Fusion reactors 'economically viable' say experts

October 2, 2015
An illustration of a tokamak with plasma. Credit: ITER

Fusion reactors could become an economically viable means of generating electricity within a few decades, and policy makers should start planning to build them as a replacement for conventional nuclear power stations, according to new research.

Researchers at Durham University and Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, have re-examined the economics of , taking account of recent advances in superconductor technology for the first time. Their analysis of building, running and decommissioning a fusion power station shows the financial feasibility of in comparison to traditional fission nuclear power.

The research, published in the journal Fusion Engineering and Design, builds on earlier findings that a could generate electricity at a similar price to a fission plant and identifies new advantages in using the new superconductor technology.

Professor Damian Hampshire, of the Centre for Material Physics at Durham University, who led the study, said: "Obviously we have had to make assumptions, but what we can say is that our predictions suggest that fusion won't be vastly more expensive than fission."

Such findings support the possibility that, within a generation or two, fusion reactors could offer an almost unlimited supply of energy without contributing to global warming or producing hazardous products on a significant scale.

Fusion reactors generate electricity by heating plasma to around 100 million degrees centigrade so that hydrogen atoms fuse together, releasing energy. This differs from fission reactors which work by splitting atoms at much lower temperatures.

The advantage of fusion reactors over current fission reactors is that they create almost no radioactive waste. Fusion reactors are safer as there is no high level radioactive material to potentially leak into the environment which means disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima are impossible because plasma simply fizzles out if it escapes.

Fusion energy is also politically safer because a reactor would not produce weapons-grade products that proliferate nuclear arms. It is fuelled by deuterium, or heavy water, which is extracted from seawater, and tritium, which is created within the reactor, so there is no problem with security of supply either.

A test fusion reactor, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, is about 10 years away from operation in the South of France. Its aim is to prove the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy.

Professor Hampshire said he hoped that the analysis would help persuade policy-makers and the private sector to invest more heavily in fusion energy.

"Fission, fusion or fossil fuels are the only practical options for reliable large-scale base-load energy sources. Calculating the cost of a fusion reactor is complex, given the variations in the cost of raw materials and exchange rates. However, this work is a big step in the right direction" he said.

"We have known about the possibility of fusion reactors for many years but many people did not believe that they would ever be built because of the that have had to be overcome and the uncertain costs."

"While there are still some technological challenges to overcome we have produced a strong argument, supported by the best available data, that fusion power stations could soon be economically viable. We hope this kick-starts investment to overcome the remaining technological challenges and speeds up the planning process for the possibility of a fusion-powered world."

The report, which was commissioned by Research Council UK's Energy Programme focuses on recent advances in high temperature superconductors. These materials could be used to construct the powerful magnets that keep the hot plasma in position inside the containing vessel, known as a tokamak, at the heart of a .

This advancing technology means that the superconducting magnets could be built in sections rather than in one piece. This would mean that maintenance, which is expensive in a radioactive environment, would be much cheaper because individual sections of the magnet could be withdrawn for repair or replacement, rather than the whole device.

While the analysis considers the cost of building, running and decommissioning a plant, it does not take into account the costs of disposing of radioactive waste that is associated with a fission plant. For a fusion plant, the only would be the tokamak, when decommissioned, which would have become mildly radioactive during its lifetime.

Explore further: Researchers awarded patent for tokamak device, would turn nuclear waste into fuel

More information: Optimal design of a toroidal field magnet system and cost of electricity implications for a tokamak using high temperature superconductors, Lee, TS, et al, Fusion Engineering and Design: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379615301526

Related Stories

A new clean nuclear fusion reactor has been designed

January 14, 2013

A researcher at the Universidad politécnica de Madrid (UPM, Spain) has patented a nuclear fusion reactor by inertial confinement that, apart from be used to generate electric power in plants, can be applied to propel ships.

Small-scale nuclear fusion may be a new energy source

September 25, 2015

Fusion energy may soon be used in small-scale power stations. This means producing environmentally friendly heating and electricity at a low cost from fuel found in water. Both heating generators and generators for electricity ...

Recommended for you

A new study looks for the cortical conscious network

August 26, 2016

New research published in the New Journal of Physics tries to decompose the structural layers of the cortical network to different hierarchies enabling to identify the network's nucleus, from which our consciousness could ...

More to rainbows than meets the eye

August 25, 2016

In-depth review charts the scientific understanding of rainbows and highlights the many practical applications of this fascinating interaction between light, liquid and gas.

Chemists explore outer regions of periodic table

August 25, 2016

A little known—and difficult to obtain—element on the fringes of the periodic table is broadening our fundamental understanding of chemistry. In the latest edition of the journal Science, Florida State University Professor ...

Understanding nature's patterns with plasmas

August 23, 2016

Patterns abound in nature, from zebra stripes and leopard spots to honeycombs and bands of clouds. Somehow, these patterns form and organize all by themselves. To better understand how, researchers have now created a new ...

Measuring tiny forces with light

August 25, 2016

Photons are bizarre: They have no mass, but they do have momentum. And that allows researchers to do counterintuitive things with photons, such as using light to push matter around.

184 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bcode
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
In the 90's, we were told the first Fusion reactors would be online by now... We'd better get cracking!
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2015
Never fear. Fusion is only 50 years away!

shavera
5 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
Note about the specific details of this specific paper (before we all get too lost in the weeds of energy policy, nuclear reactor safety, etc.) This paper is looking at the cost of production of electricity using high temperature superconductors (hts) (in terms of the cuprate ceramics we know of) and low temperature superconductors (lts). It finds that the costs of production are .191 Euro and .207 Euro per kilowatt hour for hts and lts respectively (in terms of 2013 Euro).

It's a cost analysis study, *not* an explicit design proposal or breakthrough in technology or anything.
Mannstein
4 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2015
We'll have limitless energy but still pay for it through the nose. That's progress.
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
Furthermore: they find that if we can increase critical current in high temperature superconductors by a factor of 10, and the strength of steel by a factor of 40%, that should put the cost of production at competitive prices.
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2015
Well, it better be 50 years away with research being done, than an infinite amount of time away with no research. In the worst case the plasma physics books get rewritten all the time and that's still a progress!
El_Nose
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
All nuclear reactions produce nuclear byproducts -- even fusion. In fusion it will be the lining of the main chamber which will be bombarded with neutrons. It will be radioactive, and relatively large... but it will be solid and easy to transport.

there is no free lunch in this universe.

I want fusion I like fusion, but lets not sell it as having no contaminants.. lies get you in trouble in the long run.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nathj72
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 02, 2015
If cold fusion were possible/practical with our current level of understanding and technology we would be doing it. You cannot suppress technology. This is why almost every advanced military research project is ran by DARPA and solicits public companies to research and develop solutions. The way scientific knowledge advances makes it impossible to suppress a technology. Everything is there in the math, there is no magical way of hiding it.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nathj72
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 02, 2015
Hiding a patent cannot suppress technological progress. Patents are not where the progress is reported. Patents just make use of the current level of knowledge that is easily available to any academic to make a technology. The same invention will be determined by another person in short order. The suppression of the patent may give the government time to come up with a counter measure or delay other nations development enough to meet their needs. This method is still no guarantee because it is frequent for multiple people to realize the same thing given current knowledge. Again just to be clear, scientific advancement is not a patent. A patent makes use of scientific knowledge to realize a technology. You cannot suppress scientific advancement. You can only try to slow it down.


wiyosaya
5 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2015
It's a cost analysis study, *not* an explicit design proposal or breakthrough in technology or anything.

It echos what has been said for a long time now. Viable fusion has been 20-years away for as long as I can remember. I have heard that people make statements covering broad time spans like these because they have real no clue "when."

The idea of this study seems to be to validate the economic feasibility of fusion as a large-scale energy source. It has been known that fusion is cleaner and safer than fission for some time, and as I see it, based on that alone it is worth researching.

However, while I hold out hope that fusion will eventually become a reality, I grow more weary of "fusion is a decade or two away" statements every time an entity reiterates that. In my opinion, we really do not need such statements. What we need is a working prototype, and personally, I would prefer if they stop the "someday" statements and delivery a working prototype.
nathj72
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
@wiyosya The 20 years away statement runs in line with the ITER and DEMO timeline. I thought the fusion world always said it is 50 years away....and only half jokingly. This is a good article to read that may give you a little bit more optimism: http://spectrum.i...han-coal It presents a bunch of devices being investigated by various groups.
nathj72
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
I do not see the national ignition facility in that article, I thought it was. They have achieved some promising results and are a good one to watch, here is the wiki link https://en.wikipe...Facility
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 02, 2015
If cold fusion were possible/practical with our current level of understanding and technology we would be doing it
We are doing it.
http://www.e-catw...ligence/

-This, in addition to peer-reviewed trials and papers, a US patent (almost impossible to get for unproven technology), and a US trademark.

