RE: A few thoughts on climate change.

RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 3:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No closed system can come out ahead. You're using the same argument that creationist/intelligent designists use. [8\|] Did you just deny reality? Do you or do you not understand the 2nd law? Can there be perpetual motion? No but you seem to be denying reality. We are here as a product of evolution. We are here as a product of the formation of life from abiosis. YOU are the one who is denying reality WE are here. STARS shine because of fusion. HYDROGEN bombs WORK.

Tkman117 -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 4:02:22 PM)
I feel like this whole back and forth argument is due to a misunderstanding on both sides and should just stop. You all seem to understand the science behind fusion, you're just looking at it with slightly different perspectives and saying the other person doesn't know what they're talking about....

epiphiny43 -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 4:18:08 PM)
DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! We are working to make the fusion fields in power plants efficient enough to be self-sustaining and productive of economic power in useful quantities. We already have momentary and small quantity fusion happening. Just as the original IC engines barely kept a flywheel running, they weren't 'impossibility demonstrators', they were early and immature Otto cycle engines, which soon became sophisticated enough to take over all small vehicle transportation on the planet. Other schemes are now competing. ALL face entropy losses, which is all the 2nd Law states, you always have less than 100% useful output. Which is another way of stating entropy. High initial ignition forces say nothing about the energy balances of any reaction. Sorry, as much as I see blindness in Phydeaux's non-expert blurts on climate (Can't go a thermodynamic balance, if it involves a whole biosystem? Hoping I'm thinking of the right poster!!) his and MercTech's material and energy physics sure parallel all the texts and studies I've been exposed to in 3 generations of curiosity about how things happen. Again, entropy doesn't prohibit any energy scheme except perpetual motion (A basic falsity, as even a 100% efficient system can't supply extra energy for output indefinitely! Newton's Laws of Motion and the 3 Thermodynamic Laws don't prohibit infinite moving systems, they do require total isolation, which seems to be impossible.). Entropy does describe how any energy extraction scheme is Temporary as we use locally uneven energy levels to extract useful work. When the energy is leveled beyond our scheme's ability to be productive, we move on to a new locality or new scheme. Entropy just says energy always tends to level out overall of time and available space, nothing about initial energy requirements or efficiencies. Water runs down gravity gradients, heat flows to the cooler atoms, Star's use up all the H available and can be too cool to continue the higher element fusion requirements, high pressure gas areas expand to evenly occupy available space, complex chemical organizations eventually move to lower energy states. 'Heat death of the Universe' is it's larger implication, unless the Universe is Closed and will return to a singularity, still an open question. Fusion isn't a supply limited energy source given there is a LOT of deuterium in our Oceans. We can't afford to extract it economically presently. This is changing. Given the geometric energy growth curves of the appetites of technical cultures, even extracting energy from the rotation of the Earth has definite limits and dangers. We eventually slow down the day length of the planet. Which politician is going to say STOP, we have to respect the environment and live poorer or we wreck the planet? It's a job description to Not be able to make those choices to be a politician? Who gain personally by appearing to make everyone happy?

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 7:02:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! There is a difference. How much energy does it take to get 6 deuterium atoms into a plasma state? What is the minimum amount of energy it takes to maintain a strong enough magnetic field to keep the dangerous particles contained while the fusion goes on? How much energy does a single proton - proton chain reaction release as heat that can be usefully absorbed and converted into electricity? The first 2 are more than the last 1. If you look into it that's why the guys still working on it are trying schemes trying to work around one part or another of that scheme.

epiphiny43 -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 8:10:40 PM)
Your error is simple, you think 1 and 2 are fixed overhead of total losses. Most of the input for 1 and 2 are recovered as heat in the output plasma, or that's the realistic goal of a functional system. Just as the compression stroke 'costs' of an Otto cycle engine is mostly recovered in the power stroke. Do you Really think people who get Nobel Prizes in Math and Physics can't do the basic arithmetic for the process?

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 8:39:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Your error is simple, you think 1 and 2 are fixed overhead of total losses. Most of the input for 1 and 2 are recovered as heat in the output plasma, or that's the realistic goal of a functional system. Just as the compression stroke 'costs' of an Otto cycle engine is mostly recovered in the power stroke. Do you Really think people who get Nobel Prizes in Math and Physics can't do the basic arithmetic for the process? I know that in order for the process to be useful all the inputs have to be exceeded by the output and they aren't. And the fact is research scientists will keep trying at stuff as long as they can get grants.

RottenJohnny -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/18/2014 10:32:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I know that in order for the process to be useful all the inputs have to be exceeded by the output and they aren't. No. In order for the process to be useful it only has to be more efficient, more sustainable, and less polluting than other forms of power generation.

