[Joeviocoe]

Francisl is correct. Newton’s laws of motion govern this idea.

There is no way to recover the momentum of the ball/projectile (to recollect the propellant material), without also applying that momentum to the spacecraft in the opposite direction…. negating any previous momentum in the positive direction. What you’ve come up with, is a very complex vibrator.

Whether it is a magnetic plate, using ferromagnetic fluid, or anything else… as the relative velocity of the ball slows (in relation to the craft)… the other side of the magnet will get the momentum. Magnetism is an invisible force, but it ultimately transfers all force in the same way as a physical connection. No different than firing a bullet into a spring/buffer to recapture it. The gun will move back, but connecting the spring or magnet that is capturing the bullet, to the gun… will always produce the equal and opposite effect. Making the net momentum 0.

This is a “closed system” even if material seems to move freely through the vacuum of space. If the whole thing could be put inside a finite container without changing anything else… it would be more obvious to an observer… but still the same closed system.

No, there is no way any object can just “reduce its velocity with itself (using magnetic fluid)”. Remember, velocity is relative to something.
Read Newton’s 1st law:

Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/First_law.ogg

In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net force.

The ball cannot change it’s velocity relative to the spacecraft or its attached recovery mechanism…. without acting upon said mechanism. If the ball slows down because of a magnet force (spin or otherwise).. the magnet pushes on the recovery mechanism and will slow down the spacecraft. There is no free ride.

Think about it, if a spinning metal ball could change it’s linear velocity with its self contained ferromagnetic fluid… then why need the gun, the electromagnets, or the spacecraft? Just put the cargo/passengers inside a scaled up ball, and go.

Magnetism is misunderstood enough, that is it conveniently used to obscure part of the equation. Many a perpetual motion machine has used it.
Take out the magnetic middleman, and just use a mass off center on a spinning axis. When the mass is going in the –> direction, the motor assembly / spacecraft will move <--, but that mass always recovered by remaining physically attached to the motor shaft. So as the mass makes its way back <-- to restart the cycle... the momentum is reversed and the spacecraft moves back -->. The common vibrator!
That is essentially the same as your idea, without all the magnetism stuff which doesn’t change anything other than making it easy forget or misapply Newton’s laws.

[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.

[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]

bcreighton7 wrote:

For future reference my friend CNT is back in the news. It seems when utilized with nanophotonic crystals, they can convert 1000 C heat into light usable by photovoltaic cells. Perhaps covering some of the chamber walls with this material would be another way to use the excess heat to increase efficiency, while keeping critical components of the chamber cooler.
Here is a link: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-solar-usable-cell-efficiency.html

Seems a bit of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In operation, this approach would use a conventional solar-concentrating system, with lenses or mirrors that focus the sunlight, to maintain the high temperature

You can double the efficiency of the photovoltaic cell, but need to take up probably 10 times more surface area with mirrors to reach those temperatures. It really isn’t more efficient by area of the system. It may be a cost benefit, if the material is so much cheaper than the equivalent area of regular photovoltaics.

[Joeviocoe]

Engineer wrote: Sorry, I didn’t explain my position on government $.
1 All government money is borrowed from the future, at this time. I don’t want to encourage further increase in the national debt.
2 The mArketplace should select winners and losers, except for defense (including fissile material). Also, where our government has failed to meet their obligation to reprocess spent fuel, people may die (eg Fukishima).
3. I don’t think fusion is the right process for burning actinides into short half life isotopes. Too difficult to tune and focus the neutrons. This should be done with spallation accelerators.

Good luck driving on those roads. Using that Internet. And enjoying that existing power grid.

[Joeviocoe]

Engineer wrote: Sorry, I didn’t explain my position on government $.
1 All government money is borrowed from the future, at this time. I don’t want to encourage further increase in the national debt.
2 The mArketplace should select winners and losers, except for defense (including fissile material). Also, where our government has failed to meet their obligation to reprocess spent fuel, people may die (eg Fukishima).
3. I don’t think fusion is the right process for burning actinides into short half life isotopes. Too difficult to tune and focus the neutrons. This should be done with spallation accelerators.

Good luck driving on those roads. Using that Internet. And enjoying that existing power grid.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion2 wrote:

….Can you provide a reference stating _______ cannot _________?

= formula for logic flaw.

You are asking someone to prove a negative. It is up to you to prove the affirmative.

His ‘logic’ would fasely imply that the statement “prime numbers greater than 3 cannot be diveded evenly (whole number) by 3” is unprovable.

Alex Pollard wrote: Can you provide a reference stating such a particle cannot induce cancer?

I haven’t said that you “Cannot prove a negative”… Mathematics is full of negative proofs.
But this is NOT an easily quantified mathematical question where we have already defined all attributes of a prime number.
The question was about what can induce cancer. We didn’t invent cancer like we’ve invented mathematical constructs like prime numbers. We don’t know every possible attribute in the world of physics or biology, like we do mathematics.

