Comments on: Are we close to making fusion power practical?

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:59:49 +0000

huxley Says:
March 13th, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Philo T. Farnsworth, essentially the inventor of television as we know it, is a forgotten American hero.
* * *
Mr. Farnsworth figures prominently in the wonderfully funny film “Radioland Murders.”
It’s a blast.

By: om

om — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 01:51:59 +0000

“…brain the size of a planet….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh-W8QDVA9s

By: Ymar Sakar

Ymar Sakar — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 01:18:02 +0000

The problem with humans in the end is that even if they aren’t fanatical Christians or Muslims, they will still create a religion, call it science, and use emotion as the primary source of their faith.

No wonder your Western civilization is imploding. What else is it going to go at this rate.

By: Ymar Sakar

Ymar Sakar — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 01:09:53 +0000

That a ‘hydrogen bomb’ takes an ‘atomic bomb’ to create the pressure to create fusion should give you a clue as to why it’s an engineering problem to create a controllable fusion reaction. It shouldn’t lead you to “is the problem of astrophysicists and their lack of knowledge of what is going on inside a star” because it was really easy to make an uncontrollable fusion reaction over 60 years ago. When we knew less about what was going on inside a star. But which star…

To borrow Jordan Peterson’s method of rotating complex concepts down to a more consumer friendly level:

The decay of uranium and plutnium in chain reactions and start ups, does not mean this mechanism applies to H20 and atoms at the top of the periodic table. Perhaps before the Quantum Standard Model came out, classical atomic chemistry made a consistent sense. That doesn’t mean people get to say out of ignorance that because they lack the evidence, they know that the fusion and fission behavior of high atomic number elements mirror those of the lower elements.

When humans want to mimic the fusion reaction they claim is going on inside a star when they have no evidence of any such thing, that’s the real problem: human arrogance.

For example, one might think that liquid H20 would function much like every other matter in liquid state, except it doesn’t. Thus we have unique and contradictory behavior for Hydrogen and Oxygen, that is not consistent with the liquid states of other matter. This is precisely the kind of experimental data that is important to the scientific methodology.

The Ariel methodology you have presented to me is to make one experiment, take the data and assume it applies to every data set case in every other scenario. I don’t do it like that, because not only is it wrong, it’s also crippling to the pursuit of truth.

As for Netflix, why is it when people think they know what’s going on in this world they start their proof out with human entertainment like movies and assume it has something to do with what I’m coming from. I have never used Netflix or movies as a source, but apparently everyone assumes that I am using the X Files for something because they did it first.

By: huxley

huxley — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 01:08:45 +0000

Philo T. Farnsworth, essentially the inventor of television as we know it, is a forgotten American hero.

However, I had forgotten Matt Groening and the Futurama crew named the semi-mad scientist of the Futurama TV show “Farnsworth” as an homage to Philo T.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Farnsworth

Futurama is loads of fun if you’re inclined to that sort of humor. I like it better than “The Simpsons.”

By: Ymar Sakar

Ymar Sakar — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:57:01 +0000

om Says:
March 13th, 2018 at 10:54 am

Om used to say that he would ignore me by scrolling past me. I dared him to actually put his words into action, which he failed to do on numerous occasions. Humans going back on their word and using it as a prostitution whore game is pretty normal in this world.

As for me, when I say things I actually mean them and my track record is substantially more accurate than those who think sarcasm equates to their superiority.

Green, blue, yellow? Blue giant, red giant, red dwarf, yellow dwarf, white dwarf, yellow main sequence, which star? How about you read even the starting point that is Wiki by “Stellar nucleosynthesis”?

Human arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Given the number of times that astronomers and astrophysicists have had to back peddle over the standard cosmological theories of their pet days, the people beneath them copying these theories actually act like they are some kind of priesthood authority that is never wrong.

Well let me be the first one to inform you Ariel. Your cosmology is wrong and has always been wrong. It is not accurate and there isn’t even the evidence to make it a viable theory. But that would require significant amounts of scholarship which I doubt people tend to use.

By: Ymar Sakar

Ymar Sakar — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:50:56 +0000

Cold fusion was stopped because it doesn’t work.
That’s based on the presupposition and assumption that fusion itself works. Which it doesn’t. Both cold fusion and fusion, as alchemical lines sought by Newton and other classical scientists, for the production and transmutation of material elements, is equally non viable.

It just so happens that people here are talking about Cold Fusion, but there are at least two different lines of research into it. One is using Scalar tech, and the other is using standard cosmological consideration of fusion-gravity systems: nuclear upgrade essentially.

I speak of the Scalar line, not the standard cosmology.

People may comprehend it more readily as Superstring, dark matter, or zero point quantum energy.

By: Gary D. G.

Gary D. G. — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:18:13 +0000

we had fusion in my grandfather’s time.
a lot of nuclear (family) bodies huddled together in the middle of winter to keep warm.
unfortunately this resulted in no diminution of emitted carbon dioxide or other more/less noxious gases

By: huxley

huxley — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:09:03 +0000

I followed the cold fusion story in the 90s and 00s. Cold fusion was not a fraud but something of a premature announcement. Fleischmann and Pons were electrochemists, not physicists. They had some kind of effect they didn’t understand and weren’t able to describe with sufficient accuracy that others could replicate reliably.

But that didn’t mean it was fraud or without scientific interest. Checking the web today I see that is where F&P cold fusion has landed.

Wiki:
Fleischmann and Pons misunderstood their own experiment but did not engage in sham science as they were accused of. Ultimately, although their experiment did not show what Fleischmann and Pons thought it did, it prompted new exciting venues of research that may highly expand applications of theoretical particle physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann—Pons_experiment#Revival_and_LENR

“It’s Not Cold Fusion… But It’s Something”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/

By: Surellin

Surellin — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:45 +0000

I believe they are still working on the Polywell reactor, and achieved breakeven on a very limited tabletop scale. They were on a Dept. of the Navy contract, on something else now. I wish them well.