How long did it take to get electricity into general usage?
I thought the fusion world always said it is 50 years away
-Repeating stale jokes doesnt mean you know what youre talking about.

Educate yourself.
You cannot suppress technology
Of course you can The church did it for 1000 years, and still tries.

No technology which threatens the existence of civilization will be allowed to develop on its own. Never has, never will.

"Everything is beautiful in its own Time." -ecc3
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nathj72
3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2015
@TheGhostofOtto1923
Educate yourself. Of course you can [suppress scientific advancement] The church did it for 1000 years, and still tries.

Ok, I decided to give this a read (I know it is not a publication, but it seems to be from a reliable source): http://blogs.natu...dle-ages

Now its your turn.
hudres
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
This article is absurd. ITER, when completed, will only be able to run for 500 seconds before it melts down. It then has to cool for an extended period before it can be run again. It is necessary to build a tokamak about 5 times the size of ITER, at a cost of about 60 Billion dollars to get a viable self sustaining reactor. Read their technical papers.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
Just do it!
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2015
The successors to ITER (With the current exception of DEMO??) should be smaller than ITER because they will be based on high-field, high-temperature, superconductors (as mentioned in the article).

The folk at Princeton have been designing such reactors as class projects. Here is there current best effort:- http://www.pppl.g...elopment

I'm glad this article shows they are thinking along similar lines in this costing exercise by the people behind JET in the UK.
nathj72
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2015
@docile The fallout from the initial research effort was very severe. I can see why mainstream physicists do not want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. It sounds like there have been intermittent reviews of the state of cold fusion. All it will take for some one to be taken seriously is to provide a solid theory, a test apparatus, and an independent group to reproduce those results. The independent group must be able to build it from components, not test a supplied device. As far as I know none of the current claims have presented anything more than a device with some independent verification of the device. A solid theory and proper third party reproduction of the device are still lacking.
nathj72
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
@ docile There is a modern example that is following the same sort of course as cold fusion and that is the EM drive. It has had a working apparatus and the results have been reproduced. However, without a solid theory people are skeptical of the results. Until a solid theory is proposed and confirmed this will not be published in high impact factor publications. Measurement error is still the winning theory to explain results.
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2015
You cannot suppress technology
This happens routinely at the governmental level (https://www.newsc...be.html, ....) Which remote planet are you coming from?


Certain forms of Cold Fusion would definitely be deemed a threat, if viable reactions even existed, because they could be used to power submarines and other Navy Vessels. So even if a Cold Fusion technique existed, no government would admit it publicly, because they wouldn't want another government to have access to the power it provides to military directly or indirectly.

I know from a retired Marine officer, who was my teacher in High School, that the U.S. Navy and Air Force have at least one piece of working technology in aircraft, which is widely thought to be "science fiction".

No evidence that any other country has this, and we don't even use it in most of our aircraft either, but others don't stand a chance against us.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2015
Now its your turn.
Read your spectrum article. General fusion for instance says their machine can produce energy in a few years. As to your religionist templeton rees link, my take on the middle ages is this:

The existence of the western hemisphere, and of the very dangerous cultures existing there, had been known for centuries. Had these cultures been allowed to engage in independent trade with western merchants, they would have gotten knowledge of gunpowder, metallurgy, shipbuilding, and most ominously, ocean navigation.

Precolombian cultures already had a rudimentary appreciation of science. They also had million-man armies, cities bigger than any in europe, and a massive overpopulation problem.

And so the church sought to keep everyone out of the atlantic until such time as these cultures could be efficiently and thoroughly destroyed. And the tech to enable this destruction was only allowed to develop at the Proper Time.

As explained in ecclesiastes.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2015
Tokamaks may or may not prove to be an efficient way of producing energy. They are however the only way to stoore plasma in bulk for any length of time.

We will be using plasma in the future for a great many things including manufacturing, plasma chemistry, research. Antimatter will be created and stored in plasma form. The closed bottle tokamak is the only currently known way of storing it.

And so the argument could be made that alternate forms of fusion were suppressed, underfunded, and led astray in order to promote tokamak R&D for Purposes other than energy production.

Bussard sat on his wiffleball until he died, and it went nowhere even though many were doing fusion in their garages with his electrostatic concept.

Bussard was an establishment scientist. In the early 1970s he became Assistant Director under Director Robert Hirsch at the Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division of what was then known as the Atomic Energy Commission.

A Player.
RichManJoe
3 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2015
I was told that fusion reactors were just a few decades away when I was an EE student in 1970. Odds are I won't be alive when the first one comes online.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Oct 02, 2015
This is by the way how Bohr suppressed the development of a german fission weapon. He was appointed the sole source for clearance and approval of related research.

The development of nuclear weapons was in hindsight a collaborative effort of ALL the superpowers during that time. The US was tasked with building and testing the bomb. The germans developed the means to deliver it worldwide with their rocket program.

Numbers indicate that they killed only 1 person per bomb. Their use only hardened allied resolve and further defined who the enemy was and why he needed to be destroyed when logic indicated that the nazis were western europes only protection against the communists.

Obviously the program had another far more important Purpose, that being the field testing and development of ICBMs and cruise missiles for use by the Planned winners of those wars.

More examples of how technology will never be allowed to develop by itself.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nathj72
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
@docile You misinterpret Feynman's stance. He still believed a theory was required (He was a theoretic physicist after all). I also stated three requirements to be met. Theory is just one of those three. I do wonder if that comment from Feynman was directed at sting theory physicists.

High temperature superconductors were unexpected, but theories have been suggested that the physics community deemed acceptable. We have explanations for both gravity and magnetism. From my understanding we still lack a quantum mechanical description of gravity. However, we do have an explanation for gravity we just think it is missing something and have been trying to figure it out for a long time.

I do not understand where your assumption that we do not have an explanation for magnetism comes from.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
I don't know how it works, but the U.S. government supposedly has some sort of inertial dampening technology in certain spy planes and possibly in some of the more recent, advanced fighter models. This allows extremely rapid acceleration without harming the pilot, such as cutting very tight turns at maximum velocity, etc.

This is supposed to be scientifically impossible according to any physics text, but it has apparently existed for around 30 years or so.

Now he didn't actually say that directly, but I asked about it regarding a new experimental aircraft at the time, and I was like, "How can the pilot survive that?"

And he was like, "Oh no. We have something that solves that problem."

I'm like, "What some kind of inertial manipulation?"

And he says, "Well, you didn't hear it from me."
nathj72
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
@TheGhostofOtto1923 I was just reading up on the failure of german nuclear research. I would love a link to a reputable source on what you said.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
We have explanations for both gravity and magnetism. From my understanding we still lack a quantum mechanical description of gravity. However, we do have an explanation for gravity we just think it is missing something and have been trying to figure it out for a long time.

I disagree a bit.

We don't actually have an explanation for gravity. We have a mathematical description of how gravity behaves, but the actual source/carrier of gravity and how it actually interacts is basically completely unknown, not to mention how this functions in the most extreme theoretical cases, such as black holes, white holes, worm holes, quark stars, strangelets, you name it. What the hell is all this shit that Relativity or QM one or the other, ends up predicting but the actual underlying mechanism for it all remains hidden.

A parabola describes the motion of a ball I throw, but it doesn't actually tell me "why" or "how" gravity causes that motion.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
@TheGhostofOtto1923 I was just reading up on the failure of german nuclear research. I would love a link to a reputable source on what you said.


The Germans in WWII era got as far as making a militarily significant "Dirty Bomb", but never achieved full ignition.

They attempted to deliver the "Dirty Bomb" to attack the U.S. west coast via Japan, but the ship which carried the weapon was sunk by chance engagement. I forget the exact circumstances.
nathj72
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2015
@docile
Another problem is, the tokamak design cannot be miniaturized for to remain effective


The link someone posted earlier and they said it was Princeton was an MIT project that showed how to effectively miniaturize the tokamak design and even demonstrated how it becomes more efficient with miniaturization. I read spectrum, so here is that link again :http://spectrum.i...-reactor
nathj72
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
@Returners that is basically what I read. I was wondering about the statement that Bohr disrupted development efforts.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
And so the church sought to keep everyone out of the atlantic until such time as these cultures could be efficiently and thoroughly destroyed. And the tech to enable this destruction was only allowed to develop at the Proper Time.

