Img 7958 2
  1. LANL Home
  2. Engage with LANL
  3. Collaboration
  4. FCI

Plasma Liner Experiment (PLX)

A Scalable Platform for Fusion and High-Energy Plasma Research

The Opportunity

Los Alamos National Laboratory is seeking commercial partners to advance the Plasma Liner Experiment (PLX), a compact and scalable platform for plasma-jet-driven magneto-inertial fusion (PJMIF) and advanced plasma applications.

PLX uses synchronized supersonic plasma jets to form imploding plasma liners. This approach enables research and testing without large magnets or multi-megajoule lasers. The platform is modular, compact, and designed for repeatable, non-destructive experiments.

Why PLX?

  • Hybrid Fusion Approach: Combines principles of magnetic and inertial confinement.
  • Compact and Modular: Configurable design that adapts to performance needs.
  • Non-Destructive Operation: Plasma jets remain isolated from the burn region, reducing wear and extending system life.
  • Efficient and Scalable: Operates without massive infrastructure, lowering barriers to entry.
  • Frequent Operation: Supports rapid, repeatable experiments with integrated diagnostics.

Applications

Near-Term (1–3 years):

  • Testing of heat shields and thermal protection systems for re-entry.
  • Component survivability assessments for hypersonic vehicles.
  • Validation studies for high-enthalpy and directed energy systems.
  • Evaluation of telemetry and tracking components in relevant plasma conditions.

Long-Term (3–10+ years):

  • Development of grid-scale fusion energy systems.
  • Modular plasma gun systems for defense, research, and industry.
  • Exploration of scalable power plant designs based on PJMIF.

Partner Criteria

Los Alamos National Laboratory is seeking partners in aerospace, fusion, and advanced energy who can:

  • develop and execute a phased, multi-year commercialization plan;
  • relocate PLX from The Laboratory and establish operations by June 30, 2026;
  • demonstrate technical capability, financial readiness, and a clear commercialization vision; and
  • Engage through one or more of the following mechanisms:
    • License Agreement (minimum requirement)
    • Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
    • Strategic Partnership Project with Non-Federal Entity (SPP-NFE)
    • Technical Assistance (for New Mexico companies)

Submission Details

Commercialization Plans should include the following:

  • Company background and qualifications
  • Short- and long-term commercialization goals
  • Technical transition and facility readiness plans
  • Business and financial model
  • Team qualifications and milestones
  • IP and compliance strategies

Key Dates

Call ReleasedAugust 2025
Commercialization Plans DueOctober 1, 2025
Partner SelectionNovember 15, 2025
Execution of AgreementsMarch 2026 (target)

Submit To:

PLXT2M@lanl.gov

Subject line: PLX Commercial Plan Submission

  • Download Full Commercial Call (pdf)

Learn More

PLX is currently at Technology Readiness Level 3 with patents pending. Demonstrated milestones include:

  • operation of a 36-gun array to form spherical plasma liners,
  • deployment of integrated diagnostic systems, and
  • progress toward hydrogen compression experiments by 2026.

PLX provides an opportunity to advance plasma-driven testing and fusion research through collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Next Step

Organizations with relevant capabilities are encouraged to submit a Commercialization Plan by October 1, 2025.

Partner Q&A

  1. Do the PLX plasma guns have a lifetime? What is the lifetime of the guns in terms of the number of fired shots?

    Answer: Yes, the PLX plasma guns have a finite operational lifetime. Each gun consists of three key components: the gun muzzle, capacitor banks, and switches. The gun muzzle, made of copper, typically has a long lifetime. The primary degradation mechanism is sputtering caused by repeated plasma exposure. The capacitors and switches generally have a lifespan of a few thousand discharges. To date, we have fired ~5,000 shots with these guns. We are about halfway through their expected operational life.

  2. What is the lifecycle time of guns?

    Answer: Tem Thounsand shots

  3. When were the guns delivered to LANL?

    Answer: The guns were delivered to LANL between 2019 and 2020.

  4. LANL wants the testing space currently occupied by PLX vacated as quickly as possible (upon completion of the ARPA-E funding). To move out of the current space, it would require movers to help. Are there tax incentives, grant money or other funding options within LANL?

    Answer: Not from LANL. You could explore opportunities for public-private partnership funds.

