Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Chemistry Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Chemistry Forum Chemistry Forum. Discuss chemical reactions, chemistry.


Fusion poisons; why fission has none

Fusion poisons; why fission has none - Chemistry Forum

Fusion poisons; why fission has none - Chemistry Forum. Discuss chemical reactions, chemistry.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-30-2003, 07:26 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fusion poisons; why fission has none





PSmith9626 wrote:


Teller did make some great contributions to fusion physics. But my gripe with
him is that like actors too dumb to know that they have outlived their time on
the stage. They do not have the good sense to retire from physics and are just a
nuisance and lead the physics community astray. I bet the politicians still
follow the words and opinions of Teller as to building tokamaks.

Teller is a huge harm to the world physics community now because he never
marshalled the physics community into finding where the theoretical limit or
barrier to fusion was. Teller assumed all of his life that controlled-fusion was

above 100% breakeven.

That is fine and dandy to be optimistic, but Teller had the responsibility since
he had the ear of Washington, for Teller to proffer the Logic as to why fusion
barrier should be above 100% breakeven. Instead, what Teller did was tell
Washington, spend spend spend more on tokamaks and that by 2005 we will have
electric powered fusion plants.

Teller was a gung-ho optimist who never wanted to start at step 1 where you make
calculations as to whether the Barrier is greater than 100% or whether it is
below 100%.

And where Ulam provided that sort of physical-logical proof for physicists in
the 1940s-1950s. Teller, all alone, is incapable of making the proper physical
truth for the case of fusion and tokamaks and whether there is ever going to be
a fusion electric power facility.

Ulam's opinion and sway in Washington should be discontinued. And the important
thing for the physics community is to establish this Theoretical Groundwork as
to where the Barrier in fusion lies. Is it above 100% breakeven
as Teller fanatically believed for the past 50 years or is it as I believe far
below 100% and precisely at a mere 67% breakeven.

Teller should have won a Nobel Prize for his work in physics, but he should have
also retired out of physics some 30 years ago because he has become more of a
liability and setback to fusion.

Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-30-2003, 07:32 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fusion poisons; why fission has none



Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Obviously that should have read Teller and not Ulam.


I am typing too fast and have made the correction into the original.

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-31-2003, 01:57 PM
PSmith9626
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fusion poisons; why fission has none

Dear A,
Ok.
best
penny



Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-01-2003, 07:45 AM
Archimedes Plutonium
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fusion poisons; why fission has none



PSmith9626 wrote:


One of these days I will get into a full rythm of the seasons and reserve the
winter time as my massive editing of websites.

Back in October of 1997 shortly after I discovered the Fusion Barrier Principle I
kept a FAQ list of the various types of controlled-fusion whith Farnsworth's
device on that list.

Here is a snippet of that list which is found at this website:
[Only registered users see links. ]

--- old post ---
From: [Only registered users see links. ] (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion FAQ 1 : history of fission and fusion
Date: 3 Oct 1997 04:07:01 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 197
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (611r15$ip7$[Only registered users see links. ]>


(huge snip)

(1) IEC Inertial Electrostatic Confinement and other variants
(2) 20% scientific breakeven
(3) 1997
(4) Purportedly Farnsworth began IEC, and now Sandia Lab is at the
forefront with Z and its successor X-1
(5) expectations: Perhaps the geometry of any of these devices will
prevent them from reaching 100% breakeven. In one device the grid stops
too many ions and prevents the IEC from ever achieving breakeven.
I am told this and I quote: Sandia says that construction will
begin in 2000 and should be completed in 2003.

In article (6bh5g1$[Only registered users see links. ].net>
Rick Spielman ([Only registered users see links. ].net> writes:

--- end of snippet of old post of 1997 ---

Penny, -- I don't expect there has been any great development news as to an
increase in fusion breakeven for this type of machine. Back in 1997 it was
20% or less breakeven. And back in 1997 JET was over 50% breakeven

Laser Confinement machines were less than 1% breakeven.

The biggest winner in 1997 was Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion with 67%
breakeven and ITER some years in the future of 1997 would push JET's
record to that of 64% breakeven which is very close to muon breakeven.

