Gaining energy from fusion is impossible

[Anonymous]

The amount of energy required to make a stable elements like boron, lithium and nitrogen become unstable is the same as the yield energy. Thus, fusion doesn’t gain any free energy from this exchange. Therefore, it is impossible to gain free energy from a stable element because it is against the laws of thermodynamics. The compression just changes the atoms into different elements which contain less inherent energy minus the sun’s gravity equivalent. In order to gain extra neutrons it is an essential requirement to push 2 particles of positive and negative together so that they stop spinning and become neutral (black-hole attractors).

[Chuctanunda]

Akhenaten: Gaining energy or containing it? A nuclear bomb is fusion energy, as is the sun, and all the stars. The technical challenge is in controlling the energy output. Just as a lightening bolt contains large quantities of electricity, it is not of a generally useful kind. What Focus Fusion attempts to do is produce the energy in a pulsed fashion, and at a cyclic rate that can feed directly into the grid. Check out the Focus Fusion video on YouTube. Dr. Lerner takes us through the physics step by step, so even I can understand it.

[Anonymous]

For a start a nuclear bomb can be either fusion or fission. To create a fusion reaction you need an enormous amount of energy to initiate the process. This is why fusion is not a viable from of energy. On the other hand, fission reactions are much easier to achieve, because the material is already unstable and only requires a small amount of energy to create a reaction. Thus, fusion will never be a viable form of energy and is just an excuse for a bunch of greeny nut cases to expend billions of government dollars on useless research. See my post – Spin plus aether equals matter – for further explanation.

[Chuctanunda]

Akhenaten: What’s needed for fusion is high temperature. On the sun this temperature is achieved naturally by the sun’s massive gravity, with temps in the millions of degrees in the center. This is sufficient heat to cause a nuclear chain reaction, thus generating still more heat, that heats us and the whole solar system. Focus Fusion creates the necessary heat using plasma physics and the inherent instabilities to generate a plasmoid. The temps here I think are measured in the billions of degrees. The Focus Fusion team is doing yeoman’s work overcoming the couple of major engineering hurdles to make this viable I invite you again to view the YouTube, (and Google Archive) presentation by Dr. Lerner. He is one of a handful of plasma physicists competent to lead such an effort. I suggest being open minded and learn from this. It doesn’t help to be a “Know it all”, especially when all you know is wrong. Approach this with child like wonder and amazement. There’s too much of what’s here you’re just not seeing yet.

[Anonymous]

You clearly have not seen my other post – Spin plus aether equals matter – This post accurately describes the true nature of the universe which varies from the currently accepted model. My model is based on pure logic and evidence. I have reduced energy to spin and rotation. The sun’s gravity stops the aetheric spin action which is the basic mechanism of heat and light generation. Thus, until scientists realize that they are going down the wrong road, they will persist in making fundamental errors in new forms of energy production. The key to understanding the universe is by using spin energy as the basic unit. Spin energy has 3 basic forms – left spin, right spin and no spin. This is what the universe is made of. These 3 forms create matter, gravity, light, space and energy. Thus, everything that happens can be broken down into basic elements of spin or no spin. No spin equals black-hole attractor (neutron), left spin equals electron or negative charge and right spin equals proton/positive charge.

[Chuctanunda]

Akhenaten: Can you direct us to a publication for the physical principles you postulate here? Granted “spin” is a fundamental component of physics. But I would rally like to see some substantial confirmation of your non standard proposition. And certainly you have access to a renowned team of physicists here with the Focus Fusion team. If you present your work in a scholarly fashion, they might be able to comment intelligently.

[Anonymous]

My concepts are based on aether mechanics and the recent work of Robert Distinti.

Note – True innovation usually comes from people outside the system never from those inside the system That’s because the institutes only accept old ideas which follow ‘the system’. http://www.simplegravity.com/aether.html

http://aethermechanics.com/electromagnetism/

[JimmyT]

Deuterium–helium-3 fusion 2D + 3He → 4He + 1p + 18.3 MeV
Deuterium–lithium-6 fusion 2D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22.4 MeV
Proton–lithium-6 fusion 1p + 6Li → 4He + 3He + 4.0 MeV
Helium-3–lithium fusion 3He + 6Li → 2 4He + 1p + 16.9 MeV
Helium-3-helium-3 fusion 3He + 3He → 4He + 2 1p + 12.86 MeV
Proton–lithium-7 fusion 1p + 7Li → 2 4He + 17.2 MeV
Proton–boron fusion 1p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV
Proton–nitrogen fusion 1p + 15N → 12C + 4He + 5.0 MeV[2]

This is from wikipedia

Attached files

[Chuctanunda]

Akhenaten: Thanks for the links. We really need for others to proffer their expert opinion. Maybe there’s something to it. But to throw out all of known physics on the word of an amateur with a mere MA is asking a lot. Of course the Focus Fusion program director, Eric Lerner, is the author of the unorthodox but compelling proposition, and book title, “The Big Bang Never Happened”. His original area of expertise is plasma physics and plasma cosmology. Maybe ether mechanics dovetails with plasma physics in some way. We’ll definitely need more input from independent sources, before we can confidently announce “Eureka!”.