As explained in ecclesiastes.


Ghost, I am definitely not going to defend the actions of the colonial era Christians, and especially not the Spanish inquisition nor conquistadors, but to read your comment you make it seem like all of this was an orchestrated mass extinction across all cultures working against Western Hemisphere natives. I don't think that was intended by all European nations or settlers.

The Spanish goal was clearly Gold and Gems, I get that, and at the time they pretty well killed anyone who got in the way. Monarchs often did things with the "blessing" of the so-called "church" organization, but that doesn't mean they had the moral support of all Christians.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
cont...

I know some of the western cultures practiced human sacrifice, which the Christians would have held abhorrent and we would too today, and I know some of the massacres were probably related to that, but most of the deaths in the west were actually caused by Smallpox, which the Westerners had no immunity to. Nevertheless it is abhorrent that the colonizations, especially in South America and Central America, essentially turned into extermination missions. Also the Spanish fanatics destroyed all the Mayan texts except 4 manuscripts, so we don't even know anything about the Mayans in their own words.

As for North America, I am ashamed of what the U.S. historical leaders did to the native Americans here.

I know Andrew Jackson was some great hero at the battle of New Orleans and stuff, but the man basically lead a mass murder campaign against Native Americans too, and was basically supported by the general consensus of the whites at the time.
nathj72
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
@Returners I think everything you mentioned falls into the bucket of quantum description of gravity which we still have not solved.

In hindsight I should probably refrain from saying explanation and go with theory. Since theory implies it has been deemed a good enough explanation with current information. Until (if ever) we have a unifying theory of everything you can always claim we do not have a full explanation.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
cont...
For that reason alone, I feel like Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill and replaced with someone else.

Do we really want a man who was equivalent to Hitler in terms of Genocide on our currency?

I think it is tragic and even insane that the "Manifest Destiny" interpretation of the "Will of God" lead to these events.

I don't know who first proposed that interpretation of scripture and the Will of God, but it is clearly not supported by the actual Biblical teaches..."Thou shalt love they neighbour as thy self," and "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you."

If they only read and obeyed those two sentences, none of this ever would have happened.

Destroying a cult that practiced human sacrifice is one thing, and even understandale, but wiping out entire races for profit from the spoils of gold and emeralds...that's just murder and piracy, and I do not believe they will be received by God because of it.
wiyosaya
not rated yet Oct 02, 2015
@wiyosya The 20 years away statement runs in line with the ITER and DEMO timeline. I thought the fusion world always said it is 50 years away....and only half jokingly. This is a good article to read that may give you a little bit more optimism: http://spectrum.i...han-coal It presents a bunch of devices being investigated by various groups.


Matching the timelines of ITER and DEMO sounds like chance.

I live in a city where there has been a fusion lab since the mid 1970s or so. Back then, a working fusion reactor was 20-years away, thus to the point of my post. I think it would lend more credibility to fusion research if fusion researchers were to say "we don't know when, but we see promise and we will keep working on it." I cannot help but wonder if timelines like those are sales pitches for funding. I prefer honesty, and just because one says we don't know when does not indicate pessimism in my opinion.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
I felt like the way to do nuclear fusion might be to start at the microscopic level. Use some sort of computer chip sized device to fuse just a few atoms at a time. This approach, if successful, would not necessarily be useful for commercial power, but could be used to power a space craft, presumably using solar power as a primer when needed.

If we could just understand the true inner workings of gravity, making a fusion device might not even be necessary, they might be made obsolete if Gravity could somehow be manipulated.

We've learned to manipulated the Electromagnetic field over the past centuries, perhaps one day we will learn to manipulate the Higgs field directly for something more than just making a particle which disappears instantly once a while.
Physgirl
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
"Fusion reactors could become an economically viable means of generating electricity within a few decades, and policy makers should start planning to build them as a replacement for conventional nuclear power stations, according to new research."

Translation, please give us some more money. Construction phase is due for completion around 2019. With full deuterium and tritium experiments around 2027. In addition the ITER project is way behind schedule.

ITER is a humongous white elephant. Good science, but still an elelphant.

Regards
Polygirl



nathj72
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
@Returners What I find interesting is we are still learning how to manipulate electromagnetic fields. It is truly amazing how much is hidden in those four beautiful equations.

I may take us just as long or longer to learn to manipulate other fields once we find a way to interact with them. Just cause we know how to interact with the field does not mean we truly understand it.
nathj72
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
@docile: You cannot always wait for the better solution. Sometimes you just need to jump in. There is no better way to find out what you need to research to build a fusion generator than to just build the monstrosity.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nathj72
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
@ docile: I am not sure where your negative view of scientists comes from. Most scientists are university professors that teach classes, supervise graduate students, perform administrative duties, and apply for grants. Do not forget that they also review papers for free, evaluate masters and PhD thesis defenses, and contribute to their respective societies free of charge. I am pretty sure I am missing a few things. Many of them can be seen working on weekends and into the evening. If these people were working for money, they would NOT be researchers. They are researchers because they like being researchers. Many of them could get jobs in industry if they wanted money, cause they would make more. You mean those fossil fuels that we are producing so much of that prices have been bottoming out.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
orti
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2015
"Fission, fusion or fossil fuels are the only practical options for reliable large-scale base-load energy sources."
A small concession to candor for phy.org.
nathj72
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2015
Discussion forums and the internet is a terrible spot to get to know people. Fringe science is frequently dismissed out of hand. I actually saw some comments from researchers on how this makes the issue with cold fusion worse. I have a hard time seeing a professional physicists actually controlling anything on reddit. I could see them commenting in ask science, but I expect STEM students running the forum. Young people can be offensive, outspoken, and inconsiderate. It is possible professionals are behaving like this, they are people and many tend to be very confident in their opinions.

In general, my interaction with researchers in person have been positive and they are usually good people that are there because they are passionate about doing research and learning new things.They are not there for the money, they usually get compensated well but not as well as in industry.
german physicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Too little too late. I used to believe in fusion as a good solution, but solar / PV has simply (and fortunately) become too cheap. Give it 20 years, and solar will dominate energy production worldwide. The storage / battery problem can be solved with straightforward engineering, and solar doesn't generate radioactive waste. Too little too late for fusion.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lex Talonis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2015
In situations like these, we have to ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?"

He has achieved fusion - of all the elements.

He has achieved travel through all time and space, instantaneously.

He lives in an invisible crystal palace that is located in low earth orbit - that everything can pass through and it's totally undetectable.

And he commutes on a magic cloud, from earth to space and back again.

He also can run the entire known universe, including starting up black holes by mind control and teleportation.

We ought to ask the king of scientists, what is really going on.
nathj72
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
@docile: I am done with you. You managed to help maintain the stereotype that if comments go on long enough that the Nazis or Hitler will be referenced. Way to be THAT person.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PhysicsMatter
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2015

The controlled nuclear fusion (hot or cold) is the only revolutionary technology on horizon that has any chance to solve problem of sustainable green energy for millennia to come. However, during last 50 years it was shamefully underfunded and plagued with scandals, waste and over overblown bureaucracy. We need at least hundred times more funding and tens of thousand educational grants for young talented physicists to deal with the problem in new revolutionary ways since old ways are stuck in the rot for decades.
PhysicsMatter
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2015
Part of the reason of the setbacks so far was failure of the theoretical framework of collisional plasma physics, a patchwork of mostly linear mathematical models that only partially fit the specific data and utter absence of general non-linear plasma theory, only partially addressed by plasma simulations. The instability problems in the plasma confinement settings were first discovered in 1950-ties and it continues to be Achilles heel of the whole program perhaps indicating lack of deep understanding of the fundamental physical micro-processes in unified framework.

An interesting discussion of rarely addressed weaknesses of widely accepted scientific methodologies that after initial success leading often to dead end or to internal, often ignored, inconsistencies can be found at:

https://questforn...reality/

https://sostratus...lusions/
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 02, 2015
In situations like these, we have to ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?"

He has achieved fusion - of all the elements.

He has achieved travel through all time and space, instantaneously.

He lives in an invisible crystal palace that is located in low earth orbit - that everything can pass through and it's totally undetectable.

And he commutes on a magic cloud, from earth to space and back again.

