How to make a sustained fusion reaction

Status
Not open for further replies.
What are the known criteria for fusion reactions as they relate to the quantum, elemental, and universal observations?

one rule.

every counterclaim may not relate to the same of the three above criteria.

for example a response to an elemental observation can not contain another elemental observation.
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
Then subject it to extreme conditions?

the answer is no and you have not read all posts
Click to expand...
I have read all posts.

Subjecting anything to extreme conditions will - in all but the most exquisitely contrived circumstances* - require more energy to accomplish than you will get out of it. In other words, you will have less available energy afterward than before.

*the exquisitely contrived circumstances I refer to are what scientists and engineers are actively working on.


It's been 40 posts in this thread alone, and you have yet to express any sincere interest in this topic beyond just tossing out fanciful ideas without the slightest attempt at researching facts.

I think you're being disingenuous and disrespectful. I'm not interested in playing whatever this game is.

:unsub:
 
Please don't post nonsense.
Janus58 said:
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.
Click to expand...
DaveC426913 said:
I have read all posts.

Subjecting anything to extreme conditions will - in all but the most exquisitely contrived circumstances* - require more energy to accomplish than you will get out of it. In other words, you will have less available energy afterward than before.

*the exquisitely contrived circumstances I refer to are what scientists and engineers are actively working on.


It's been 40 posts in this thread alone, and you have yet to express any sincere interest in this topic beyond just tossing out fanciful ideas without the slightest attempt at researching facts.

I think you're being disingenuous and disrespectful. I'm not interested in playing whatever this game is.

:unsub:
Click to expand...
they aren’t working very hard. Their brains hurt after hearing what I say…

good! I made a new game just before you called this a game.

I can spoil the ending for you. Chromium releases all the energy inside the reaction as electricity until all the elements under iron are consumed. Then we are left with noble gasses and pure fusion until the shell is consumed.
 
Beaconator said:
What are the known criteria for fusion reactions as they relate to the quantum, elemental, and universal observations?

one rule.

every counterclaim may not relate to the same of the three above criteria.

for example a response to an elemental observation can not contain another elemental observation.
Click to expand...

I’ll stay out of it completely. No responses from me affirming or denying anything and I bet you all will come to the same conclusions as I have. If I do I will do everything in my power to get banned. And never come back
 
Beaconator said:
What are the known criteria for fusion reactions as they relate to the quantum, elemental, and universal observations?

one rule.

every counterclaim may not relate to the same of the three above criteria.

for example a response to an elemental observation can not contain another elemental observation.
Click to expand...

I am a little confused about your OP and obviously there is a bit of discussion/debate/argument that has happened in earlier threads, so I will tread lightly. lol
My somewhat naive take:
In the natural world, the event of fusion is one of intense compression due to massive amounts of matter falling under gravitational forces towards a central point (center of mass, center of gravity). A central point that the matter can never reach.
When I state massive amount of matter I do mean massive. Around 1048 times that of Jupiter in the case of Sols. (no doubt there are exceptions that I am unaware of)
Suffice to suggest that the collective gravitational forces involved in natural fusion must be massive.
To create a naturally acquired state of sustainable fusion is well beyond human capacity.

The biggest problem I think in mankind's endeavor to generate sustainable fusion is that the massive force that is required to cause sustainable fusion has to be generated with in and not externally as seems to be the case in current attempts. Compression (push) from outside rather than inside (pull) from the center of culminate mass ( center of gravity )

BTW I tend to believe that fusion also leads to ultimately the creation of mass which tends to, or initially appears to, contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
I am a little confused about your OP and obviously there is a bit of discussion/debate/argument that has happened in earlier threads, so I will tread lightly. lol
My somewhat naive take:
In the natural world, the event of fusion is one of intense compression due to massive amounts of matter falling under gravitational forces towards a central point (center of mass, center of gravity). A central point that the matter can never reach.
When I state massive amount of matter I do mean massive. Around 1048 times that of Jupiter in the case of Sols. (no doubt there are exceptions that I am unaware of)
Suffice to suggest that the collective gravitational forces involved in natural fusion must be massive.
To create a naturally acquired state of sustainable fusion is well beyond human capacity.

The biggest problem I think in mankind's endeavor to generate sustainable fusion is that the massive force that is required to cause sustainable fusion has to be generated with in and not externally as seems to be the case in current attempts. Compression (push) from outside rather than inside (pull) from the center of culminate mass ( center of gravity )

BTW I tend to believe that fusion also leads to ultimately the creation of mass which tends to, or initially appears to, contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Great opening post. I figured you would talk about quantum interactions, yet you pull out the big guns. I guess that leaves only responses at the elemental level of fusion experiments.
 
Beaconator said:
Great opening post. I figured you would talk about quantum interactions, yet you pull out the big guns. I guess that leaves only responses at the elemental level of fusion experiments.
Click to expand...
Don't read too much into my user name... I know virtually Jack Sh*t about the quantum world as currently understood and researched. I am more of a big picture kind of researcher.
It seems to me there is no point getting bogged down in minuscule details if we don't really understand the fundamentals like "What is gravity?", "What is magnetism?" etc..

Thought provoker:
"Is a star just a black hole filled with matter?" or "Is a star something that precedes the formation of a black hole?"
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
"Death by police" is such a ignoble way of protest...
Click to expand...
SBC
(suicide by cop)

a few years ago a local man came out onto his porch after cops had responded to a domestic disturbance
he held a shotgun which he aimed at the police
they fired 30 odd rounds into his body
the shotgun was unloaded
SBC
 
as a matter of interest ( excuse the pun )
e8398e22994cdcddac87f995066adf78

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...le-centaurus-a-plasma-jet-telescope/100303824
 
Quantum Quack said:
Don't read too much into my user name... I know virtually Jack Sh*t about the quantum world as currently understood and researched. I am more of a big picture kind of researcher.
It seems to me there is no point getting bogged down in minuscule details if we don't really understand the fundamentals like "What is gravity?", "What is magnetism?" etc..

Thought provoker:
"Is a star just a black hole filled with matter?" or "Is a star something that precedes the formation of a black hole?"
Click to expand...
Well it seems to be both as I have just been informed our sun will never go supernovae so there must be something inherent in a star that will cause it to become a black hole.
 
sculptor said:
SBC
(suicide by cop)

a few years ago a local man came out onto his porch after cops had responded to a domestic disturbance
he held a shotgun which he aimed at the police
they fired 30 odd rounds into his body
the shotgun was unloaded
SBC
Click to expand...
I just plan on saying how all three are related. Getting banned because of it and continuing on without anyone.
 
Beaconator said:
Well it seems to be both as I have just been informed our sun will never go supernovae so there must be something inherent in a star that will cause it to become a black hole.
Click to expand...
Nope. It will not go supernova and it will not become a black hole.
 
Beaconator said:
I just surmise bosons, quarks, muons and other subatomic forces play a role in the fusion process.
Click to expand...
bosons - yes. Photons and neutrinos are produced during fusion, and since the process can involve protons changing to neutrons by the emission of a positron, which is mediated by the weak force, the Z and W bosons are involved.
Quarks - yes. Protons and Neutron are comprised of Quarks, and in order for protons to convert to neutrons an up quark in the proton changes to a down quark.
Muons - no. While I can't rule out some muons being produced via secondary interactions after fusion occurs, these interactions are not a necessary part of the fusion process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top