I'm no scientist but suggesting the physics is not far from nuclear fusion is more than a bit melodramatic, which is hardly becoming of a scientist, I don't care how smart you're supposed to be. You have made your point, ad nauseum, re the value of the technology being non-existent if the net energy produced, or cash required to produce it, is negative. That's all and good and makes sense, that's a real question, a long way from being answered and a pretty good reason why shares are worth 1 PENNY! You speak as if the market has given this some monstrous value it doesn't deserve, it hasn't, perhaps some $6M in aggregate - that's real money, but there thousands of utterly useless startups assigned much greater value. And I don't recall penny startups demonstrating applied fusion, although there was that claim of "cold fusion" being achieved in a beaker in the late 80s, which turned out to be bunk. The process has been demonstrated to work, the only question is whether it net cost and energy are negative or positive, and if positive, enough so to compete in a serious way with existing technologies. You love to pound that hammer genius, but it's tiresome.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
