Um, energy resources are not the only reason humans fight each other by any stretch, but it would be nice to have one less reason, yes...

                          • 1 vote
                          #24.1 - Sat May 14, 2011 12:53 PM EDT
                          Reply

                          I currently can't see the current highly paid suppliers of current energy allowing fusion development to trump current currents.

                            Reply#25 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:38 PM EDT

                            Fred, sadly most of the human population of the world is in poor psychological health. That is, greed, ill will towards others, intolerance taught from birth, rascism, sexism, and other socially detrimental behaviors rule the day. Sad but true.(sigh)

                            • 1 vote
                            Reply#26 - Wed May 11, 2011 2:43 PM EDT

                            In other words, most of the human population is all too human. It takes a good bit of Enlightenment to rise above those things.

                              #26.1 - Wed May 11, 2011 7:53 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.