There is also much doubt as to whether the reported breakevens of tokamaks is
really truthful and honest as witness from this old post of 1997---

--- more of old 1997 posts ---
(1) Magnetic Confinement Fusion-- Tokamaks
(2) 65% for scientific breakeven and for commercial electricity
breakeven here is the best scientific word on that:
In article (6bm253$[Only registered users see links. ].net>
Rick Spielman ([Only registered users see links. ].net> writes:

It is my guess, and only my guess that if you factor in efficiencies;
neutral beams that JET only achieved less than 20% commercial
electricity breakeven.

(3) 31 Oct1997
(4) JET tokamak in UK
(5) expectations: JET's successor ITER is in debate on whether to be
built or not. It is expected to surpass breakeven. [Only registered users see links. ]
It is projected to be completed 2011, considering it is delayed for 3
years and it will take 10 to build, thus 1998 +3 +10 = 2011.
ITER promises to surpass breakeven, and let us hold them fast to
their promise.
(6) costs: 10 billion US$ overall.
(7) Comments: If ITER is built and it fails to reach breakeven perhaps
then some physicists will take serious the physics behind the
Fusion-Electricity Barrier Law that I propose. But at present, the
fusion tokamaks are seen as glamour and prestige with not much
attention to real serious physics. It is a gigantic money project that
is more political, enriching the purses of the contractors of the
project than it is to real physics and real physicists.
I want ITER built and built as fast as possible. I do not want to
wait until after 2011. Why? Because ITER's failure will cause
physicists to take serious the Barrier Law and then the world community
can start to draw-up more realistic future energy plans and policy.
Realizing that fission is our Optimal Energy Source.

--- end of old post ---


I do not think the Farnsworth machine has made any improvements over its
past record of 20% breakeven.

If the Fusion Barrier Principle FBP is correct then all these forms of fusions
are
really one and the same, and so that it would be a utter total waste of time and
money to pursue a machine that is only 1% on the road to breakeven or to pursue a
machine that is only 20% on the road.

JET reached 64% breakeven and muon fusion reached 67% breakeven and so these two
are really the only worthwhile fusion research. And theoretical physicists should
be flooding the news waves as to the similarities as to what is thwarting muon
fusion from climbing above 67% and what is thwarting tokamak fusion from climbing
higher than 64%. For if FBP is true, then all machines can be expected to clutter
around the 67% breakeven mark and all be seriously thwarted from going higher in
percent.

On a microscopic level, 2 hydrogen nuclei that fuse do not know whether they
fused from a muon experiment or a tokamak experiment or a other type of machine.
So if FBP is correct, then what impedes muon in *stickyness* must have a similar
phenomenon in tokamaks that impedes it from going higher.

Perhaps Farnsworth machines are doing better than the 20% breakeven of 1997
and I should edit my website, but I have the hunch that those machines have made
no improvement.




I wonder if Bethe has ever calculated how much of the outward pressure of the Sun
is due to Fusion, and how much is due to EM Coulomb. We can say that
nearly 100% of the inward pressure is due all to gravity. But how much of the
outward pressure is due to fusion compared to EM repulsion.

Perhaps the worst logical flaw in thinking of most every physicist and astronomer
is that they think a star has reached fusion breakeven, when in fact, here on
Earth we have reached a greater level of fusion in JET and other machines. Only
in a fusion bomb does Nature reach and surpass 100%
breakeven but it is no longer a *controlled machine*.

So when people who do not know much about fusion or physics or both, and point to
the Sun and say "there is a machine that is controlled and surpasses breakeven".
It is true the Sun is controlled because it is stable and controlled by the force
of gravity. But as for the notion that the Sun is 100% or above breakeven, well
that is a falsehood.

Has Bethe ever made such a calculation as to the percent of outward pressure is
due to Fusion compared to EM repulsion by the Sun? I would say that for the Sun
the fusion component of outward pressure is 20%-30% and that the EM
repulsion is the bulk of the outward pressure at about 70%-80%.

