The Myth Of Fusion Energy

As you might have noticed, it seems idle to begine a talk about nuclear fusion energy by wondering if indeed there is such an energy in the first place! Apparently, it is a done deal! When you close examine though, you don't find an unambiguous demonstration of such an energy. Physicist gloss through experiments like numbskulls and then spend 99% of the time with stories and theories! Much of the story is of the 'so and so said it' or 'so and so did it' with very little detailed explanation of what they did!

One of the biggest problems with human beings is that when some claim is repeated over and over, especially with some confidence that it is true, people begine to believe that it must be true, and when more and more people believe in it, it begins to look unreasonable to doubt it! This is even if no one can demonstrate its truthfulness. This is how religions and all beliefs gets entrenched in society. But it is the same even in the so called 'science', and is even worse, sometimes!

UNAMBIGUOUS DEMONSTRATION

Lets begine by close examining carefully what I mean by 'unambiguous demonstration'. Human beings long ago begun to ignite dry woods in what we call fire, way before they found at least many of its myriads of applications. There are many glaring facts that are worth considering. One of them is that the caveman never needed any equation, calorimeter, subatomic theories etc to simply tell that there is some heat comming out of the wood that is bigger than its input! Granted, the detailed atom by atom explanation of what is going on during combustion is advanced science that requires an expert to explain. But simply noting that there is fire out of the wood and igniting the wood doesn't!

So the first crucial point to understand is that unambiguous demonstration that something is simply there or not (a 'yes' or 'no'), does not require equations, sophisticated instruments or any expert. In science, 'Experts' are almost always there to argue for ambiguities! If there is fusion energy scientists, or even leymen should be able to tinker around with hydrogen and create some sporadic eruptions here and there that clearly shows some energy comming out but which is merely challenging to tame and control it, just like lightning and thunder. Then sophisticated and expensive measuring instruments are no necessary. Only naked eyes should service, especially given how huge the energy is supposed to be.

FUSION IS SUSPICIOUSLY UNIQUE

In all the other sources of energy discovered by humans, from burning wood to burning hydrogen, humans begun by small scale production and then begun scaling them up. You can burn a whole forest, yes, but you can also burn a single grass, and often you begine small and then expand. Next, it was always easier to create a 'controlled' reaction than to create a runaway reaction we term it as a 'bomb'. At no point were humans able to create a bomb before they can create a more controled extraction of the energy. The reason is simple logic: it cannot be easier to create a rapid chain reaction than to create a slower one! It cannot be easier to run than to walk! So how could it possibly take just 5 years to create an hydrogen bomb but take more than 80 years to extract the supposed energy in a slower way?

A bomb makes a poor 'lab' for a scientist to study a supposed energy source. It is especially so for such an insane bomb as atomic explosion. One has to drop it and then run at the top speed and make sure that the monster can only explode once the poor scientist is tens of kilometres away! Nothing like a lab at all, that you can swear that you made a careful observation and confirmation of what physics went on it those pico-seconds! Specifically, perharps no fusion energy came out at all! Perhaps the fusion merely made the neutrons abundant, vastly increasing the mass of the uranium that underwent the fissioning.

'DISCOVERING' BY REASONING FROM THEORIES

As a matter of fact a scientist can walk away with blatant lies. A scientist is more like a lawyer. To win a case, you don't have to be the right one. You can exploit the loopholes in the laws and constitution to help yourself get away with a whopper. It is the same in science. Too often than not, all you have to do is to convince your peers. So one should be able to see that a mere 'thinking like your peers' can lead to erroneous ideas being totally accepted as facts. Not so with engineering! In the latter, it doesn't matter how many experts think that a device 'must work' if it cannot work, it will never be an 'engineering fact'! Engineering does not require 'peer review'!

A fusion half a$$ed 'scientist' donnot even see any need to begine by referring to an experiment that ever produced some energy out from fusion. He references a 'scientific theory' rather than some 'small scale engineering demonstration'. You might hear of someone measuring the masses of helium atoms vs those of hydrogen atom. The apparent reduction of mass, so it is said, must translate into a huge energy. Or you hear of theories of how the sun works etc. So these more of fit as 'science'. But the fusion research is funded as though an engineering project!! Engineers begin with a crude, but working, often small scale model, and then they perfect it and scale it up. An engineer wants to see some net energy, be it small, comming out. That is where 'engineering experiment' begines. He doesn't care about some ad oc explanation of where the supposedly huge energy went in the scheme of things! If there is no net energy, then for the purposes of engineering, there is no evidence of existence of such energy, go back to your labs! Neither does he care whether it comes from 'mass', 'a$$' or whatever!