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 9:19:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! There is a difference. How much energy does it take to get 6 deuterium atoms into a plasma state? What is the minimum amount of energy it takes to maintain a strong enough magnetic field to keep the dangerous particles contained while the fusion goes on? How much energy does a single proton - proton chain reaction release as heat that can be usefully absorbed and converted into electricity? The first 2 are more than the last 1. If you look into it that's why the guys still working on it are trying schemes trying to work around one part or another of that scheme. Theoretically On paper, the fusion reaction generates enough power to be selfsustaining. Which means that GIVEN the right technology, even with the energy costs of magnetic containment, and generating deuterium in a plasma state it generates power. However the technology to have a magnetic containment, to have a deuterium feed into a magnetic bottle, the ability to harness power from it without breaching the bottle - are all extremely challenging. Right now, the biggest problem is the extremely low efficiency of the lasers being used to generate the plasma state - they are roughly 1% efficient. But the expectation is that they will be able to increase the efficiency 30 fold over the next 2-3 years by switching to new types of lasers.

Musicmystery -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 9:22:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen the fact is research scientists will keep trying at stuff as long as they can get grants. Yeah, they tend to research stuff we don't know yet. That's why it's called research.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 1:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! There is a difference. How much energy does it take to get 6 deuterium atoms into a plasma state? What is the minimum amount of energy it takes to maintain a strong enough magnetic field to keep the dangerous particles contained while the fusion goes on? How much energy does a single proton - proton chain reaction release as heat that can be usefully absorbed and converted into electricity? The first 2 are more than the last 1. If you look into it that's why the guys still working on it are trying schemes trying to work around one part or another of that scheme. Theoretically On paper, the fusion reaction generates enough power to be selfsustaining. Which means that GIVEN the right technology, even with the energy costs of magnetic containment, and generating deuterium in a plasma state it generates power. Yes, the proton - proton chain is a chain reaction. That does not mean it produces enough excess energy to actually start and maintain both the reaction and a magnetic bubble. It isn't even enough to maintain the reaction if the surrounding hydrogen wasn't already ionized (no idea how that would occur but that is the fact) a couple of high energy neutrons striking ionized deuterium will start the reaction but in stable atoms? No way. So to keep the reaction going the hydrogen has to be kept in a plasma state which takes some sort of energy which has to come from some where.

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 3:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! There is a difference. How much energy does it take to get 6 deuterium atoms into a plasma state? What is the minimum amount of energy it takes to maintain a strong enough magnetic field to keep the dangerous particles contained while the fusion goes on? How much energy does a single proton - proton chain reaction release as heat that can be usefully absorbed and converted into electricity? The first 2 are more than the last 1. If you look into it that's why the guys still working on it are trying schemes trying to work around one part or another of that scheme. Theoretically On paper, the fusion reaction generates enough power to be selfsustaining. Which means that GIVEN the right technology, even with the energy costs of magnetic containment, and generating deuterium in a plasma state it generates power. Yes, the proton - proton chain is a chain reaction. That does not mean it produces enough excess energy to actually start and maintain both the reaction and a magnetic bubble. It isn't even enough to maintain the reaction if the surrounding hydrogen wasn't already ionized (no idea how that would occur but that is the fact) a couple of high energy neutrons striking ionized deuterium will start the reaction but in stable atoms? No way. So to keep the reaction going the hydrogen has to be kept in a plasma state which takes some sort of energy which has to come from some where. I'm not going to debate whether technological breakthroughs will occur. I'm reasonably confident they will. But my opinion is worth the same as yours. Very little. You are, however, wrong, when you say that they energy cost to put hydrogen into a plasma state means that a fusion reactions cannot be self sustaining. The amount of energy required to strip an electron is a million times less than the strong nuclear force. Right now, yes, the reaction isn't self sustaining. But these are technological issues. Again, it has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermo dyamics, or saying that energy isn't conserved.

JeffBC -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 3:30:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Right now, yes, the reaction isn't self sustaining. But these are technological issues. Since I'd just been reading up on this I thought I'd chime in. As I understand it our big issue right now with the tokamak (sp?) configuration is containment. It's not that we can't make the reaction work it's that we can't really keep the magnetic bottle stable largely because it's a fundamentally unstable configuration. That's why I am so intrigued with Lockheed skunkworks' efforts. If they're not blowing smoke (and honestly, they are the first "oddball" claim I've come across that seems totally credible) then things are going to go a lot faster than everyone thinks with fusion.