Bethe is probably too old to begin such a calculation. And it is probably more
important that Teller does the calculation because then he would begin to
appreciate the idea that fusion maybe forever unharnessable. Teller is too old
also. Actually, come to think of it, that would be a great challenge is to see
which if any of these 2 men is capable of computing the percent of fusion outward

pressure of the Sun.

Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-01-2003, 07:31 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default tau an improvement over muon fusion & FBP Re: Fusion

01 Sep 2003 10:26:48 GMT PSmith9626 wrote:


Excellent suggestion for a tau experiment can offer itself as the "Deciding
Experiment to prove the Fusion-Barrier-Principle FBP"

If FBP is true means that muon catalyzed fusion is the highest form of fusion
and that tau catalyzed fusion is not as good.

In the community of fusion energy harnessing there are two camps. One camp has
virtually everyone and call it the "Teller camp" and the other camp is a few
individuals who believe that fusion can never be harnessed and call it the "AP
camp". If the Teller-camp is correct then fusion will one day be harnessed and
electricity obtained by fusion society. That 100% breakeven will be reached and
then 105% breakeven reached and then even greater amount of breakeven reached by
the Teller-camp. But also, for the Teller-camp that muon fusion will reach 105%
breakeven and that tau fusion will reach 105% breakeven and that Inertial
Confinement fusion will reach 105% breakeven. Etc. etc.

To the Teller-camp there are no barriers in Nature but rather instead just
difficult engineering to solve. To the AP camp there exists a barrier in Nature
that is far below 100% breakeven which means that a future society based on
fusion energy and fusion produced electricity will never exist.

To the Teller-Camp, running experiments with tau catalyzed fusion should produce
fusion events that exceed muon catalyzed fusion.

But if FBP is correct, then one particle that exists should be the particle that
is closest or most nearby to FBP and that any other particle is less in fusion
catalysis ability.

On the microscopic scale of protons fusing, those protons do not know why they
have fused whether inside a star or inside a H-bomb explosion or inside JET or
in a muon-experiment. Fusion at a certain scale is all the same, irregardless of
the events or machinery used to create the fusion event. Such that if FBP is
true then all Controlled-Fusion-Devices will hit up against a barrier of
67%-breakeven. And on this microscopic scale, the Teller-camp has two
possibilities, one is that
the barrier is far above 100% breakeven and the other possibility is that no
barrier exists and infinity of greater breakevens.

If FBP is wrong then tau-catalyzed fusion should be an improvement over muon
catalyzed fusion. But it is not as far as I know for I vaguely remember that
someone has performed tau related fusion experiments.

If FBP is correct then one particle should be the very best particle to create
fusion and all other particles lessor. One particle will cluster fusion events
that no other particle can top. If the Teller-camp was correct then the tau
particle should be an improvement over the muon because the Teller-camp has the
two possibilities of an infinity of particles that can top the last champion
particle or that the greater than 100% breakeven is more easily reached by a tau
particle above a muon particle.

And it is sad to note that even those avid optimists of fusion physics such as
Ed Teller have never outlined experiments or proposed theoretical physics to
indicate where this greater than 100% breakeven lies if it is above 100%, or in
the other case of infinite greater than 100%.

Tau experiment in fusion is far more important to physics than is building
another JET or building ITER. We should now begin building fusion devices and
machines and experiments that **test** for whether a Barrier to fusion exists
and where that barrier lies. Is the Barrier *** below 100% breakeven or is it
greater than 100% breakeven** We spent enough time and money on bigger tokamak
machines. We now need to spend time and money on the theory of fusion and where
this Barrier lies.

Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fission , fusion , poisons


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fusion poisons; why fission has none PSmith9626 Chemistry Forum 2 09-04-2003 12:34 PM
Fusion poisons; why fission has none Archimedes Plutonium Chemistry Forum 13 09-01-2003 04:08 PM
Fusion poisons; why fission has none PSmith9626 Chemistry Forum 0 08-30-2003 11:02 AM
Fusion poisons; why fission has none Lord Xenu Chemistry Forum 0 08-18-2003 07:00 PM
Fusion poisons; why fission has none Lord Xenu Chemistry Forum 1 08-18-2003 03:13 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.17365 seconds with 16 queries