But nevertheless lets zero in on science, not engineering. Newton told us that rate of change in momentum of an object is proportional to the forcevm applied. This is peddled around as a science fact, not as a mere convention. He wasn't trying to DEFINE what mass is. Presumably, if we don't know what 'mass' is, the Newt's law will be absolutely meaningless, at least as a scientific statement. 'Mass' could not be something, unknown to Newt himself, that awaited an Einstein to clarify it all while they were supposed to have tested the Newt's law experimentaly. What would they have tested?

In our case, we should ask a crucial question: what is the meaning of 'mass' for the purposes of testing Newts law as applied to helium atom? This is the crucial question that the scientists who were trying to weigh helium and hydrogen foolishly failed to ask themselves! If you measure the mass of helium by accelerating it in a mass spectrometer and then calculating it using Newton's second law, how will I falsify Newton's law if I say it doesn't apply in subatomic world? There is no way I can do this because the 'mass' has been so defined that Newt's law is always correct! This is not science. This is foolishness!! Such a definition of 'mass' is a physically meaningless concept. With that, no one should care if it is the same thing as 'energy'!

Nevertheless it is possible that inertia, not mass, is converted into energy. All they measure with the mass spectrometry is inertia. So by lack, they might have get something, only that understanding of what it is they are converting changes. But then there is yet another even more important factor: the charge. In mass spectrometry, they accelerate charged particles inside magnetic fields. So there are actually 3 known factors that influences how the charged particle accelerates. There is the massnc, the charge and the field. It is totally unacceptable to pick a convinient factor we want: mass and ignore the other factors! For instance in the equation usued sed to calculate the mass, we always have the ratio m/q, where m is 'mass' and q is 'charge'. So if 'm' seems to reduce, it might actually be the case that q is the one that has increased rather! Since q is not associated with energy, (e=mc^2), there might be no energy associated with fusion even if there is a 'mass defect'!

But if you think carefully, you find that it is reasonable to suppose that q alters from atom. First we know from experience that charge of an object easily reduces or increases. So the theory of 'charge alteration' will be just an extension of something to sabatomic world, that we already know it happens in the macroscopic world! So this latter theory should be more plausible! Second, we also know that charge can get 'screened' by what is called 'vacuum polarization'. In otherwords, it is very easy to conceive a case where the charge is failing to manifest its true value. The coulomb's force that we measure to infere the charge can be simply screened. In the case of helium atom, even the neutrons surrounding the protons might screen its charge or something similar.

Also, it may be true that yes, the 'mass' of helium atom has reduced. But this mass was never converted into energy. Rather, it might have been converted into the escaping neutron or some other unknown particle. So the 'mass' is not converted to energy. It is converted to another mass, hence 'useless' in this context! An analogy is given in the case of burning wood. If you weigh the ashes and the wood, you will find that there is a significant decrease in mass. But it is, of course, stupid to use the e=mc^2 equation and then suggest that burnig wood releases a huge amount of energy by converting the 'mass' into energy! The mass loss was due to the escaping smock, which does not necessarily get converted to energy.

WHAT DOES IT GOT TO DO WITH PLASMA INSTABILITY?

The factors that are thought determine the ignition of fusion energy are many, and they are combined into one equation. So we have a salad that closely look like the equation we saw that they used it to calculate the supposed 'mass' of helium etc. So the same same dubious reasoning will, of course apply.In an equation which contain charge and mass, they pick the one they like and then blame it on the entire behaviour of the particle. Similarly they use the Newt's equation: f=ma to calculate the mass of of particles. Since Newt 'must be correct'(baseless in the case), then the mass must be given by f/a. You must swallow this even if there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe there was an extra mass added or removed from the system. Since Newt 'cannot be wrong', we must simply swallow the assertion that 'magic must be happening' and 'rabbit is comming from nowhere'! All this absurdity is what we must swallow instead of simply questioning the absolute correctness of f=ma, even when we have a clear explanation of what might be causing the extra inertia, eg a magnetic field!

Such is the prototype of how physicists reason! If they are already messing with the simple f=ma, then when we have an hodge podge of up to 5 variables in an equation, they get hopelessly confused! Come the critera for ignition of fusion. We have plasma density, temperature, confignment time, magnetic field, bla bla bla. Since fusion energy 'must happen', then it only means that either the temperature was not enough, or the 'confinement time' was 'too short', hence the plasma was simply unstable! Thus the same circular reasoning they use to deduce the 'mass' of atoms is used to deduce that 'the plasma is not stable enough'. It is never that they observe such 'instability'. They calculate it by assuming that there must be lots of fusion energy!