  5. How long does it take to disassemble and reassemble a gun?

    Two days for two people. Possibly faster with more help.

  6. What is the down time when guns fail?

    Answer: That depends on the issues with the guns. Some minor issues can be fixed within a few hours while the guns are still mounted on the chamber. Other more serious issues can require the guns to be taken down and disassembled, which could take a few days.

  7. Is there a potential to automate removal and installation of guns with robotics?

    Answer: This could be a possibility with outside vendors, at this time LANL is not using robotics. Sabri Sansoy (sabri@fusiontechrobotics.com), who attended the PLX roundtable, reached out to request our presentation slides. He mentioned that he is working with Simon Woodruff to leverage robotics for reactor system maintenance. Perhaps they could develop robotic arms to handle this task?[ALJ1] 

  8. What type of fuel are you currently using for the tests?

    Answer: LANL recently received approval to use deuterium. Previously, we had been using helium. While these gases are not fuels per se—because we can’t achieve fusion with them—they will help us address key physics questions.

  9. What is the target fuel for the future?

    Answer: It will be a 1:1 mix of deuterium and trillium.

  10. Who owns the guns?

    Answer: Hyperjet. HyperJet mentioned they can help work on an agreement to transfer ownership of the PLX guns to the PLX startup.

  11. Is there IP on the guns and who owns it?

    Answer: No

  12. What is the ownership of different components of PLX?

    Answer:  
    Guns: Hyperjet
    Vessel: No one
    Electronics: Purchased using ARPA-E funds
    Others: Other diagnostics, such as cameras, are owned by Glen Wurden, while the spectrometers and interferometer are owned by UNM.

  13. What is the operating expense and requirements of setting up and running the facility

    Answer: We have been supported by ARPA-E over the past 10 years with a total of $12 million in funding. Most of this has been used for labor (with a 300% overhead), plasma guns, and materials. These costs could be significantly reduced—particularly the overhead—once the project is transferred to a private company.

    Running the experiment does not require a large amount of electricity, but it does require an industrial space with high overhead clearance and an overhead crane for mounting and demounting the plasma guns. In addition, it will need high-pressure gas systems and a 480 V power source for pumps and lasers.

  14. What are the energy needs for facility?

    Answer: The total energy stored in the capacitor banks for the guns is about 0.25 MJ, or roughly 0.05 kWh. Although this is not much compared to the appliances we use daily, it is actually a substantial amount of stored energy for a fusion experiment. If we perform hundreds of shots per day, the total would be around 5 kWh. In addition, operating the pumps and diagnostics requires about 30 kW. Altogether, the total electricity consumed each day would be approximately 250 kWh.

  15. What are the potential risks like material constraints, fuel, long term?

    Answer: Yes, the main risk would be the supply chain. The capacitors we use typically have a lead time of about one year, and some of the diagnostics also have long lead times. In the long term, with HyperJet stepping away, we could need to develop the capability to build additional plasma guns more quickly and with a more modular design.

  1. What is the timeframe of commercial call and selection?

    Answer:

    • Commercial call: August 2025
    • Letter of Interest (LOI) Due: October 1, 2025
    • Full Proposals Due : November 15, 2025
    • Review and selection: December 20, 2025
    • Timeline to transition: March 2026

  2. What is LANL's role after the transition?

    Answer: This will be determined based on the technology transfer agreements entered into with Triad.

  3. Is there a preference on location of companies?

    Answer: United States of America. 

    There are technical assistance programs offered by the State of New Mexico to engage with LANL.

  4. For hypersonic test application have there been conversations with potential customers?

    Answer: We have communicated with a potential federal sponsor to ascertain interest.

  5. Is there an opportunity to collaborate among parties?

    Answer: LANL has provided the forum for information exchange. It is up to the parties if they would like to collaborate.

  6. How do the timeline of ARPA-E milestones relate to the commercial call?

    Answer: The timeline for the commercial call was accelerated to meet the market demand. The ARPA-E funding continues through June 2026. 

Publications related to the Plasma Liner Experiment (PLX) and Plasma-Jet-Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion (PJMIF)

The publications related to the Plasma Liner Experiment and Plasma-Jet-Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion are listed below in chronological order, including both experimental and simulation studies.