He also can run the entire known universe, including starting up black holes by mind control and teleportation.

We ought to ask the king of scientists, what is really going on.


I take it you're trying to raise another one of those discussions about Dark Matter?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2015
I felt like the way to do nuclear fusion might be to start at the microscopic level. Use some sort of computer chip sized device to fuse just a few atoms at a time. This approach, if successful, would not necessarily be useful for commercial power, but could be used to power a space craft, presumably using solar power as a primer when needed.


This won't work because a temperature of 100 degrees Kelvin is required. Unless you can come up with a method of creating very high pressure inside the containment vessel, fusion will never become an earthbound reality. Inside our Sun it works because the core pressure is so high that fusion occurs at much lower temperature.

gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 02, 2015
"He also can run the entire known universe, including starting up black holes by mind control and teleportation."
--------------------------------------------

So can Operating Thetans. Yup, one told me himself.

Scientology will sell you a set of courses which promise you can have effect over time and space, and can travel the Universe at will, after you spend about the price of a new Tesla Electric SUV.

I kept asking him to materialize and visit me, but he never showed up. I guess he was visiting more important folk.
docile
Oct 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2015
The NASA is just trying the http://www.lenr-c...eriment/ (between others). There are many principles in the game (pyrofusion, molten lithium fusion, etc.)


..........the coldest fusion reaction known is inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
100 degrees Kelvin


You must have had a poor quality science education.

Every time is see people use 'degrees' with Kelvin, I know they have not had much of a physics education.

Kelvin is an absolute temperature scale. There are NO Kelvin degrees. Just K, no degrees.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 02, 2015
Interesting projection in light that Dr. E is wrong!
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 02, 2015
Benni with his usual dumb ignorant claims
..........the coldest fusion reaction known is inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin
No !

Not by any means !

Where'd you graduate Nuclear Engineer & when, much did that single page cost ?

Cold fusion routine even on a small chip, ie Properties of an interference probabilistic phenomena depending on how you extrapolate QM, tell us Benni as a "Nuclear Engineer" just what that means - can you ok ? (RQ)

Cold fusion electrically generated on demand, seems you missed that whole semester AND the math pre-requisites too !
https://www.youtu...oueOIURo

Benni, you still claiming others can't do simple "DE's" thus implying you can, so why is it you ignore my requests you evaluate the "DE" at the core settled Physics (never refuted) re climate change
https://en.wikipe...transfer

ryggesogn2 the AGW denier said Physics degree, where ?

Both caught again - ha !
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2015
"Wont you step a little faster"
Said the whiting to the snail,
"There's a lobster close behind me,"
"And he's standing on me tail"

The missing neutrons from Pons and Fleischmanns experiment were muons.
sascoflame
5 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2015
When I went to the Worlds Fair in 1964 we were told commercially viable fusion reactors were only a decade a way. The only truth that I know that has never changed is viable fusion reactors are only a decade a way.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2015
Benni with his usual dumb ignorant claims
..........the coldest fusion reaction known is inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin
No !

Not by any means !

Where'd you graduate Nuclear Engineer & when, much did that single page cost ?

Cold fusion routine even on a small chip, ie Properties of an interference probabilistic phenomena depending on how you extrapolate QM, tell us Benni as a "Nuclear Engineer" just what that means - can you ok ? (RQ)

Cold fusion electrically generated on demand, seems you missed that whole semester AND the math pre-requisites too
..........I guess it is often necessary to just consider the source & allow age before beauty have a stage. You're totally clueless about the conditions required for fusion reactions to occur, inside the Sun or outside. Retired people like you trying to play catch up science with those who've already been doing it simply chuckle at your inane name calling, your expletives & your profanity.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2015
Benni with even more ignorance dug an even deeper hole for himself with
..You're totally clueless about the conditions required for fusion reactions to occur, inside the Sun or outside
Really ?

You ignore the link I posted/didnt answer my question - what can't you ?

So then you deny Sandia lab's product development to make D-D fusion work at NTP - yes or no ?
https://www.youtu...oueOIURo

Did you watch the (short) video all the way through ?

Did you check out Sandia labs tech report on D-D fusion re their neutristor ?

So Benni, do you still (naively) claim fusion cannot ever occur except at (as you claim)
..inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin
Well ?

Benni claimed
Retired people like you trying to play catch up science..
Really ?
Not retired :-)

Where/When did you graduate as Nuclear Engineer ?

Why claim re cold fusion " inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin. " when education is & has been against you ?

Are you ill ?
docile
Oct 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2015
Benni with even more ignorance dug an even deeper hole for himself with
.You're totally clueless about the conditions required for fusion reactions to occur, inside the Sun or outside


So then you deny Sandia lab's product development to make D-D fusion work at NTP - yes or no ?
Did you watch the (short) video all the way through ?Did you check out Sandia labs tech report on D-D fusion re their neutristor ?So Benni, do you still (naively) claim fusion cannot ever occur except at (as you claim)inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin


Benni claimed
Retired people like you trying to play catch up science


Where/When did you graduate as Nuclear Engineer ?

Why claim re cold fusion " inside our Sun at 12-14 M degrees Kelvin. " when education is & has been against you ?

Are you ill ?


Muttering Mike, still working at playing catch up science as you fumble through putting together even a single cogent train of thought.

gkam
2.1 / 5 (25) Oct 03, 2015
Why did we let this forum fall into the sewer of personal attacks? How did we wind up with the ottos and the Iras, and the others screaming nasty words and making character assassinations?

Why can't we just discuss the issues without the personal vandalization from the maladjusted?
KBK
3 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2015
My favorite part about fusion reactors is where I bring the connection to the moment when people start screaming about this law or that law violation in physics..when someone brings up the subject of 'over unity'.

Fusion reaction science has had billions of dollars poured into it, and it is 110%, by any measure or estimate... an over-unity science. Considered to be 110% real.

The WHY of fusion reactor science promotion is the perception of it remaining as a centrally controlled energy source, one made and operated by major corporations in conjunction with governments...who would hold society and people ransom to power and energy needs. Exactly as they do right now.

That oligarchy can and will still exist, and slavery will still exist in a world powered by fusion reactors.

This is why it is promoted, even as an over unity science, when all others are poo-pooed as not being possible and in violation of physics 'laws'.

Go figure.
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Oct 03, 2015
Well they ?? have now got shitter hotly maggernets, for new clear fusion containers.

And we have one imaginary god of the jews, mueslings and genitiles - and bible study groups.

What could possibly go right?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2015
Benni with the very Best he could
Muttering Mike, still working at playing catch up science as you fumble through putting together even a single cogent train of thought
Where is the catch up for me when you make erroneous claims ?

Why can't you learn to research first before making ignorant claims ?

What is false with Sandia Labs fusion chip to produce neutrons ?

Why can't Benni focus on the facts, fusion easily occurs below the claimed temp he said ?

Benni, please get a grip, its all beyond you, lets start with education, you claim to be a "Nuclear Engineer" - which institute & when please - your student number ?

Mine is 07602128 @ Curtin University Bentley (Perth), Western Australia :-)

Yours please to qualify your claim of being a "Nuclear Engineer" ?

Making claims of my lack of coherence shows you up, my stats easy to check, yours please ?

Did you watch the Sandia Labs video re D-D fusion at NTP ?

If not why not & your comments & apologies please ?
KBK
not rated yet Oct 03, 2015
Note that Rossi received his US patent on his E-cat over unity thermal rector, in late august 2015.

You can try and make your own.

If you prove it does not work, then you can try to have his patent revoked,as this operational example aspect is what needs to be in a patent, in order for the patent to be issued.

It is my guess that you will find that Rossi's e-Cat works exactly as he says it does and it will produce kilowatts of power, for months at a time, for a cost that drops down to fractions of a cent per kw/hr. (.05 cents per kw/hr, or less) Something that puts out kilowatts of thermal energy for 4-5-6 months, for a cost of $2US for all that output.

Exactly as he stated it would.... and is fully exposed in method and constructional detail, as laid out by the patent and required by patent law, in order that the patent be issued.

http://pdfpiw.usp...o.gov%2F
gkam
2 / 5 (23) Oct 03, 2015
Once again, we do not need centralized power with its centralized authority, and its police state to keep it all "safe" for us. We are on the cusp of a major change which can allow us to be our own producers, to bond together in micro or mini-grids, to share, to buy and sell, to have more say in our futures.