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 3:38:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Right now, yes, the reaction isn't self sustaining. But these are technological issues. Since I'd just been reading up on this I thought I'd chime in. As I understand it our big issue right now with the tokamak (sp?) configuration is containment. It's not that we can't make the reaction work it's that we can't really keep the magnetic bottle stable largely because it's a fundamentally unstable configuration. That's why I am so intrigued with Lockheed skunkworks' efforts. If they're not blowing smoke (and honestly, they are the first "oddball" claim I've come across that seems totally credible) then things are going to go a lot faster than everyone thinks with fusion. Exactly right. They claim fusion within 5 years if they are funded. Grain of salt.. but that stuff is amazing. But then I'm also bullish on thorium reactors that we've had since 1965, and LENR reactors, and even EBR-II reactors.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 3:50:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! There is a difference. How much energy does it take to get 6 deuterium atoms into a plasma state? What is the minimum amount of energy it takes to maintain a strong enough magnetic field to keep the dangerous particles contained while the fusion goes on? How much energy does a single proton - proton chain reaction release as heat that can be usefully absorbed and converted into electricity? The first 2 are more than the last 1. If you look into it that's why the guys still working on it are trying schemes trying to work around one part or another of that scheme. Theoretically On paper, the fusion reaction generates enough power to be selfsustaining. Which means that GIVEN the right technology, even with the energy costs of magnetic containment, and generating deuterium in a plasma state it generates power. Yes, the proton - proton chain is a chain reaction. That does not mean it produces enough excess energy to actually start and maintain both the reaction and a magnetic bubble. It isn't even enough to maintain the reaction if the surrounding hydrogen wasn't already ionized (no idea how that would occur but that is the fact) a couple of high energy neutrons striking ionized deuterium will start the reaction but in stable atoms? No way. So to keep the reaction going the hydrogen has to be kept in a plasma state which takes some sort of energy which has to come from some where. I'm not going to debate whether technological breakthroughs will occur. I'm reasonably confident they will. But my opinion is worth the same as yours. Very little. You are, however, wrong, when you say that they energy cost to put hydrogen into a plasma state means that a fusion reactions cannot be self sustaining. The amount of energy required to strip an electron is a million times less than the strong nuclear force. Right now, yes, the reaction isn't self sustaining. But these are technological issues. Again, it has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermo dyamics, or saying that energy isn't conserved. I never said energy isn't conserved. That is your usual lies. As to the rest run the numbers. To initiate a proton - proton chain reaction in non ionized deuterium takes setting off a nuke, it's called a hydrogen bomb and even then the chain reaction dies out very quickly. It fails to chain react into the water vapor in the atmosphere. Consider that to heat 170 micrograms of hydrogen to the appropriate state the guys at Lawrence Livermore pumped 500 megajoules through roughly 200 lasers. And that released 17 kilojoules of energy. So discounting the energy cost to manufacture the lasers, the fuel pellet and the containment device that only left an energy deficit of 499.983 megajoules that needs to be made up. Then we can talk about powering the rest of the system with the output.

epiphiny43 -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 5:32:40 PM)
Besides ignoring all the other schemes for fusion, the magnetic containment schemes such as Tokamak and ITAR (There are Others.) don't start from ambient temps, just for ignition, then the energy required is for containment, a far different energy equation than the initial ignition. Inertial containment isn't supposed to be a self-sustaining fusion such as a main sequence star (That would make the headlines in a containment failure!), it's a single event (With 'bootstrapping' He ions assisting energy release) built around a single 'fuel' pellet, expected to be repeated rapidly enough to produce resultant NET energy release over a 24 hr day sufficient to justify the efforts and capital requirements. https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/2014/Feb/NR-14-02-06.html#.Uyozf17T_eb Betting against laser progress seems pretty silly as the learning curve is still accelerating? 1% efficiency is not that hard to upgrade with the budget of all the research thrown at laser technology? Current Army anti-morter mobile lasers surely do better already. Their packaging requirements are considerably freer than the LL lab's multiple lasers? It would help if you separated your objections to magnetic containment and the confused inertial containment experiments? Wholly different energy inputs. It will be interesting to see what the Lockheed group is working on. Their theoretical and practical underpinnings probably surpass any forum member's? They haven't announced a technologically failed project yet. The politicians have jerked funding a few times.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 6:34:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Besides ignoring all the other schemes for fusion, the magnetic containment schemes such as Tokamak and ITAR (There are Others.) don't start from ambient temps, just for ignition, then the energy required is for containment, a far different energy equation than the initial ignition. Inertial containment isn't supposed to be a self-sustaining fusion such as a main sequence star (That would make the headlines in a containment failure!), it's a single event (With 'bootstrapping' He ions assisting energy release) built around a single 'fuel' pellet, expected to be repeated rapidly enough to produce resultant NET energy release over a 24 hr day sufficient to justify the efforts and capital requirements. https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/2014/Feb/NR-14-02-06.html#.Uyozf17T_eb Betting against laser progress seems pretty silly as the learning curve is still accelerating? 1% efficiency is not that hard to upgrade with the budget of all the research thrown at laser technology? Current Army anti-morter mobile lasers surely do better already. Their packaging requirements are considerably freer than the LL lab's multiple lasers? It would help if you separated your objections to magnetic containment and the confused inertial containment experiments? Wholly different energy inputs. It will be interesting to see what the Lockheed group is working on. Their theoretical and practical underpinnings probably surpass any forum member's? They haven't announced a technologically failed project yet. The politicians have jerked funding a few times. That's the 500 megajoules to 17 kilojoules guys. That's not 1% efficiency. That is 0.0034% efficiency. And the fact is I've been following this research my entire life, they really have no idea how to get to a functional power plant that puts out more power than goes in and they have no roadmap on how to get there. They're screwing around making incremental advances and hoping someone makes a major theoretical breakthrough that solves one of the dozen or so insurmountable problems. If it was simply the lasers no problem but it isn't. We also need to generate and control the reaction safely and still draw power from it which gets us back to the very high flux magnetic field which even with superconductors is going to be a heavy draw on the plants output. So we have to draw power off to keep the reaction going by feeding in new plasma and drawing off the helium and run the magnetic field or we have to start up and shut down the reaction over and over again with all those energy costs. Any way you want to do it the energy load exceeds the expected output.