The work specifically carried out on PLX at Los Alamos National Laboratory are displayed in bold

  1. J. T. Cassibry, R. J. Cortez, S. C. Hsu, and F. D. Witherspoon. Estimates of confinement time and energy gain for plasma liner driven magnetoinertial fusion using an analytic self-similar converging shock model. Physics of Plasmas, 16(11):112707, Nov. 2009. ISSN 1070-664X doi: 10.1063/1.3257920
  2. A. G. Lynn, E. Merritt, M. Gilmore, S. C. Hsu, F. D. Witherspoon, and J. T. Cassibry. Diagnostics for the Plasma Liner Experimenta). Review of Scientific Instruments, 81(10):10E115, Oct. 2010. ISSN 0034-6748. doi: 10.1063/1.3478116
  3. T. J. Awe, C. S. Adams, J. S. Davis, D. S. Hanna, S. C. Hsu, and J. T. Cassibry. One-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic scaling studies of imploding spherical plasma liners. Physics of Plasmas, 18(7):072705, July 2011. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.3610374
  4. J. S. Davis, S. C. Hsu, I. E. Golovkin, J. J. MacFarlane, and J. T. Cassibry. One-dimensional radiationhydrodynamic simulations of imploding spherical plasma liners with detailed equation-of-state modeling. Physics of Plasmas, 19(10):102701, Oct. 2012. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.4757980
  5. S. C. Hsu, E. C. Merritt, A. L. Moser, T. J. Awe, S. J. E. Brockington, J. S. Davis, C. S. Adams, A. Case, J. T. Cassibry, J. P. Dunn, M. A. Gilmore, A. G. Lynn, S. J. Messer, and F. D. Witherspoon. Experimental characterization of railgun-driven supersonic plasma jets motivated by high energy density physics applications. Physics of Plasmas, 19(12):123514, Dec. 2012b. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.4773320
  6. E. C. Merritt, A. G. Lynn, M. A. Gilmore, C. Thoma, J. Loverich, and S. C. Hsu. Multi-chord fibercoupled interferometry of supersonic plasma jets (invited)a). Review of Scientific Instruments, 83(10):10D523, July 2012. ISSN 0034-6748. doi: 10.1063/1.4734496
  7. S. C. Hsu, T. J. Awe, S. Brockington, A. Case, J. T. Cassibry, G. Kagan, S. J. Messer, M. Stanic, X. Tang, D. R. Welch, and F. D. Witherspoon. Spherically Imploding Plasma Liners as a Standoff Driver for Magnetoinertial Fusion. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 40(5):1287–1298, May 2012a. ISSN 1939-9375. doi: 10.1109/TPS.2012.2186829
  8. J. T. Cassibry, M. Stanic, S. C. Hsu, F. D. Witherspoon, and S. I. Abarzhi. Tendency of spherically imploding plasma liners formed by merging plasma jets to evolve toward spherical symmetry. Physics of Plasmas, 19(5):052702, May 2012. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.4714606
  9. E. C. Merritt, A. L. Moser, S. C. Hsu, J. Loverich, and M. Gilmore. Experimental Characterization of the Stagnation Layer between Two Obliquely Merging Supersonic Plasma Jets. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111(8):085003, Aug. 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.085003
  10. J. T. Cassibry, M. Stanic, and S. C. Hsu. Ideal hydrodynamic scaling relations for a stagnated imploding spherical plasma liner formed by an array of merging plasma jets. Physics of Plasmas, 20(3):032706, Mar. 2013. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.4795732
  11. C. Thoma, D. R. Welch, and S. C. Hsu. Particle-in-cell simulations of collisionless shock formation via head-on merging of two laboratory supersonic plasma jets. Physics of Plasmas, 20(8):082128, Aug. 2013. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.4819063 1
  12. E. C. Merritt, A. L. Moser, S. C. Hsu, C. S. Adams, J. P. Dunn, A. Miguel Holgado, and M. A. Gilmore. Experimental evidence for collisional shock formation via two obliquely merging supersonic plasma jetsa). Physics of Plasmas, 21(5):055703, Apr. 2014. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.4872323