More importantly, this statement was said just to turn the burden of proof around on someone else because Alex could not prove the positive.
When someone asks to prove the argument’s negative,… it generally means they’ve run out of rational points, and are looking to pass the responsibility of evidence. This is convenient because it allows them to declare “winner by default”.
THAT is the logical flaw that I pointed out.

[Joeviocoe]

Alex Pollard wrote: ….Can you provide a reference stating _______ cannot _________?

= formula for logic flaw.

You are asking someone to prove a negative. It is up to you to prove the affirmative. But I suspect if you tried, you will find out how wrong you are.

[Joeviocoe]

meemoe_uk wrote: I take it you are aware that the best contender for tapping zero-point-energy is…. Focus fusion research groups. Only they are capable of getting near the quantum critical electric field of 1.6*10^18 V/m via a collapsing micro-plasmoid. If Eric gets this new funding he’s after, I hope he can find time and money to at least do a small investigation into the application of dense plasma foci to tapping zero point energy. It’s the ultimate power source.

If Lerner were to even mention a side project involving Zero Point Energy… he will likely be accused of having lost confidence in Fusion, and just going after something even more far-fetched.

How much energy can be actually extracted (in MegaJoules) from 1 cubic meter of empty space??? Not much, even if free energy (no mass/energy conversion like fusion). Fusion is a MUCH better prospect as an energy source than ZPE.
Just because the infinitesimally small picojoules of energy contained in a cubic meter of space is completely free…. doesn’t mean it can be extracted, nor useful, nor preferred over larger amounts of power generated from a Mass=Energy conversion reaction like Fusion.

[Joeviocoe]

Andrew Palfreyman wrote: I never saw the point of NIF. There’s no way it will ever be a production technology, even if it eventually works.

Such is most purely scientific experiments. The principles learned in a machine that will never resemble a practical device, is still valuable. Experimental reactors != Demonstration reactors

[Joeviocoe]

rashidas wrote: Will the recent typhoon make the Fukushima situation even worse?

http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/14/fukushima-children-dying/

http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/english/UNSCEAR_Pressemitteilung_Englisch.pdf

No… quote legitimate science journals.

[Joeviocoe]

…if a Focus Fusion device can produce it for $0.005, while selling it a peak prices for a few hours per day, the cost of the electricity used to generate hydrogen would be very low. The Focus Fusion devices could be located at the location that the hydrogen is required. The electricity could be shipped over the existing transmission lines.

Even with free electricity… hydrogen costs would be driven by everything else (compression, storage, transportation, etc). So at best it may provide cheaper hydrogen than we currently have… but being an inefficient energy carrier, it is still much worse to use for most applications.

So as I said, If Hydrogen is needed on THAT site, and hydrogen is the required form of energy for some industrial application, AND that application doesn’t already have waste hydrogen (as many already do)… then FF would be a good fit.
… but we are talking about niche cases here… whereas electricity powers MUCH MUCH MORE. And for applications that use electricity for power… it is much better to avoid conversions.. and just keep FF energy as electricity.

[Joeviocoe]

Tim1 wrote: … I doubt that batteries will be used for peak demand periods. It would be cheaper to just use Focus Fusion devices intermittently.

Edit: Since the incremental cost of running a Focus Fusion device is rather low, it could be used to generate Hydrogen from water for use in industrial processes when not providing peaking power.

We don’t know the throttling costs of a FF device yet. It can be very complex and cumbersome to turn off the FF device and allow Decaborane to precipitate onto the beryllium electrodes, or costly to keep the device idling to prevent this.
So “intermittent” operation is not something that can be done without engineering for exactly that.

Using an electrical power source to produce Hydrogen for “industrial processes” is horribly inefficient. It ‘may’ make sense for a FF device that is located AT THE LOCATION of a factory that needs hydrogen so badly and does not already get hydrogen as a waste byproduct already.

Otherwise, compression, storage, transport, etc.. of hydrogen is extremely wasteful and would result in Focus Fusion losing its economic advantage.

Fewer conversions is best…. keep FF power as electricity and store excess in batteries.

[Joeviocoe]

rashidas wrote: Here are two links for peer-reviewed journal articles on Fukushima radioactive pollution episodes:

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/2039/2013/bgd-10-2039-2013.pdf

Most of the news regarding the Fukushima disaster is available at this website:

http://fukushimaupdate.com/
.

The biogeosciences site does indeed present good information… but NOT ONE MENTION of cancer or rates of cancer. Increased Strontium in the sea water does not necessarily mean more cancer… and certainly does NOT mean the cancer clusters on the scale that is suggested by opinion blogs.

And NO… fukushimaupdate.com site is NOT NEWS… but Opinion and Pseudoscience.

So you cannot just post them together to give your theory of cancer clusters any credibility.

[Joeviocoe]

rashidas wrote: Another scary Fukushima story: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/07/leak-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-threatens-dangerous-meltdown/

Not really all that scary… just more technical issues at a Power Plant that has already suffered from 3 reactors melting down…
… not a word about “cancer”. So it really doesn’t lend any credibility to the blogs you’ve been posting.

[Author]

Posts