quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And where is that potential energy? The Sun does it by being at the bottom of a sun sized gravity well. Show me a way to create one of those and I'll believe in a fusion power plant that is net producer of power.

The potential energy in an atom is found in the energy binding the nucleus. WTF kind of math did you do if you don't even understand that?

If that potential energy was sufficient to sustain a fusion reaction then suns would not die until they fused every last hydrogen atom. Since that is obviously untrue...

Self-sustaining reactions are not a requirement for conservation of energy, Ken.

Move goal posts much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

Do you really believe you can get more energy out of a system than is put in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

Do you really believe you can get more energy out of a system than is put in?

No, but Einstein showed that you can convert mass to energy.................mathematician [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I'm going to speak a little imprecisely, so you can understand the fundamentals which have been understood for over a hundred years. What Einsteins (and bolzman's and schrodingers and..) equations mean is that matter an energy are convertable, from one to another.

In a normal chemical or physical reaction matter is neither created nor consumed.

In a nuclear reaction matter may be created or destroyed - it is only the sum of all forms of energy that is conserved.
Matter is cconverted into energy (E=mc^2).

So in fission, you have radioactive elements being split into lower weight elements and usable energy given off in the form of neutrinos, heat etc.
In fusion, you have light weight elements being combined and again giving off usable energy in the process.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics says that these things MUST occur, and it says the direction of these reactions; and that the opposite (creating elements higher than Fe for example) will REQUIRE energy.

We get more energy out of fusion reactions more than we put into it all the time. The sun, the stars, and tens of thousands of fusion bombs are examples of fusion.

Wrong! WRONG!
WRONG!!!!!!!
No reaction is 100% efficient. Some energy is always lost. Always. That is the fundamental truth of entropy. It is always true. It's why stars die and why perpetual motion machines are impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

Do you really believe you can get more energy out of a system than is put in?

No, but Einstein showed that you can convert mass to energy.................mathematician [8|]

So? Mass/energy is the same thing at the level we're talking about. Why are you even pretending that there is a difference? Do you or do you not understand entropy? What does the 2nd law say about a closed system? If a fusion power plant is not to be a closed system where is the external source of power?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I'm going to speak a little imprecisely, so you can understand the fundamentals which have been understood for over a hundred years. What Einsteins (and bolzman's and schrodingers and..) equations mean is that matter an energy are convertable, from one to another.

In a normal chemical or physical reaction matter is neither created nor consumed.

In a nuclear reaction matter may be created or destroyed - it is only the sum of all forms of energy that is conserved.
Matter is cconverted into energy (E=mc^2).

So in fission, you have radioactive elements being split into lower weight elements and usable energy given off in the form of neutrinos, heat etc.
In fusion, you have light weight elements being combined and again giving off usable energy in the process.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics says that these things MUST occur, and it says the direction of these reactions; and that the opposite (creating elements higher than Fe for example) will REQUIRE energy.

We get more energy out of fusion reactions more than we put into it all the time. The sun, the stars, and tens of thousands of fusion bombs are examples of fusion.

Wrong! WRONG!
WRONG!!!!!!!
No reaction is 100% efficient. Some energy is always lost. Always. That is the fundamental truth of entropy. It is always true. It's why stars die and why perpetual motion machines are impossible.

No Ken. It is you that is *wrong, wrong, wrong*.

And you're compounding your error.

No reaction is 100% efficient. Thats true - but irrelevant to the question of conservation of energy.

Paraphrasing, the second law says the universe runs down hill. What this means is that it runs from higher energy states to lower energy states.

Suppose you have 100 KJ of energy in the form of gasoline. When you attempt to extract useful work out if it - you will only get well.. approximately 35 KJ of useful work. The rest of the energy is converted into non useful things like sound, heat, chemical by products (CO for example).

The fact that the conversion is "inefficient" has nothing to do with whether it is conserved. It *absolutely* is.
But then, once again, you know better than anyone. Including Einstein.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

Do you really believe you can get more energy out of a system than is put in?

No, but Einstein showed that you can convert mass to energy.................mathematician [8|]

So? Mass/energy is the same thing at the level we're talking about. Why are you even pretending that there is a difference? Do you or do you not understand entropy? What does the 2nd law say about a closed system? If a fusion power plant is not to be a closed system where is the external source of power?

Google really is your friend.

It helps you learn that you are completely wrong, time and time again and then you try to move the goal posts.

As a reminder it was *you* that said that fusion reactors were impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics.

It was you that said that you could get energy out of fusion.

It was you that said that energy isn't conserved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Google really is your friend.

It helps you learn that you are completely wrong, time and time again and then you try to move the goal posts.

As a reminder it was *you* that said that fusion reactors were impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics.

It was you that said that you could get energy out of fusion.

It was you that said that energy isn't conserved.

How many lies did you just tell?
I never said you could not get energy out of fusion and never said that energy is n ot conserved. Go back and read the thread again. Get someone to explain all the words to you.

