Coveted Nuclear Fusion: Decades away, and the recent claims were disengenous, probably seeking taxpayer cash.

[iamwhatiseem]

International nuclear fusion project may be delayed by years, its head admits

Facility still far from being able to show feasibility of generating plentiful, carbon-free energy despite recent breakthrough in US

www.theguardian.com

Imagine that, yet another claim by energy industries that turns out to be false.

 

[White 6]

International nuclear fusion project may be delayed by years, its head admits

Facility still far from being able to show feasibility of generating plentiful, carbon-free energy despite recent breakthrough in US

www.theguardian.com

Imagine that, yet another claim by energy industries that turns out to be false.

Being able to get more energy out for a millisecond than was put during that millisecond is cool, but a long, long way from anything like sustainable production.

 

[luiza]

Do not worry . Miles has it all under control -- which will have the CIA and big business jumping up and down in fury Yet again .
Miles oversees a large part of cutting edge modern physics these days and no BS passes his remarkable gaze .
Cutting Einstein to threads is standard fare for this modern day Leonardo -- he also paints like a master .

Why I Don't Believe the Fusion Announcement by Miles Mathis
First published December 22, 2022
The first reason I don't believe it is that I don't believe any claims coming out of the mainstream right now, science or otherwise. We are living through a time of utter and complete corruption, and people will say anything for funding. I have shown you hundreds of recent examples of extravagant fraud, so we would have to be fools to believe anything we are being told. The government announcement was made by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, a notorious liar. I wouldn't trust her to tell me the correct time. She is a major ghoul, with a face covered in huge moles, which she had removed from that photo. Just so you know.( see photo in original report)
The second reason I don't believe it is the timing. They are desperately in need of positive headlines right now, to counter-balance all the negative ones. Mainstream science is in an absolute freefall due to that very same corruption and decades of huge lies and thefts from the treasury. As we approach 2023, we are at the end of a long line of very conspicuous implosions, including the Apollo fraud, the Space Shuttle Fraud, the Mars landings fraud, the SpaceX frauds, the Blue Origin fraud, the Higgs fraud, the BICEP fraud, the LIGO fraud, and currently the Solar Cycle fraud, in which the Air Force is falsifying basic data from the Sun. And those are just nine examples of literally thousands.
The third reason I don't believe it is that this is coming out of Lawrence Livermore and the Department of Energy, in conjunction with the Department of Defense. All three are known to be vast money pits, stealing trillions in taxes for phantoms. Nothings. Millions have been spent on this fusion research and now that funding will balloon over the coming years. As with the space program, the nuclear program is all money down the drain. It is a vast conjob, a criminal conspiracy of the first order.
The fourth reason I don't believe it is that it has only been ten months since JET (Joint European Torus— the world's largest fusion reactor) announced a big breakthrough in fusion, obtaining a process of five seconds and 59MJ. They created a temperature of 150 million C, exactly half the temperature the Americans are now claiming. So how did we outdo the “world's largest fusion reactor” in just 10 months? Even more to the point, JET admitted last February that they were nowhere near over-unity, putting roughly three times the energy in as they got out. But the important thing in that announcement was the promotion of ITER, the gigantic French fusion reactor they have spent billions on, which—it is claimed—will produce 10X overunity. That is what this is all about, you see: more suck-from-thetreasury projects, with billions of your taxdollars going to these fake projects where they fire lasers and make wild claims.
The fifth reason I don't believe it is that it is very difficult to get any information about the process here. All the announcements are just horntooting, and I couldn't even find a link to a paper. In the few “explanations of the science” involved here, all I was able to find was that they were fusing into Helium5, which is very unlikely. All you have to do is go to Wikipedia, where you will find that they have been creating big isotopes of Helium for a long time without any claim of positive energy out in the decay. And, tellingly, they haven't been creating Helium5. Helium6 and 8 are the most common, and those aren't really fused, being made of a halo. A halo means the extra baryons aren't sandwiched in the nucleus, but are orbiting it.
The sixth reason I don't believe it is that there is almost no way to check this discovery, since they are claiming they created a temperature of 300 million C with lasers. Very few places other than Lawrence Livermore can create those conditions, and all those places are also government owned. So there is no way to independently confirm any of this. Also a problem is that although they say that temperature recreated conditions in a star, stars are not actually anything like that hot. The center of the Sun is thought to be 15 million degrees, for instance, and until recently all science sites were admitting we couldn't create that temperature. But suddenly we can create a temperature 20 times hotter?
The seventh reason I don't believe it is doing a little math. The net gain in energy was about enough to boil 2 gallons of water, while the source of energy was 192 high energy lasers focused on one “peppercorn”, creating 300 million degrees C. How many gallons of water could you boil with all that energy? I don't know, but on the order of a million, I would guess. So the fractional output was so low it would fall beneath margins of error in measurement. In others words, this could all just be residue. Buzz.