The authoritarians love centralized stuff, because they think they will control it. They are now getting SCARED over the new power and freedom being afforded the common man.
typicalguy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
Rossi has been saying e-cat is coming "next year" for damn near a decade now. Every time he makes grandious claims and never follows through with them. I believe he's a scammer and will continue to believe that until he opens his devices to public scrutiny. He's got his patent now, he's protected, lets see his devices since that's the reason he's claimed for years that he couldn't show it off.

I said this a year or two ago and it's just as true today as it was then. He's either a huge scammer, only interested in lining his own pockets with money from investors or he's an awful person, one of the worst in history that allows the climate to be destroyed by fossil fuels and allows billions of people to live in essentially pre-historic conditions just because he wants a few bucks out of this. Well he's got his patent, lets see this marvelous device ourselves.

Oh wait, he still won't show them. He's a scammer.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2015
Once again, we do not need centralized power with its centralized authority, and its police state to keep it all "safe" for us.

The authoritarians love centralized stuff, because they think they will control it. They are now getting SCARED over the new power and freedom being afforded the common man.


You could very well be right about your political perspective, but more to the point of the article is the impracticable methods for generation & containment of fusion processes.

We already know sustained magnetic field containment at 100 million degrees Kelvin simply won't cut it.

Until a pressure containment vessel can be built which can maintain a steady high enough pressure pressure to reduce fusion temperature from 100 M Kelvin, it can't be done on Earth in our low atmospheric conditions. The Sun does it quite efficiently in it's center at 12-14 M Kelvin but we can't recreate on Earth the internal pressure of the Sun.

gkam
2 / 5 (23) Oct 03, 2015
The perspective is also economics, Benni. How many decades, generations, have they been working on this Grand Promise?

We have better alternatives already. Let's develop stuff we can own and control ourselves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2015
Why did we let this forum fall into the sewer of personal attacks? How did we wind up with the ottos and the Iras, and the others screaming nasty words and making character assassinations?
Well when did you show up?

And whos we psychopath IMO? You talk like you belong here or something. The people here do not want to read your lies and bullshit about your imaginary past.

You lie.

People here then have to take the time to disprove your lies.

Sometimes you provide evidence, like your MS, but after some work that turned out to be a lie didnt it?

What makes you think liars like you belong here?
Once again, we do not need centralized power with its centralized authority, and its police state
And we dont need to read your juvenile t shirt slogans from the 70s.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (23) Oct 03, 2015
grandious claims and never follows through with them. I believe he's a scammer and will continue to believe that until he opens his devices to public scrutiny. He's got his patent now, he's protected, lets see his devices since that's the reason he's claimed for years that he couldn't show it off
Rossis got plenty of pictures.
http://www.natura...-office/
http://www.natura...s-e-cat/

-Tell you what - if you want pics, go to google, type in 'rossi ecat' instead of pamela anderson like you usually do, hit 'images' and see for yourself.

Here is his 2nd independent peer-reviewed test and paper
https://matslew.f...0131.pdf

-which I guess you werent aware of because you enjoy using words like 'scammer' and 'grandiose'
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2015
Here is IH/rossis plan for production and distribution after the current tests are complete, assuming the results are favorable.
http://www.e-catw...reached/

IH. as you also are apparently unaware of, is the multi-billion dollar consortium which bought him out.

They dont seem much concerned about your scammer concerns do they? Thats probably because they know a little bit more about it than you.
gkam
2 / 5 (23) Oct 03, 2015
Build one, otto and prove it to us.

Go ahead. You have the patents to view. Do it.
Dug
not rated yet Oct 03, 2015
The Brits seem to be a bit behind the learning curve. So, either Lockheed Martin or this article source here is remarkably uninformed. LMT had a news release in Feb. 7, 2013 that it would have a prototype fusion reactor within five years and a commercial model in less than a decade - not five decades. LMT has not withdrawn those timelines. (https://en.wikipe...reactor)
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2015
Why did we let this forum fall into the sewer of personal attacks? How did we wind up with the ottos and the Iras, and the others screaming nasty words and making character assassinations?
Well when did you show up?
You were doing it long before that.

And whos we psychopath IMO? You talk like you belong here or something. The people here do not want to read your lies and bullshit about your imaginary past.

You lie.

People here then have to take the time to disprove your lies.

Sometimes you provide evidence, like your MS, but after some work that turned out to be a lie didnt it?

What makes you think liars like you belong here?
Once again, we do not need centralized power with its centralized authority, and its police state
And we dont need to read your juvenile t shirt slogans from the 70s


Mostly what we do not need on a science site is your continued name calling, vulgarity, profanity, & your generally filthy mouth ghosty.

Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2015
The perspective is also economics, Benni. How many decades, generations, have they been working on this Grand Promise?
We have better alternatives already. Let's develop stuff we can own and control ourselves.


I can tell you about "economics". I can also tell you that it is much more economical when individuals take the responsibility on their own shoulders when it comes to providing for their own necessities as much as possible.

I will never be off the grid, not that I never want to, but until the efficiency of solar increases dramatically it's off the table. I don't want any wind turbines around me because I don't want to continually listen to the wump wump in the downstroke of those blades keeping me awake all night.

I have lots of wood, it supplies 50% of my heat during a severe winter, 75% in a mild one. I almost put PV panels on my garage/work building, then changed my mind about buying a Tesla. I'm a rural lifestylist who doesn't teach profanity to my kids.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2015
Build one, otto and prove it to us.

Go ahead. You have the patents to view. Do it.
Right after you build an Li-ion backup system for grid power.

Go ahead. You have the patents to view. Too bad you dont know anything about batteries.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

-You retard.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 03, 2015
"Right after you build an Li-ion backup system for grid power."
-----------------------------

I have a lead-acid one for my PV-powered pergola lighting system. What you got?

Nothing. You're not even real.
german physicist
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2015
From Docile:
This is impossible from simple reason: As ... (nature article) ... point outs clearly, a shift to renewable energy will just replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals).


Nowhere does the Nature article state it is impossible, just it's something to consider. Here's a more relevant quote:

"If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh (ref. 2) to .. 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected .. , this (increase in steel, aluminum and copper) corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years."

I don't think a 5-18% increase in global production will break the system (and be "impossible") ...

docile
Oct 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2 / 5 (23) Oct 03, 2015
Why do you keep on complaining to us about what you think is a lack of investment in alleged cold fusion? Do you think any of us are keeping you from your dream?

Go do something about it, instead of staying home and whining.
LEVI506
1 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2015
Cold fusion or LENR is already on the scene. Temperatures in the thousands of degrees have already been produced and the first commercial one meg reactor is already in operation. No shielding, no radioactive waste and it's cheap. Better wake up. Fusion of the type discussed here is already obsolete.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2015
LEVI506 claimed
Temperatures in the thousands of degrees have already been produced and the first commercial one meg reactor is already in operation
NOT about temperature LEVI506, even Benni should know this though he fails to understand containment vs pressure, EM physics Benni !

But, LEVI506 try to understand Sol only produces ~276 W/m^3 despite fact the density of the fusing media is so very much higher than any claimed terrestrial cold fusion reactor core

NOT about temperature LEVI506, same goes for AGW issues, its about Power.

Show us LEVI506, the specs on this claimed commercial 1MW reactor & if this is the one which relies on a natural gas input ?

Why it needs that when batteries are more than enough to get any claimed cold fusion reaction started te recharge them ?

LEVI506 claimed
Better wake up. Fusion of the type discussed here is already obsolete
No claims LEVI506, definitive independent testing without need for a Gas source ?

Evidence !
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (19) Oct 04, 2015
docile naively suggested
I'm for example trying to convince politicians to give money from ITER to cold fusion research instead
This is one of the most ill-considered ideas by far made on these forums, docile completely ignores the history of R&D & especially so the immense experimental scramble from Pons & Fleischmann 1989
https://en.wikipe...d_fusion

26yrs docile & billions already spent publicly & comparable to co's eg GEC !

docile you'd make a better case requesting nations reduce by 1% military expenditure, then you have comparable funding & ITER too !

docile, one problem with 'cold fusion' is the juxtaposition between energy density & the stability of a "reaction core" & its long term effect

Eg. Sol's ~276W/^3 is subject to immense density several orders of magnitude of envisaged reactors, see the major issue ?

Far better put 1% of world military budget on solar

docile naively claimed
... would succeed
Unlikely. Physics docile !
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2015
I don't think a 5-18% increase in global production will break the system (and be "impossible") ..