[Joeviocoe]

Akhenaten wrote: True innovation usually comes from people outside the system never from those inside the system That’s because the institutes only accept old ideas which follow ‘the system’.

“usually comes from people outside”…. and…. “never from those inside”

Um… so, if it is usually people outside… that must mean occasionally people not outside, a.k.a inside. But then you say never.

If this is the type of logic of which you are accustomed…. there is no wonder why you cannot grasp the basic laws of physics.

[Joeviocoe]

Akhenaten wrote:
The amount of energy required to make a stable elements like boron, lithium and nitrogen become unstable is the same as the yield energy. Thus, fusion doesn’t gain any free energy from this exchange. Therefore, it is impossible to gain free energy from a stable element because it is against the laws of thermodynamics.

I had to pause reading your nonsense right there.
Since your premise is so vastly flawed, you cannot possibly even stumble upon an accurate conclusion.

Look up nuclear binding energy, as JimmyT so helpfully posted.

You are probably confusing the concepts of thermodynamics that suggests that certain stable “molecules” cannot yield any net positive energy from chemical reactions. Like with H2O and the countless charlatans who claim to get energy from water. You may be confusing the term “stable” as well. Stable may refer to an element’s inability to decay by spontaneously emitting certain particles. But this has nothing to do with whether or not energy can be extracted from a nuclear reaction.

In nuclear physics, the only element incapable of yielding net positive energy in a nuclear reaction, is Iron (Fe) 56. Generally, anything lighter can be fused to yield a net positive energy. And anything heavier can fission to produce a net positive energy. The rule of thumb is that the farther away from Iron the element is, the greater the yield.

Fusion beyond Hydrogen and Helium, as a net positive energy producer, is already witnessed in countless stars using spectroscopy. See stellar nucleosynthesis
They have proven that all sorts of elements undergo fusion to produce greater and greater amounts of energy. From Hydrogen and Helium… to Lithium, Carbon, Neon, Oxygen to Silicon.
Only when a star goes nova, does it return energy with a net negative reaction, producing elements heavier than Iron.

Here on Earth, we have witnessed several kinds of nuclear fusion too. Fusion with elements like Boron have already been done using laser pulses. We already know the yield of the reaction is greater than the input. But in the lab, we cannot yet focus the input energy with enough efficiency, and wind up wasting most of the energy without getting it into the reaction. The reaction winds up being net positive, but the experiment as a whole is not.
Also, we are still quite far away from creating the conditions for a self-sustaining reaction. Right now, the net positive energy coming from each pair of nuclei undergoing fusion, doesn’t get put into the next pair’s reaction. In a star, gravity creates a density that ensures the reaction continues.

This is mandatory reading for anyone, such as yourself, attempting to speak with such authority on the subject of nuclear science.

I will not indulge your ramblings on Aether. As everything you’ve posted, your links included… point to pseudoscience woo.
The very minimum of scientific process isn’t followed, and the extraordinary claims which propose that so many tested theories of science are wrong… require equally extraordinary evidence which is lacking. Do not respond until this Aether hypothesis is properly peer reviewed, because it is certainly far from credible as of today. And don’t even think about using the Galileo Gambit here… it is cliched, weak and doesn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Joeviocoe wrote:

True innovation usually comes from people outside the system never from those inside the system That’s because the institutes only accept old ideas which follow ‘the system’.

“usually comes from people outside”…. and…. “never from those inside”

Um… so, if it is usually people outside… that must mean occasionally people not outside, a.k.a inside. But then you say never.

If this is the type of logic of which you are accustomed…. there is no wonder why you cannot grasp the basic laws of physics.

Ok. Correction – HARDLY ever from those inside.

[Anonymous]

Joeviocoe wrote:

The amount of energy required to make a stable elements like boron, lithium and nitrogen become unstable is the same as the yield energy. Thus, fusion doesn’t gain any free energy from this exchange. Therefore, it is impossible to gain free energy from a stable element because it is against the laws of thermodynamics.

