And look forward to the very few that are informed as is your own.

These kinds of approach have been tried before, and fail for some fairly fundamental reasons. The mangled technobable on their website references a “reversed field configuration”, having just completed my PhD in magnetic confinement fusion, that sounds suspiciously like a Reversed Field Pinch, a predecessor of the more conventional candidate for a fusion reactor.

$120m wouldn’t buy you decent diagnostics to take the measurements that would help project the scaling of this device, let alone a commercial product.

As for the claim that fusion power is being generated in this set up right now, I remain skeptical. Tritium requires serious handling as it is a high activity isotope that can be easily absorbed and retained in the body, and the rig does not look remotely adequate to conform to (at least UK, so almost certainly also US) Health and Safety requirements. Therefore, I suspect if they genuinely are getting fusion reactions, it will only be D-D fusion from high energy ions at incredibly low rates, which is not particularly new or uncommon, but such reactions consume vastly more energy than is put in as heating.

So I would then to agree with the first post in the absence of any real data on performance. Of course it is possible they have stumbled upon some very clever new approach that the thousands of researchers into nuclear fusion, with billions of dollars of funding, exploring a whole menagerie of different types of machines have somehow missed over the past 60 years. However some serious technical data would be good, such as temperature, density and/or pressure profiles, and particle or energy confinement times, and the heating power used etc. Instead we have a picture of some vacuum kit with coils wrapped around it and a glow. I could replicate that with a few thousand pounds, most of that being the vacuum flanges.