And we should also note that this is stuff that can be recycled (very much unlike fossil fuels). So the increase in mining needed is only temporary.

Rossi has been saying e-cat is coming "next year" for damn near a decade now.

Make that almost three decades. This shtick is so old ... and it wasn't any more funny in the beginning than it is now.

He's got his patent now

The patent is a sham, too - as it doesn't detail the nature of his magic sauce ( the 'catalyst'). A patent only protects something if you can use it to recreate the original work. Without it it's just a useless piece of paper that will not hold up in any court.

It's like issuing a patent for a black box with "unicorns be here".
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 04, 2015
docile naive (again) claims
This will actually happen once the cold fusion get accepted, because most of military expenditures is about protection /fight for oil resources
No. Which planet you on ?

Oil at record low prices, cost of energy dropping, rise of renewables

docile, you are so incompetent you just don't know how incompetent you are !

NOT about acceptance, about Evidence - substantive without complications of ANY other energy source for continuous operation - this has NOT been demonstrated.

Rossi's only commercial product needs gas input !

docile naively claims
Their dismissal of cold fusion is wrong and stupid at so many levels, that I really doubt their intelligence
No. You docile are ignorant of Physics & especially so comparative magnitudes, flow rates, power density.

Please please get an essential education, start here:-
https://en.wikipe...lar_core

Tell us how to get the necessary # of fusion events terrestrially per Kw ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 04, 2015
docile fails to read fully AND think
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription
.. didn't bother to read it, do you?
Clearly you havent, it appears as a provisional application, its replete only with claims of method, is not definitive, not substantive & not a "full" patent in conventional sense.

docile with more naivety
..because E-Cat technology was already replicated routinely with Russians, Chinese etc: with patents or without them
When ?

Given import, don't you think, if true - that Chinese etc would immediately pause the huge number of new fossil fuel plants, instead directly implement "Rossi proof" ?

Given modern tech & if the patent was replicable it would take ~ 1-2mths for engineers to replicate definitively in pilot form.

Obviously it hasn't happened, doh, since Feb 2015, ie over 7 months !

Rossi comes across as a fake & obfuscator :-(
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Oct 04, 2015
What ever happened to that tech, of storing power in rivers - like a huge capacitor I guess.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2015
Muttering Mike, give it a rest. you're at the same level of comprehending nuclear physics as Docile. You're only forte in these discussions are your vulgarities in following the lead of the Ghosties engaging in your foul mouthedness.

All those with your mindset imagine the greatest transgression that can ever occur in the Commentary on this site is to challenge the MMs, Ghosties, Iras, Stumpies, etc, to proffer up their skills in Differential Equations.

You see MM, what you fail to comprehend is that challenging people to engage in math skills on a science site is more relevant to the subject content than all the quantity of combined name calling & vulgarities. I persistent in challenging certain ones to learn Differential Equations, because it is an affront to their vulgarity skills & they like you detest challenges to your vulgarity & foul mouth skills.

I have never challenged Docile on his math skills because he doesn't engage others with vulgarities, you do.
gkam
2 / 5 (23) Oct 04, 2015
"What ever happened to that tech, of storing power in rivers - like a huge capacitor I guess"
-------------------------------

You are correct. That is what I referred to with the term Pumped Storage. We pump water uphill at night when the power is cheapest, and let it be used as hydropower at peak periods, then pumped up at night to be used again.
gkam
2 / 5 (23) Oct 04, 2015
Lex,your question shows us the situation I was explaining to Ira, the difference between energy production and energy storage. Batteries do not produce energy, they store it. It has to be generated first, then used to charge the battery.

They are now competitive with peaking power, but not with large storage solutions, such as pumped storage.
Burnerjack
5 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2015
Never fear. Fusion is only 50 years away!


And will always be so. 'Cha-ching!'
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
There is still a lot of R&D and technology testing to be done before we reap the product of those more than 50 years of labour in the field of nuclear fusion. Thankfully, this paper outlines the possibility and the conditions to make magnetic confinement technology economically competitive with fossil fuel. I hope that it will convince more nations to invest and favor the conditions, if not to accelerate, to at least stay within the development timeline of ITER and DEMO. There are steps that humanity need to take to move forward and this project is one of those.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2015
There are steps that humanity need to take to move forward and this project is one of those.

Especially outward. What else are we going to use as a power source for serious interplanetary/interstellar drives? Coal?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2015
There is still a lot of R&D and technology testing to be done before we reap the product of those more than 50 years of labour in the field of nuclear fusion
..and we remain in Nowheresville with it.

this paper outlines the possibility and the conditions to make magnetic confinement technology economically competitive with fossil fuel
..and every additional "paper" makes those claims.....the same dreamland express.

I hope that it will convince more nations to invest and favor the conditions
OK, convince Nigeria it is in their interest "to invest". Maybe you can assist the Venezuelans in making that case for themselves? All this talk about the benefits is pie in the sky when there is no technological pathway for accomplishing it.

Try to convince starving Nigerians living inside an oil rich country that it is in their best interests to wait another 50 years, at the present pace, for the promise of fusion before they can have better lives,


TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2015
There are steps that humanity need to take to move forward and this project is one of those.

Especially outward. What else are we going to use as a power source for serious interplanetary/interstellar drives? Coal?

That was part of what I had in mind when I wrote 'move forward'.
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (20) Oct 04, 2015
patent is a sham too... Doesn't detail the nature of his magic sauce
My god you didnt even read it.

"Variations in the ratio of reactants and catalyst tend to govern reaction rate, and are not critical. However, it has been found that a suitable mixture would include a starting mixture of 50% nickel, 20% lithium, and 30% LAH [lithium aluminum hydride]. Within this mixture, nickel acts as a catalyst for the reaction, and is not itself a reagent. While nickel is particularly useful because of its relative abundance, its function can also be carried out by other elements in column 10 of the periodic table..."

What kind of nature do you require? US patents are not awarded unless the materials and reaction are sufficiently described and demonstrated.

This is why he was turned down before.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (19) Oct 04, 2015
Especially outward. What else are we going to use as a power source for serious interplanetary/interstellar drives? Coal?
Well antimatter of course. Fusion can't produce the necessary acceleration over sufficient distances.

You should read more science fiction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 04, 2015
Antimatter-catalyzed fusion
https://en.m.wiki...opulsion
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2015
Hi. Been very busy lately, and for some time yet. I popped in to keep in touch/read-only. :)

While I'm here, I want to ask docile & Otto about cold fusion patent/replicability etc...

Otto & docile, with respect, if E-cat/cold-fusion device/system doesn't involve dangerous/expensive/rare materials/inputs, and if issued patents now divulge all necessary methodologies, 'recipes' and apparatus requirements/setups, then why hasn't everybody constructed their own device for their own use by now (which is not forbidden by patent monopoly laws unless one attempts to sell for profit without paying license fees to inventor)?

See What I mean? The patent won't be infringed if one makes device for own use so easily and (relatively) cheaply from materials so readily available. So every researcher/business person could make one for own use right now, if patent info is 'sufficient' as you claim.

Why has no company made one for themselves to save money on their own energy bills?

Bye. :)
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 04, 2015
Hi docile. :)

I understand what you're saying, but it's a completely different situation you are analogising from. In medicine/pharma products, there is safety/health regulations and concerns from making/using own 'drugs/chemicals' etc.

I already pointed out that any person/company can make/use the claimed E-cat/Cold-fusion patent/device for one's own use without any regulatory problems if it involves everyday easily available materials etc which are not personal/public health hazards in construction/use; nor is there any patenting laws against making/using same by a person/company for their OWN use and not for on-selling without license from patent holder.

So your comparison case/arguments don't apply in the scenario I asked about.

So again, why has no researcher/company made one for their OWN use to reduce their OWN energy costs for their OWN operations if the patent info is as 'sufficient' as claimed for anyone to prove the device 'works'?

That's the question. :)
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (24) Oct 04, 2015
It doesn't really work?
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2015
It doesn't really work?


If it did, there would already be so many of them around that nobody would even now be paying electric bills. if it were all this simple the technology could not be monopolized by patent scenarios.
docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2015
"What ever happened to that tech, of storing power in rivers - like a huge capacitor I guess"
-------------------------------

You are correct. That is what I referred to with the term Pumped Storage. We pump water uphill at night when the power is cheapest, and let it be used as hydropower at peak periods, then pumped up at night to be used again.