I had to pause reading your nonsense right there.
Since your premise is so vastly flawed, you cannot possibly even stumble upon an accurate conclusion.

Look up nuclear binding energy, as JimmyT so helpfully posted.

You are probably confusing the concepts of thermodynamics that suggests that certain stable “molecules” cannot yield any net positive energy from chemical reactions. Like with H2O and the countless charlatans who claim to get energy from water. You may be confusing the term “stable” as well. Stable may refer to an element’s inability to decay by spontaneously emitting certain particles. But this has nothing to do with whether or not energy can be extracted from a nuclear reaction.

In nuclear physics, the only element incapable of yielding net positive energy in a nuclear reaction, is Iron (Fe) 56. Generally, anything lighter can be fused to yield a net positive energy. And anything heavier can fission to produce a net positive energy. The rule of thumb is that the farther away from Iron the element is, the greater the yield.

Fusion beyond Hydrogen and Helium, as a net positive energy producer, is already witnessed in countless stars using spectroscopy. See stellar nucleosynthesis
They have proven that all sorts of elements undergo fusion to produce greater and greater amounts of energy. From Hydrogen and Helium… to Lithium, Carbon, Neon, Oxygen to Silicon.
Only when a star goes nova, does it return energy with a net negative reaction, producing elements heavier than Iron.

Here on Earth, we have witnessed several kinds of nuclear fusion too. Fusion with elements like Boron have already been done using laser pulses. We already know the yield of the reaction is greater than the input. But in the lab, we cannot yet focus the input energy with enough efficiency, and wind up wasting most of the energy without getting it into the reaction. The reaction winds up being net positive, but the experiment as a whole is not.
Also, we are still quite far away from creating the conditions for a self-sustaining reaction. Right now, the net positive energy coming from each pair of nuclei undergoing fusion, doesn’t get put into the next pair’s reaction. In a star, gravity creates a density that ensures the reaction continues.

This is mandatory reading for anyone, such as yourself, attempting to speak with such authority on the subject of nuclear science.

I will not indulge your ramblings on Aether. As everything you’ve posted, your links included… point to pseudoscience woo.
The very minimum of scientific process isn’t followed, and the extraordinary claims which propose that so many tested theories of science are wrong… require equally extraordinary evidence which is lacking. Do not respond until this Aether hypothesis is properly peer reviewed, because it is certainly far from credible as of today. And don’t even think about using the Galileo Gambit here… it is cliched, weak and doesn’t work.

I have noted that scientists on this website are all too eager to demonstrate how much energy they get out of a fusion reaction and are very reluctant to admit of or include how much energy was expended in creating the reaction.

Note – When calculating the total energy cost please include –

1. The mining energy expended in obtaining the raw materials.
2. The energy cost of building the fusion reactor device.
3. The electricity used in destabilizing the stable material.

After all these costs have been added up – Is the energy obtained from the fusion reaction greater or smaller that the total energy expended in making the reaction happen?

Note – After more than 50 years of experimentation of fusion reactions, no research team has ever gained more than an equal amount of energy to that what was required to initiate the reaction.

Thus, up until this very minute, I am infinitely more correct than what you are in this matter.

In regards to the aether. How do gravity waves travel through space and manage to squash space as the waves travel. What in the hell are these waves squashing? Note – Please don’t say “space” or I will fall over backwards! lol

[Breakable]

Dear Akhenaten,
while it is sometimes important to prove a point and be an ass-hole about it, please refrain from doing so to everyone. Generally people in this forum are nice (at least to mods) and we want to keep it that way.
In case the opposite happens feel free to use the report button and/or be the upstanding person of not going into a low level mud slinging or otherwise I will have to use the mod magic of drafting a specific rule and banning you for violating it.

[Chuctanunda]

Aknhenaten: If you’re saying nuclear fusion is not yet viable, you are correct. This focus fusion project is attempting to engineer what is hoped to be a more feasible approach to fusion than the more conventional tokamak process. Tens of billions of dollars and decades of research by the top physicists around the world are working on ITER, the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor, located in France. Net energy from fusion is what powers the universe. That’s not in question. The challenge is akin to harnessing lightning, on a much bigger scale. Focus fusion is being developed with known physical principles and at least theoretically viable engineering. To say something can’t work without trying, just because it hasn’t been done successfully yet, well the Wright Brothers got the last laugh in their “impossible” endeavor. But then you must somehow think we might just succeed, and cause a huge increase in energy use and, heaven forbid, population increase.

[Author]

Posts