How to make a sustained fusion reaction

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Beaconator, Jul 13, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,712
    Even easier - put some hydrogen in a balloon and squeeze really hard. World energy crisis solved.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    - James R

    1. mainstream would have you believe that there is no way we can’t make a sustained fusion reaction.

    2. I have spent years refining my theory using every resource available.

    3. standard science does not recognize my idea as valid, yet offers no absolute proof physically, mathematically, or logically otherwise.

    4. there have been no experimental tests to either prove or disprove the validity of my statements. We have only tested individual elements and studied compounds. We have not decided what minerals would do when in contact.

    the sum of the whole is always greater than its parts.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,123
    Before going in to the whys and wherefores, it behooves the OP to actually describe the proposed theory. So far, this thread has not described what it is.

    Taking (some unknown amount of) all elements and putting them in a box will give you a box with a small amount of heat and some pressure, formed by chemical reactions producing some byproducts.
    There's a ... not insignificant gap between that and "fusion" - let alone sustainable fusion.

    So, question zero: what is the theory?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    It's a technological problem - we usually manage to solve those.
    Your idea, however, wouldn't work. Apart from anything else the iron container would melt and then the "reaction"[1] would halt.
    Apart from science, rationality, logic, etc.
    It doesn't need to: that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
    In other words you admit that you're just guessing.
    Wrong:
    the whole is other than the sum of its parts
    The whole is less than the sum of its parts
    The whole is sometimes less than the sum of its parts

    1 Not that there would be one anyway.
     
  8. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,301
    Any iron in our Sun was already in the Gas and dust cloud that our Solar system formed from. But our Sun cannot generate anymore. By atom count, the Sun is 99.9% hydrogen and helium, with any other elements squeezed into that remaining 0.1%. Iron is way down the list at 0.003% of the atoms.

    Of the two, fission is the easiest to cause. In certain isotopes it occurs naturally all the time, and all you need to do in order to maintain a chain reaction is bring enough of it into close proximity. Fusion requires special conditions as you need to force the nuclei close enough together for it to occur, and these nuclei repel each other due to their electric charges.

    The only way putting all elements inside an Iron box would be dangerous would be heat generated by chemical reactions (if you keep to elements lighter than Iron. If you add all the heavier elements, some of them are radioactive and dangerous to handle).

    There is nothing special about Iron when it comes to the fusion process other than marking out the point between where fusion produces net energy or consumes it.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    You contradict yourself. No testing, no theory.
     
  10. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    What are the mechanics behind this?
     
  11. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    There have been other tests that lead me to believe my statements are true like the natural fusion and fission processes being centered around iron but my theory can only be proven or disproven by experiment.
     
  12. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    So to sum up what your saying usually science dismissed without evidence doesn’t work.

    alright full disclosure I believe your right, but I have been withholding one element that would allow the reaction to continue unimpeded. A chromium alloy. Can you name it?

    Should solve your technical difficulties.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    Moderator note: Beaconator has been warned (again) not to post incoherent nonsense to sciforums.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    That's the wrong kind of tests. You're supposed to be doing tests that could falsify your hypothesis.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,123
    Maybe he did and they failed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    Failed to falsify? Or did falsify?
     
    river likes this.
  17. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Both. Which leads me to believe I’m onto something.
     
  18. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    What part of elements 0 to iron wrapped in stainless steel is incoherent.

    Dydwyddyr posts more nonsense than anyone.

    the elements would initially react but not violently because the whole experiment is in a vacuum and surrounded by noble gasses. The noble gasses would curb the reaction and produce light until the stainless steel canister was sealed by a particle beam welder. At which point I will have made an object that can be subjected to further testing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2021
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,388
    Your post is incoherent. How can the experiment be "in a vacuum", when many of the elements involved are gases (H, He, N2 O2, F2, Ne, Ar......) ?
     
  20. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    You put it in a box and suck all the air out… I guess you have to put more gas in it so that enough gas stays within the experiment and surrounds the reaction, but we all know there is no such thing as a true vacuum.

    more incomprehensible than incoherent.
     
  21. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Is the best way to make a sustained fusion reaction to place all the elements on the periodic table in the same vicinity?
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,123
    As in post 2, still no.
     
  23. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Then subject it to extreme conditions?

    the answer is no and you have not read all posts I’m still waiting on a response from Janus and how stainless steel (a chromium iron alloy) might allow the reaction inside to produce net energy on the outside.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2021
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page