Great, you pump it uphill using, at best, 80% efficient electric motors, then re-capture the energy using, at best, 20% efficient generators for a total system efficiency of 16%. If you were getting this energy from Solar PV you would be getting 16% of 11%, which works out to 1.76% system efficiency.

Do you have any idea how utterly useless that is?
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2015
Docile:

Give it a rest.

Even if it did work, the U.S. government would hide it from everyone due to the military applications for Naval ships and submarines.
docile
Oct 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 05, 2015
Are the "experts" who think these monsters are good investments investing in them, themselves?

And Returners thinks pumped storage is a bad idea. He should tell that to those who have been doing it for several decades.

His ideas of efficiency are WAY OFF. I suggest he look up the real efficiency of the technology, then realize it is EFFICACY we are after, not efficiency.

Those not in the business have no real idea of how the systems work.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 05, 2015
"Fortunately everyone can built the cold fusion reactor in his kitchen by now"

docile, please BUILD ONE IN YOUR KITCHEN, then come back and show us the proof.
EyeNStein
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
Hey Guys,
Instead of insulting each other. Here is an excellent lecture, cataloguing fusions actual history from proposed stellar fusion in the 1920's, step by step, to probable "ignition" (Very High Q burn) at ITER in 2020's. (With Q>10 burns of Deuterium/Tritium at JET in 2018 as a proof of principle).

https://www.youtu...zFTjlwvw

Fusion is no longer an ever receding prospect and JET will soon prove it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (21) Oct 05, 2015
Here is something else Im sure antialias wont bother to read.

"US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Presentation on LENR
Posted on October 5, 2015 by Frank Acland • 24 Comments

"An interesting presentation has been uploaded on the LENR-Forum which was given by Louis F. DeChiaro, Ph.D, a physicist with the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Dahlgren Warefare Center. The presentation was given at a IEEE Meeting on "LENR Phenomena and Potential Applications" held on Sept. 23 2015 at Teradyne in North Reading, Massachusetts."
http://www.e-catw...on-lenr/
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2015
@EyeNStein
Thank you for this interresting presentation from prof. Cowley. In this 2012 video he was pushing for D-T experiments for 2015. But will be conducted in 2017-18 (as you wrote) http://www.ccfe.a...x?id=277 I do not think that JET meet the criterions necessary to go very far beyond breakeven. Q>10 is expected for ITER whenever they start their D-T testing (horizon 2027 AFAIK).
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2015
Yeah, told you.

If LENR really works, the first thing it's going to be used for is powering a war machine: primary engine, laser weapons, rail gun weapons, etc. Very efficient, one power plant runs everything, little or no radioactive by-products.

Looks like this once at least Ghost and I agree.

It has happened before...

Ideally, you'd use this to power commercial ships, but the truth is you don't want this falling into the hands of say...the iranians or the North Koreans, who could use it to power ships and weapons, and with their track record (especially the iranians) cause wars in the area and have all that extra access to maneuverability, mobiity, and firepower.

So in an ideal world we'd use this as the power plant on container ships (LENR), but in the real world it's probably too risky to use it in commercial and industrial applications, lest the technology fall into the hands of evil regimes.
docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2015
Docile, you are incredibly naive about the nature of evil and what motivates dictators and madmen to start wars.

Most wars are started due to religion (or atheism which is a religion) or some form of personal power grab. There are virtually no conflicts in modern times specifically involving viable resources as the primary motive for aggression.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (22) Oct 07, 2015
"There are virtually no conflicts in modern times specifically involving viable resources as the primary motive for aggression."

Perhaps Japan went onto Korea and Manchuria as tourists, and into Southeast Asia in WW II for tans?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2015
or atheism which is a religion
@lurrkrr
perhaps you should read this
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]
https://en.wikipe.../Atheism

however, a religion is a codified set of rules (normally surrounding a faith or beliefs system of various types that include the aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe, etc)
https://en.wikipe...Religion

religion, like laws, are methods of controlling people - except religion acts through segregation and prejudice, whereas laws act thru equality or equal application compared to a standard
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2015
@lurrkrr cont'd
Docile, you are incredibly naive about the nature of evil and what motivates dictators and madmen to start wars.
perhaps this is true, but if your comment is representative of your beliefs, then you are equally deluded and naive about motivations and wars, etc
you said
There are virtually no conflicts in modern times specifically involving viable resources as the primary motive for aggression.
right... so- erm- Kuwait was invaded by Iraq because...?
what about Iran-Iraq?
Afghanistan ?

ISIS and Taliban don't need resources at all, right? they're content to rule miles of sand in the desert and all the silicone available to them there....
NOT!
you don't see them fighting for control of the desert, but of urban centers and oil distribution areas... areas with resources...

docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
wiyosaya
5 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2015
My favorite part about fusion reactors is where I bring the connection to the moment when people start screaming about this law or that law violation in physics..when someone brings up the subject of 'over unity'.

Fusion reaction science has had billions of dollars poured into it, and it is 110%, by any measure or estimate... an over-unity science. Considered to be 110% real.

Actually, it is akin to a heat pump where the coefficient of performance is greater than 1. It is not over unity. Why? Because in the fusion process, part of the mass from the fusing atoms is converted into energy, and by the-well known Einstein equation, E=mc^2, the amount of output energy is related to the change in mass between the input elements and the output elements. The mass loss between the input elements and the output elements is what is transformed into the output energy, therefore, it is not over unity. No one has yet produced a true OU device, and patents do not need a working model.

jim_xanara
1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2015
Fusion energy is the wet dream of Zionists dreamers that want to destroy the power of the oil states. This is the best reason to keep burning oil. The Zionists hate it. That's why they invented AGW.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2015
jim_xanara with immense idiocy & ignorance of Physics (& economics) claims
This is the best reason to keep burning oil. The Zionists hate it. That's why they invented AGW
Tell us please what are the errors you imagine are in the completely settled & irrefutable Physics of:-

https://en.wikipe...transfer

& especially for those easily misled by puerile childish propaganda a high school student knows:-

https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Then tell us why you imagine the atmosphere somehow should absorb more of this heat
than the oceans, also in regard to the settled physics of:-

https://en.wikipe...capacity

Then tell us why you went to the trouble to distinguish yourself as unintelligent & uneducated please ?

ie. Learn Physics, (& maths) and how to research before posting crap on a Science oriented site !

ie. Get an education urgently... ffs !
NiteSkyGerl
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2015
Yeah, that's all pretty obvious. What isn't is why someone that has actually done those things themselves would debate with the trolls on here.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2015
why...debate with the trolls on here.
@NiteSkyGerl
it's not so much about debate IMHO

some of the threads are filled with deniers of science (especially AGW, evolution/biology and astrophysics) and some people actually get their science from places like PO

This means that if someone can produce what appears (on the surface) to be a logical argument, then others will join their cause out of ignorance because they simply don't know what is real and the nooB's scientific literacy (especially regarding evidence, sources, and information research) is limited or non-existent

sharing real science in refute of pseudoscience is critical... or sharing points like the difference between sources of info and the reason pseudoscience isn't real science, etc.. why youtube/facebook isn't legitimate science sources, etc

PO used to be read in our local schools but is now locked out by their servers because of the spread of trolling/pseudoscience in the comments
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2015
"PO used to be read in our local schools but is now locked out by their servers because of the spread of trolling/pseudoscience in the comments"
----------------------------------

Not to mention the sniping and character assassination using filthy words.

Once again:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."

Eleanor Roosevelt
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)
docile
Oct 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2015
"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
-And george comes here mostly to talk about himself. Does that mean he has no mind at all?

Thats obvious. And disgusting.

Its mostly lies, exaggerations, and forged facts.

Georges bulbous ego thinks people talk about him because he is so exceptional

And he may be right - I for one have not encountered such a sicko as this.
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2015

This one is for otto:

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2015

This one is for otto:

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)
I think george forgot that he just posted this 3 hours ago. Little confused after your nappy gramps?
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2015
"the silicone available to them there."
----------------------------------

It's SILICON.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2015
What isn't is why someone that has actually done those things themselves would debate with the trolls on here.

Not much chance of that in any case - as the people who actually do scientific works don't come to physorg (well, rarely. I've only seen this happen once so far and I've been here a while).
Physorg is a third hand source. It's an aggregation site of PR articles about scientific papers.