The eighth reason I don't believe it that you would not expect us to trip on some method Nature wasn't using. Nature is supposed to be very efficient, so you would expect our labs to mimic Nature's method, not aim for some exotic method that required more input energy. Stars don't fuse by starting with deuterium and tritium, though they have it available. Why not, if they can fuse in this way more easily? I will be told that it is because it requires higher temperatures than stars can manage, but does that make any sense? That would imply that we are more powerful and inventive than stars, doesn't it, which does take some believing. No, if we can manage 300 million degrees, we can manage 15 million, so why not fuse as the Sun does? I will be told that the Sun also uses pressure, but the density of the Sun is much less than here. The Sun is a plasma, remember, a sort of hot gas or semi-liquid. So how does it create all that extra pressure? Even assuming the Solar core is denser, it would not be millions of times denser. We can actually create pressures far above what the Solar core is thought to have, so why not do it? No, none of this makes any sense, as usual.
The ninth reason I don't believe it is that I don't believe fusion is an over-unity event to start with. Which would mean it is impossible for us to fuse, by definition. Fission is over-unity since energy is stored in the nucleus. When stars create nuclei, they create charge streams or paths that lock baryons together in a specific architecture. That architecture is stored energy, so that when it is broken, the energy to create it is released. But that isn't true of fusion. Fusion and fission are opposite processes, and you cannot store energy in both directions. It is a contradiction in terms. When the Sun fuses, the energy “created” isn't released from some stored architecture. It isn't “created” at all. In short, the Sun takes in charge coming to it from the Galactic Core, recycling that charge through its body using spin, pulling it in at the poles and releasing it on the equator. As that charge passes through its body, everything in the Sun is spun up. Not just the Sun as a whole, but all particles in the Sun. As they are spun up, they stack on more spins, with photons being spun up into leptons and baryons. Those particles then collide and arrange in further spin-ups, giving us all the elements. But to do that requires an energy loss. Some of the energy of the charge field is stored in those charge paths, so there is actually less energy coming out of the Sun than going in. Or, energy is conserved, as it always is, but available charge energy decreases, since some of it is tied up in the nucleus. So in this sense, the Sun as a whole is an under-unity device. Fusion only seems to be over-unity since we measure the huge energy coming out of the Sun and ignore the huge energy coming in. As I hope you can see, that analysis totally destroys the possibility of fusion as an energy producer here on Earth, either hot or cold. Fusion necessarily locks some of the incoming energy into the nuclear architecture, making it an under-unity event for us by definition. You will say, “No, the energy is from the subsequent fission, since Helium5 breaks down spontaneously”. But that can't work because Helium5 decays into Helium4 and a neutron. Our building blocks were Deuterium and Tritium, and Tritium is already radioactive or prone to decay, so its energy is not well-stored. And the decay of Helium5 should produce almost no energy itself, since the neutron was never bound to start with. No energy was bound in that link. The neutron wasn't bound, it was just sort of pressed in there temporarily, without creating a bond. So breaking the bond should create almost no energy. The decay result Helium4 has a lot of energy stored in its bonds, far more than Deuterium and Tritium combined, so there can be no energy out here. To see that in another way, remember that Tritium also decays by releasing that extra neutron, just like Helium5. But since Tritium is more stable than Helium5, the neutron was bound more with Tritium. Meaning, there was more energy available from fission with Tritium than Helium5, so turning Tritium into Helium5 won't help us, will it? We should have gotten more energy in fission from Tritium in that neutron loss than from Helium5. I will be told Tritium “decays” into Helium3, but that isn't the sort of spontaneous fission I am talking about. In fact, “decay” is a misnomer there isn't it? Tritium can't decay into Helium, since that would be a smaller thing decaying into a larger thing. Yes, Tritium is prone to become Helium in our environment, but that has nothing to do with the sort of decay we see with Uranium or Plutonium. Uranium decays into smaller nuclei like Barium and Krypton. So, again, we shouldn't use the word decay in both directions. It is highly confusing, I assume on purpose. Tritium doesn't decay into Helium and release an electron, since that equation doesn't balance: 3 1H → 3 2He + e− + ν e As I have shown before, Tritium doesn't release an electron, it is hit by a positron. Its most exposed and least bound neutron is hit by a positron, and in the hit both particles are flipped. The positron becomes an electron and retraces the path of the positron out—explaining why we missed its track. Only the outer spin of the neutron flips, and it becomes a proton. So, again, as with beta decay, no decay is involved with Tritium. To get any energy from Helium5 in fission, its central bonds would have to be broken, with it decaying into something even simpler than Deuterium and Tritium. For instance, if we were told Helium5 spontaneously decayed into five baryons, I might believe this announcement.
But as it is, the announcement is completely illogical just as a matter of basic construction.

 

[luiza]

Assumed this bunch of sugar doughnuts would not understand a word .

Elsewhere some Drongo opined that Miles was some sort of nut job who lived his life inventing conspiracies .

Bit like telling Jesus to piss off for being clueless .