  13. A. L. Moser and S. C. Hsu. Experimental characterization of a transition from collisionless to collisional interaction between head-on-merging supersonic plasma jetsa). Physics of Plasmas, 22(5):055707, May 2015. ISSN 1070-664X.doi: 10.1063/1.4920955
  14. S. C. Hsu, A. L. Moser, E. C. Merritt, C. S. Adams, J. P. Dunn, S. Brockington, A. Case, M. Gilmore, A. G. Lynn, S. J. Messer, and F. D. Witherspoon. Laboratory plasma physics experiments using merging supersonic plasma jets. J. Plasma Phys., 81(2):345810201, Apr. 2015. ISSN 0022-3778, 1469-7807.doi: 10.1017/S0022377814001184
  15. S. J. Langendorf and S. C. Hsu. Semi-analytic model of plasma-jet-driven magneto-inertial fusion. Physics of Plasmas, 24(3):032704, Mar. 2017. ISSN 1070-664X. doi:10.1063/1.4977913
  16. S. C. Hsu, S. J. Langendorf, K. C. Yates, J. P. Dunn, S. Brockington, A. Case, E. Cruz, F. D. Witherspoon, M. A. Gilmore, J. T. Cassibry, R. Samulyak, P. Stoltz, K. Schillo, W. Shih, K. Beckwith, and Y. C. F. Thio. Experiment to Form and Characterize a Section of a Spherically Imploding Plasma Liner. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 46(6):1951–1961, June 2018. ISSN 1939-9375. doi: 10.1109/TPS.2017.2779421
  17. S. C. Hsu and Y. C. F. Thio. Physics Criteria for a Subscale Plasma Liner Experiment. J Fusion Energy, 37(2):103–110, June 2018. ISSN 1572-9591.doi: 10.1007/s10894-018-0154-5
  18. S. J. Langendorf, K. C. Yates, S. C. Hsu, C. Thoma, and M. Gilmore. Experimental Measurements of Ion Heating in Collisional Plasma Shocks and Interpenetrating Supersonic Plasma Flows. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(18):185001, Oct. 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.185001
  19. S. J. Langendorf, K. C. Yates, S. C. Hsu, C. Thoma, and M. Gilmore. Experimental study of ion heating in obliquely merging hypersonic plasma jets. Physics of Plasmas, 26(8):082110, Aug. 2019. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.5108727
  20. S. C. Hsu and S. J. Langendorf. Magnetized Plasma Target for Plasma-Jet-Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion. J Fusion Energ, 38(1):182–198, Feb. 2019. ISSN 1572-9591.doi: 10.1007/s10894-018-0168-z
  21. W. Shih, R. Samulyak, S. C. Hsu, S. J. Langendorf, K. C. Yates, and Y. C. F. Thio. Simulation study of the influence of experimental variations on the structure and quality of plasma liners. Physics of Plasmas, 26(3):032704, Mar. 2019. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.5067395
  22. Y. C. F. Thio, S. C. Hsu, F. D. Witherspoon, E. Cruz, A. Case, S. Langendorf, K. Yates, J. Dunn, J. Cassibry, R. Samulyak, P. Stoltz, S. J. Brockington, A. Williams, M. Luna, R. Becker, and A. Cook. Plasma-Jet-Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion. Fusion Sci. Technol., 75(7):581–598, Oct. 2019. ISSN 1536-1055. doi: 10.1080/15361055.2019.1598736
  23. K. C. Yates, S. J. Langendorf, S. C. Hsu, J. P. Dunn, S. Brockington, A. Case, E. Cruz, F. D. Witherspoon, Y. C. F. Thio, J. T. Cassibry, K. Schillo, and M. Gilmore. Experimental characterization of a section of a spherically imploding plasma liner formed by merging hypersonic plasma jets. Physics of Plasmas, 27(6):062706, June 2020. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.5126855
  24. A. L. LaJoie, F. Chu, S. Langendorf, J. Cassibry, A. Vyas, and M. Gilmore. Multi-camera imaging to characterize jet and liner uniformity on the Plasma Liner Experiment (PLX). Review of Scientific Instruments, 94(6):063503, June 2023. ISSN 0034-6748. doi: 10.1063/5.0101674
  25. A. L. LaJoie, F. Chu, A. E. Brown, S. J. Langendorf, J. P. Dunn, G. A. Wurden, F. D. Witherspoon, A. Case, M. Luna, J. Cassibry, A. Vyas, and M. Gilmore. Formation of a spherical plasma liner for plasma-jet-driven magneto-inertial fusion. Physics of Plasmas, 31(10):102701, Oct. 2024. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/5.0204213 2

LA-UR-25-28938