Scientists have access to the papers direct. More importantly: if they need to discuss it they have access to the authors direct (which any of us do, too,...though very few make use of this. It's perfectly fine to write an email to a scientist. In the overwhelming majority of cases you will get a reply)
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2015
Please don't poke the trolls. They don't listen, and it just makes them rant more extensively.
Please just put them on ignore after their first idiotic statement. They hate to be deliberately ignored and there is nothing they can do about it except stop posting.
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2015
We do not need a Magic Box run by a technical priesthood. We are better off with distributed power we make and control. For the first time, it is becoming available, and not only cheap, but cheaper than the old centralized authoritarian system controlled by others.

Smaller grids supported from within are not just more efficient and efficacious, but give us the increased ability to control our lives. We can decide to withdraw or link up into microgrids, distribution systems and interties between large grids.

Read "Small is Beautiful" (EF Schumacher), and start thinking.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2015
@EyeNStein & others who are happy the "Trolls" obfuscate science & cast propaganda

Have you not heard "Evil wins when good men do nothing" ?

Apply it to Science Communication, by not refuting bad erroneous claims written on a Science aggregating site then their 'opinion' wins out.

Is that a good thing if so why please ?

Knowing; young, naive & impressionable can read posts, then it is negligence & a form of child abuse to NOT refute the blatant erroneous claims of "Trolls" !

Readers go away with incorrectly formed opinions & do damage to others by not converging on essential truths, this has any number of tangentially negative consequences, worse it makes the position of those that want to allow trolls to not be challenged fall into a pattern of intellectual laziness

Is it intelligent to lump together many by the same label ?

Hasn't EyeNStein & others observed there are many "Troll" differences ?

Eg Heard of Dialectic re Engagement & the of any reply, Capisce ?
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2015
I'm not advocating "do nothing": Post truth and encourage the next generations to think and analyse, but don't engage trolls in one-to-one dialogue, as they don't listen, they feed on the popularity they can't get elsewhere.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 10, 2015
EyeNStein replied with
I'm not advocating "do nothing": Post truth and encourage the next generations to think and analyse, but don't engage trolls in one-to-one dialogue, as they don't listen, they feed on the popularity they can't get elsewhere
Unfortunately thats at odds with your rather firm one line instruction to: "Please don't poke the trolls".

The obvious problem is What do you mean ? what is your definition of "poke" & how static is your definition of "troll" & how can you be sure it applies to those d..cks that make short asinine statements which appear far more like politically driven obfuscation with the aim of muddying Science ?

Can you identify the various types of "trolls" re articulating a metric for dealing with them Eg I suggest in best terms of dialectic - not dialog or debate as such for obvious reasons ie by way of some classic dialectic tactics of convergence ?

Frankly entertaining to embarrass the f..king pr.cks, your suggestion ?
EyeNStein
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2015
Mike: If it were possible to embarrass the trolls your tactics might be effective.
But as yourself and other keen debaters like Anti-Alias have proven: They don't dialogue, they find some other ill conceived, non-scientific, non-historical, red herring to obstruct any conclusion from forming. That is how you can tell they are trolls. The sharper their divergence from reality, or dialogue, the more obvious they become, they are self defining by their actions.

If we stick close to the topic their random trolling becomes more obvious and easier to 'ignore' by all.
Of course 'poking' them makes them more 'rant'-y and obvious too; but it does clutter the threads and IMHO makes the trolling worse.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2015
"the silicone available to them there."
----------------------------------

It's SILICON.
@gkam
1- you were raised in the US; i wasn't. my English tends to get mixed between the Queen's English and the US English variants
learn to use both dictionaries or cry elsewhere: after all, the site is run by an English Co
http://silicone.co.uk/

2- i also have a background in medicine: my spelling was intentional
http://www.merria...silicone

3- even in the US, there are multiple spellings: you should know this, especially considering your professed work experience

learn to Google or at least to basic research
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Oct 10, 2015
Silicon is an element. Silicone is compound with Silicon in it.

It does not matter if it is in the US or in England.

Learn to basic research, or go to a good school.
gkam
1 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
Gosh, Stumpy, should I make you "prove" you have a background in medicine?

We can turn that game around.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2015
Silicon is an element. Silicone is compound with Silicon in it
@gkam
1- sarcasm and intentional jk re: silicone implants (dry Brit humour- perhaps too complex for you? that is why i said it was "intentional", but next time i will use smaller words and spell out the joke specifically for you)
2- see above post #2
should I make you "prove" you have a background in medicine?
1- irrelevant to the topic and conversation except to underscore derivation of said humour

2- troll/baiting comment

3- degree's not needed to argue with evidence; only to argue from authority, which is your argument, not mine

4- the joke is equivalent to asking if the procedures in the following thread are Kosher: http://phys.org/n...ors.html

5- https://www.psych...ttle-ego

gkam
1 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
"even in the US, there are multiple spellings: "

No, there are not. When we used to get folk from Back East for training here, they thought they were in "Silicone Valley". I had to inform them they were in Silicon Valley, and Silicone Valley was on Broadway at the Condor Club.
gkam
1 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
Listen, Stumpy, I learned to be prickly from you folk here, attacking others personally and appealing to the authority of wiki, which you seem to think is Absolute Truth. I get sick of your silly daddy-like cautions against other appeals to authority, which means you cannot debate the topic.

I do not have to hide from anyone. Most of you do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
should I make you "prove" you have a background in medicine?

We can turn that game around
-And stumpy deftly replies:
degree's not needed to argue with evidence; only to argue from authority, which is your argument, not mine
George is too lazy and insecure to look for evidence, which would only prove his fabrications false anyway.

So he has to lie about his 'experience' and 'education' in the hope that people wont question the garbage he posts.

Unfortunately his 'experience' and 'education' has been discredited (he lies about an MS degree!), and his fabrications are easy to trash (with evidence).

So we know george is a liar about his backround AND the garbage he posts.

So whats left george?

We cant fire you.

We cant let you post your lying garbage unchallenged on a respectable website such as this.

We can only follow you around and explain to people what you are and what to expect from you.

We can also learn a great deal about psychopathy.
gkam
1 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
Oh, my, silly little otto is back. Please get help for your fixation.

Getting even is not the basis of life, and although it hurts when you are beaten at your own game, rise above it.

Show us you can discuss other things than your hatred for the person who bested you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
they thought they were in "Silicone Valley". I had to inform them they were in Silicon Valley
-Did you also inform them that dried manure is called 'volatile solids' or that an H2 explosion triggered a Pu criticality which destroyed a fukushima reactor or that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer?

Im sure that many of them are still calling it silicone because the person who corrected them was obviously full of shit.

See, this is what happens when you try to argue from authority when you have no credibility.
appealing to the authority of wiki
Well youve rejected evidence from the CDC and the american cancer society in favor of your own cracked theories about lung cancer.

You respect no evidence which challenges your crackpottery, no matter how conclusive and dependable it is.

This is a sure sign of mental illness.
gkam
1 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
Fixations. Terrible things. We hear and see stories of people like you, otto, but fortunately rarely run into them.

Your hatred of being bested, (again), shows me that is why you have to remain anonymous - you are SCARED. Now, there is nothing for you to do but get even, trash the guy who beat you at your silly gotcha game, and keep on displaying your problems to all of us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
"The high incidence of psychopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

"Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

"We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense."

-George is proud of his abilities to lie to goobers, gnats, and other such vermin.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2015
And he is completely oblivious to the fact that, when informed as to the kind of lowlife george really is, they can and do make him look like a posturing phony with mental problems.

Every day.

Completely oblivious.

A serious cognitive disconnect.

Why'd you lie about your MS degree in such an obvious and crude manner? Is it because youre only capable of obvious and crude thoughts?

"... this suggests a genetic restriction to what we have called the Juvenile Dictionary. Not only are they using extremely restricted definitions, they cannot, by virtue of the way their brains work, do otherwise. Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is BANAL, SOPHOMORIC, and DEVOID of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of NORMAL people."

-No, normal you are not.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2015
... the authority of wiki, which you seem to think is Absolute Truth
@gkam
please show me ONE TIME i have referenced wiki when said wiki reference i used didn't also include valid scientific references, thanks
your silly daddy-like cautions against other appeals to authority, which means you cannot debate the topic
argument from authority doesn't mean you know the topic, nor does it demonstrate your knowledge, especially when there is irrefutable evidence contrary to your claims

thus argument from authority only works when trying to establish yourself AS an authority (which also requires evidence, BTW)

and that is a personal vanity which i have no need for because i don't care what people think of me, you included
I do not have to hide from anyone
i'm not anonymous, and the argument is irrelevant (still)

https://www.psych...ttle-ego

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.