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 8:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 DomKen, you misapprehend entropy. It describes how all systems have losses, NOT that losses make all systems impossible. H atoms of any configuration ARE 'high energy fuels' in the correct environment. The center of ignited Suns, and particular magnetic containment fields. Exactly as unstable atoms are for fission reactors. Just Better! There is a difference. How much energy does it take to get 6 deuterium atoms into a plasma state? What is the minimum amount of energy it takes to maintain a strong enough magnetic field to keep the dangerous particles contained while the fusion goes on? How much energy does a single proton - proton chain reaction release as heat that can be usefully absorbed and converted into electricity? The first 2 are more than the last 1. If you look into it that's why the guys still working on it are trying schemes trying to work around one part or another of that scheme. Theoretically On paper, the fusion reaction generates enough power to be selfsustaining. Which means that GIVEN the right technology, even with the energy costs of magnetic containment, and generating deuterium in a plasma state it generates power. Yes, the proton - proton chain is a chain reaction. That does not mean it produces enough excess energy to actually start and maintain both the reaction and a magnetic bubble. It isn't even enough to maintain the reaction if the surrounding hydrogen wasn't already ionized (no idea how that would occur but that is the fact) a couple of high energy neutrons striking ionized deuterium will start the reaction but in stable atoms? No way. So to keep the reaction going the hydrogen has to be kept in a plasma state which takes some sort of energy which has to come from some where. I'm not going to debate whether technological breakthroughs will occur. I'm reasonably confident they will. But my opinion is worth the same as yours. Very little. You are, however, wrong, when you say that they energy cost to put hydrogen into a plasma state means that a fusion reactions cannot be self sustaining. The amount of energy required to strip an electron is a million times less than the strong nuclear force. Right now, yes, the reaction isn't self sustaining. But these are technological issues. Again, it has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermo dyamics, or saying that energy isn't conserved. I never said energy isn't conserved. Of course you did. Lets refresh your memory shall we? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm not bothering to keep track of the more recent inanities. However, it was amusing when you kept insisting that entropy rules regarding closed systems had anything to do with a fusion reactor. Yep. I'll go back to Kirata's statement. You know more than the guys at Princeton, lawrence livermore.....

JeffBC -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/19/2014 9:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 It will be interesting to see what the Lockheed group is working on. Their theoretical and practical underpinnings probably surpass any forum member's? Oh puleaze! This is the collarme P&R forum where every single member holds a minimum of 30 advanced degrees in everything from particle physics to anthropology. Skunkworks only wishes they had the pool of raw knowledge and awesome intellect that people routinely claim here. Sadly, collarme has already claimed all those brilliant minds so Lockheed will just have to make do with the few shambling fools they have over there. quote: They haven't announced a technologically failed project yet. The politicians have jerked funding a few times. That's why I'm so intrigued. The way they described it sounds exactly how such an organization would solve a problem (we put together a few old pieces in a new way) and, as you say, their reputation is sort of stellar. I suppose it's possible they fail but the odds of them just plain blowing smoke seem pretty far fetched.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/20/2014 3:28:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Of course you did. Lets refresh your memory shall we? 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. So no I didn't quote: 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. 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. You need to learn to read. I said doing when we do fusion it takes more energy than it produces. Not that it always does. Please try to read for comprehension. So once again you lie. quote: 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. I'm not bothering to keep track of the more recent inanities. However, it was amusing when you kept insisting that entropy rules regarding closed systems had anything to do with a fusion reactor. Yep. I'll go back to Kirata's statement. You know more than the guys at Princeton, lawrence livermore..... Some energy is always lost. My language may have been sloppy but any halfwit knows what I was talking about . You are smarter than a half wit right?

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02