You have probably heard them say that 'we have learnt a lot about plasma since we started the fusion research'. Good! They try to convince you that they can had failed to master the macroscopic properties of plasma when they had already supposedly mastered the subatomic world! How can you possibly 'know everything' about things that no eye can see yet you are yet to master things that are there before our eyes? They must be lieing! In 80 years, why have they not learnt anything about nuclear physics through the fusion research? Simple, unlike plasma physics, such fields like nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, big bangs etc comes with a great prestige from the point if view of public! It is humiliating to say you don't know much about an atom because you will then not be seen to be on the same par with the likes of Feynman, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg etc! So they opt to blame their failure of 80 years of futile research all on 'ignorance of plasma physics'. In reality, the problem is due to ignorance of nuclear physics!

 

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!

Join Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community

Comments

  • So if neutrons were to fuse, you now understand, they should release the supposed huge fusion energy. Furthermore, neutrons donnot experience any elecyrostatic repulsion. Ergo this fusion should occur even in cold! But now let us close examine the explanation they offer as to why they don't fuse, so we may check if it 'conduct electricity'.

    They say that two neutrons cannot occupy the same quantum state, due to Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP). But since PEP does not realy talk about distances between particles, they had to find a more 'clever' way of saying 'PEP does not allow two neutrons to come close enough'. So they talk of 'distance between two orbitals'.

    Now orbitals actually comes from 'orbit'. So it is a quantum version of trying to explain 'why the moon don't fall to earth' by saying 'it forms the orbit around the earth'. But since neutrons are electrically neutral, they don't orbit each other, so they don't form 'orbitals'.

    More accurately, we don't use anything lile the Schrodinger Equation for hydrogen atom when dealing with neutron. Specifically the 'potential energy' term in the Schrodinger Equation will not have a term that varies with distance from the nuclear. Instead, we will only consider the energy due to nuclear force.

    Even so, in no way can we directly relate 'distance between orbitals' with 'distance beteen particles'. Each of the orbital spread throughput all space, throughout the universe! In everywhere there is the 'orbital' there exist a probability of finding a particle there! So two different orbitals does not mean 'two different spatial compartments'. In everywhere a particle can be in orbital A, it can also be there, if it were in orbital B albeit with different probability. Therefore being at two different orbitals in no way means 'being at two different places'. Therefore the argument offered for why two neutrons don't fuse by saying 'they can't come close enough' because 'they must be in two different orbitals' is unsound for the two reasons!

    1.) The wave of neutron, unlike that of electrons near nuclear, are not 'orbitals' but more or less 'linear waves' like those of water waves.
    2.) 'Different orbitals' does not translate to 'different locations'.
  • Why don't neutrons fuse? To truely appreciate the relevance of this question, you must understand where this fusion energy is supposed to come from. To do that, begine by throwing the e=mc^2 nonsense to toilet!

    By what rational process do 'mass' get converted to energy? How does two nuclear atoms comming together facilitate this process? Please ask a theoretical physicist to stick his text book up his butt and explain with a luxury of detail. Tell him to show you a movie wherein fusing two atoms is actually a factory that digest 'mass' and spits out 'energy' as its final product! You realize that there is non! Beginning with a force between two nuclears implies that we are beginning with a potential energy already. Energy is already there. We will not 'convert' anything!

    Because of this energy (called 'binding energy), the physicist is forced into a round about!

    1.)The energy is caused by mass
    2.)the mass is caused by the bindind energy

    So? The energy is caused by energy! Full stop. We don't need this redundant 'mass' at all!

    So having cleard the confusion, you can now understand that anything that experiences the nuclear force should yield the energy. The fusion is actually a 'banging' together between two atoms via an enormous, nuclear force. This means that alot of vibration must follow and alot of electromagnetic radiation must also follow. There is no difference between this energy and that of usual energy, eg emision of light when an electron is drawn nearer to the nuclear.

    So e=mc^2 is a redundancy and even false because this equation does not really say that mass is CONVERTIBLE to energy. It says energy IS EQUIVALENT TO mass. This means even after the supposed 'convertion', there will still be the 'mass'! Furthermore, any conversion of energy, including usual chemical reactions, must obey the e=mc^2. If you eay the usual petrol fuel before and after burning, there will be a mass equivalent of the energy that went away. So this equation does not, in anyway, tells us how to obtain energy of any sort!
  • Following this, I did some few research here and there. Begine by close exermining the piston below. The engine actually works via a series of small explosions. The question I asked was this: lets say I want to power these small explosions rather by detonating a series of miniature hydrogen bombs. Then how small is a bomb neaded to power such a small explosion? The answer is ridiculous, but it is possible! To calculate it, use the following info:

    1.) The energy supposed to be produced by fusing 4 atoms of hydrogen is 3.84x20^(-12) J
    2.)In one gram of hydrogen, there are 6.02x10^23 atoms of hydrogen.
    3.)the formula for work done by piston is fxd, where f=force and d=distance moved by the piston.

    You will find that the energy yielded by detonating 1 gram of hydrogen will be 2.3x10^12J. Lets say you want to use this energy to lift a weight of 100 tones. How far will you lift it. You will find that you will lift it to the height of 570 km!! This is well higher than international space station!!

