It's a fusor - which does (as its name suggests) do fusion - which is why they are used as neutron sources.
Translation: no break-even fusion reaction. If this approach held promise for fusion power research, it would be being explored instead of the millions of dollars in the much more common laser-confinement and tokamak approaches.
Strictly speaking and from a technical standpoint, if it doesn't produce more power than is present for conventional reasons (like electronic current flow), and in spite of its name, it's not a fusion reactor as that term is understood in physics.
It's a nice plasma source, and it produces neutrons -- very useful -- but it's not a fusion power source.
Read my comment above I say "Nowhere near break even though."
Incidentally, there has been a lot of work in inertial electrostatic confinement - it doesn't look terribly promising and no it is not break even but people do appear to be working in this area:
Let's be clear about what we're talking about. A fusion generator by definition produces more power than it requires. Apart from stars and thermonuclear devices, this has not been achieved anywhere. Without clear terminology, we will go in circles.
Also, the NASA project documents specify and require a net power gain in the fusion reaction:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII...
Quote: "an in-depth analysis of the rocket design and spacecraft integration as well as mission architectures enabled by the FDR need to be performed. Fulfilling these three elements form the major tasks to be completed in the proposed Phase II study. A subscale, laboratory liner compression test facility will be assembled with sufficient liner kinetic energy (~ 0.5 MJ) to reach fusion breakeven conditions."
> Nowhere in this thread was there a claim about power generation.
Except in the NASA documents that describe the project under discussion.