A device generating 100 MW of fusion in that way would be using 10s of MW of power for magnetic fields and RF generation, enough to run a small town (if only for a few s at a time). This would be a major facility. Not to mention that it would be permitted and inspected like any other nuclear power plant.
There is a huge number of hard issues to deal with if a device starts making MW of fusion power. Just MW, not 100s of MW. At 100 MW, most superconducting magnets are wrecked, special vacuum pumps for dealing with tritium are needed, immense neutron shielding is needed, wires and structural elements become embrittled, fiber optics are browned...The obvious absence of any mention of these tells us just what level this device is operating at. Not saying it won't work, but that the step from making a cold plasma to MW of fusion power is not a small step.
They do have a huge problem that no one was able to solve. It is not inconceivable that someone who understands the problem will be able plug the ends. But step one is to explain why this mirror would work differently from those mirrors.
The geometry and stability arguments make this look like a variation on a mirror, and people figured out the advantages and the disadvantages of mirrors a long time ago. The instabilities that dump power into the unconfined particles are not always obvious until you know to look for them, so until they ramp this up to a couple keV, there is no telling if it is promising or not. Maybe with modern technology, they can make it work.
It is! Nontechnical discussions aren't very good at differentiating between three somewhat different areas of concern. First, neutrons and gammas produced by the reaction need to be shielded but go away when you turn the reaction off. Second, short-lived activation in which materials are radioactive, but with a half-life of years or less that becomes safe in a reasonable time. Fusion reactors have both of these, but they are manageable. Third, fission leaves behind nuclear waste materials with a half-life in tens of thousands of years--this is nasty stuff and is around basically forever. Fusion produces no long-lived waste (there is probably some component of some alloy that will prove to make tiny amounts of bad waste, but nothing significant compared to fuel rods from fission reactors).
If they can build and test it within a year, why would it still take about 10 years to actually produce an operational one..
First, because it won't work as expected as they try to scale it up, and new problems will have to be solved.
Second, because the engineering problems related to extracting energy from fusion and maintaining the reactor hardware in a bath of energetic neutrons are huge problems that people have been working on for decades and haven't completely solved yet.
Yes it is a troll and no it isn't a real concern. If the poster hasn't figured out that the mass of hydrogen converted to helium is utterly negligible compared to the mass of water in the oceans, then he or she shouldn't have posted in the first place. This is no more reasonable than saying that the reactors will produce n-waves that interfere with instructions beamed from our galactic overlords and demand that others refute it.
The authors also don't think that they will make more money by self publishing either, because they know how much less they will be writing because of the time spent on other tasks currently handled by the publisher.
And a firefox is a freaking PANDA, not a fox, so change the stupid logo. Yes, I DO get insanely annoyed over pointless things, thank you for asking.