    This is unreasonable

    So the containers needed to pack the h-bombs needed to power a small engine will have to be microscopic.

    This simple calculation shows that these scientists zeroing in on behemoth tokamaks are incompetent, even if this energy actually exists. They should be zeroing on on research on miniaturized containers since such microscopic containers would be cheap and so no worries of them getting melted alongside the explosions.

    https://64.media.tumblr.com/aedd4b040ab6a1468df51a98cd8a9ea9/tumblr...
    https://64.media.tumblr.com/aedd4b040ab6a1468df51a98cd8a9ea9/tumblr_n98c0p2ekx1tvgexko1_400.gifv
  • Or let me put it this way: since just a gallon of hydrogen is supposed to be enough to power the whole country, then it is cheaper to to somehow blow the hell up together with the container than to build several elephants big tokamak all for the purposes of creating a miraculous 'container' which can withstand the temperature.

    We can break up the 'gallon' into 'bullets' like this, noting that for the miniature h-bombs, they might be each as small as a speck of dust! As you can see, the machine gun doesn't need any 'controlled reaction' to rotate. It only needs 'small explosions'. Then blowing the gun powder together with the container is a complete non issue because such containers are cheap.

    Having created a machine gun type rotation, you can now use it to drive a dynamo or something like that. Granted, such a 'machine gun-type' reactor will not look very 'sexy', but at least there will be something to show for the money!!

    https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/018/870/840/orig...
  • Physicists tells you that for 80 years, they have been stuck solely in the acrobatics of trying to balance insanely hot plasma in the mid air. So the nature checkmated them merely on the container to use! So if we were to show them that there is no need for such a miraculous container, they will no longer have any excuse.

    Begine with the work of this guy called Thiago David Olson. It is said that he managed to create fusion at home just on the desktop. In other words a behemoth tokamak is not necessary to create fusion. At first, this doesn't look impressive at all. But when you think carefully, you find that there is something fishy! First consider the fact that they insinuate that it is easier to create an h-bomb than to create a controlled fusion reactor! Infact all it takes to create a self sustaining fusion reaction, so they say, is the right temperature, the right pressure and the right confinement time. The 'confinement time' is problematic for the acrobatic hanging plasma such as in tokamak.

    All this means that to create an H bomb, all what Thiago needs to do is preasurize his container and then create the sparks! Do you believe that this can happen? Logically, nothing should stop the heat he initiated from the spark of fusion trigering even more fusion nearby and so fort, creating a chain reaction that quickly blows up the whole thing (and of course the whole city!) Such is how they say the sun works, and this is how the usual ignition works. Create a spark in some petrol and it triggers exothermic reaction which ignites the adjacent petrol and so forth.

    But then this should ring bells. Noting that fusion energy in a teaspoon is supposed to have the same energy as tones of petrol, then we should easily take advantage of this to create a milimeter big miniature 'hydrogen bombs' triggerd by electric sparks rather than fission reactions. In summary this 'controled reactions' is realy not necesary a car engine does not release energy in a 'controlled' manner. It more or less create a series of small 'bombs' in a rapid manner.
This reply was deleted.

Copyright Policy: Always Include 30-50% of the source material and a link to the original article. You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. If you believe that someone's work has been copied and posted on Ashtar Command in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please Contact Us and include the links to these pages and relevant info. 

Latest Activity

RichRaelian liked AlternateEarth's discussion 37 Underground Cities
9 hours ago
Justin89636 left a comment on Comment Wall
9 hours ago
Justin89636 left a comment on Comment Wall
9 hours ago
Drekx Omega left a comment on Comment Wall
"✌🏻✡️Palestinian propagandists in Gaza, EXPOSED.......🤫Of course, as everyone here knows, I'm backing Israel in this conflict, but truly, those who back Hamas and the Gazan propagandists, must have ideologically illogical blinkers, pressed over their…"
12 hours ago
rev.joshua skirvin posted a blog post
The Khazarian mafia is planning a holocaust or mass murder event for the US Christian heartland on April 8th. The entire April 8th solar eclipse event has been forensically traced to the (kill 90% of humanity and enslave the rest) Chabad death…
12 hours ago
Justin89636 replied to Justin89636's discussion Anything health related
"Good video that Drekx posted on the comment wall so bringing it over to the health page. This gets into the dangers of Seed Oils. https://youtu.be/hTYTC62RCqM?si=q3WpPChIQlUnhHEW"
15 hours ago
Justin89636 left a comment on Comment Wall
"Thanks friend much appreciated :)"
15 hours ago
Drekx Omega left a comment on Comment Wall
"Always feel free to add any vids of mine, to your discussion...Cheers, Drekx"
15 hours ago
More…