I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

Well I certainly hope that you intend to advise the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute, and the countless other institutes and laboratories wasting money on this frivolous pursuit. And I think it would be a commendable gesture of international goodwill if you would share your superior knowledge with the signatories to the European Fusion Development Agreement as well.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

Well I certainly hope that you intend to advise the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute, and the countless other institutes and laboratories wasting money on this frivolous pursuit. And I think it would be a commendable gesture of international goodwill if you would share your superior knowledge with the signatories to the European Fusion Development Agreement as well.

K.

The DoE is still funding cold fusion too. I assume even you don't believe that stupid shit works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Google really is your friend.

It helps you learn that you are completely wrong, time and time again and then you try to move the goal posts.

As a reminder it was *you* that said that fusion reactors were impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics.

It was you that said that you could get energy out of fusion.

It was you that said that energy isn't conserved.

How many lies did you just tell?
I never said you could not get energy out of fusion and never said that energy is n ot conserved. Go back and read the thread again. Get someone to explain all the words to you.

I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

Here are some direct quotes, where you actually did say those exact things:

DK post 16: Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics has *nothing* to do with the feasibility of fusion that puts out usable energy.

The sun, and fusion bombs are working models that show indeed that the second law of thermodynamics allows fusion to release energy.

quote:

DK post 20: When we do fusion it always takes more energy than we get out. That is a plain fact.

The plain fact is that fusion takes matter (one form of energy) and coverts it into different matter and releases usuable energy.

quote:

DK post 27: You don't get it do you, how precisely can you get more energy out of a fusion reaction than you put into it?

Energy is conserved (something you disputed post 56). You get useful energy out of fusion by changing matter into useful energy. The fact that it is enormously difficult (and we may never achieve it) says nothing about the laws of the universe preventing it.

Fusion is no more prevented by the laws of the universe than fission is. Its just technically more difficult.

quote:

Dk post 54: If that potential energy was sufficient to sustain a fusion reaction then suns would not die until they fused every last hydrogen atom. Since that is obviously untrue...

There are so many errors here I don't even know where to begin. So go read a book about the life cycle of stars.

Generally speaking starts consume hydrogen and fuse it and then move up the food chain to helium.. etc.
How stars die depends on the starting mass of the sun, and other factors. When nuclear fusion processes are no longer able to contest the force of gravity you get things like novas, quasars, blackholes, etc.

quote:

DK post 56: Some energy is always lost. Always. That is the fundamental truth of entropy.

Energy is *never* lost. Einstein 101. It merely changes from forms useful to us, to forms not possible to derive usefull work from.
Google: heat death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

The power of the sun has edged a little closer to Earth. Under x-ray assault, the rapid implosion of a plastic shell onto icy isotopes of hydrogen has produced fusion and, for the first time, 170 micrograms of this superheated fusion fuel released more energy than it absorbed. Experimental shots of the 192 lasers at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have reproduced such fusion at least four times since September 2013. The advance offers hope that someday in the far future scientists might reliably replicate the power source of the sun and stars.
(enhancement for DomKen added)


Heh! [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

The power of the sun has edged a little closer to Earth. Under x-ray assault, the rapid implosion of a plastic shell onto icy isotopes of hydrogen has produced fusion and, for the first time, 170 micrograms of this superheated fusion fuel released more energy than it absorbed. Experimental shots of the 192 lasers at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have reproduced such fusion at least four times since September 2013. The advance offers hope that someday in the far future scientists might reliably replicate the power source of the sun and stars.
(enhancement for DomKen added)


Heh! [:D]

Notice that this is but one stage of a fusion plant. And now go read the actual paper and look up the actual efficiency of the energy release. Now figure out how to power the lasers that fuse the hydrogen off that output and also power a city. That's the problem and why the press release says "far future." Because it ain't going to happen without some break through we cannot even predict today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Not like you at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

The power of the sun has edged a little closer to Earth. Under x-ray assault, the rapid implosion of a plastic shell onto icy isotopes of hydrogen has produced fusion and, for the first time, 170 micrograms of this superheated fusion fuel released more energy than it absorbed. Experimental shots of the 192 lasers at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have reproduced such fusion at least four times since September 2013. The advance offers hope that someday in the far future scientists might reliably replicate the power source of the sun and stars.
(enhancement for DomKen added)


Heh! [:D]

Notice that this is but one stage of a fusion plant. And now go read the actual paper and look up the actual efficiency of the energy release. Now figure out how to power the lasers that fuse the hydrogen off that output and also power a city. That's the problem and why the press release says "far future." Because it ain't going to happen without some break through we cannot even predict today.

Your own words I do use against you... I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it.

LMFAO [sm=rofl.gif] ... Far future... need breakthrough..... hmmm, doesn't sound like "not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it" so much as damn difficult, which is what has been done four times now. The future may yet be bright someday, but not according to DomKen. Your words. Your words. No one elses. Yours.

Now, go play in your sandbox and leave the adults alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

DomKen, normally we argue the same sides. What happened to your physics? If the Sun works and fusion bombs work, there is no fundamental reason controlled fusion won't either. Human ingenuity and resources to throw at a difficult technical problem are the limits, not fundamental laws.
Would you mind stopping saying a fusion plant Can't produce more energy than it takes to run it and give ONE reason why? (Besides it being "Obvious"?) Getting to sound like a playing card hitting bike spokes, with about as convincing a result. Not like you at all.