UW fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal

UW fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal
The UW's current fusion experiment, HIT-SI3. It is about one-tenth the size of the power-producing dynomak concept. Credit: U of Washington

Fusion energy almost sounds too good to be true – zero greenhouse gas emissions, no long-lived radioactive waste, a nearly unlimited fuel supply.

Perhaps the biggest roadblock to adopting is that the economics haven't penciled out. Fusion power designs aren't cheap enough to outperform systems that use fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

University of Washington engineers hope to change that. They have designed a concept for a fusion reactor that, when scaled up to the size of a large electrical power plant, would rival costs for a new coal-fired plant with similar electrical output.

The team published its reactor design and cost-analysis findings last spring and will present results Oct. 17 at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Fusion Energy Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia.

"Right now, this design has the greatest potential of producing economical fusion power of any current concept," said Thomas Jarboe, a UW professor of aeronautics and astronautics and an adjunct professor in physics.

The UW's reactor, called the dynomak, started as a class project taught by Jarboe two years ago. After the class ended, Jarboe and doctoral student Derek Sutherland – who previously worked on a reactor design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – continued to develop and refine the concept.

The design builds on existing technology and creates a within a closed space to hold plasma in place long enough for fusion to occur, allowing the hot plasma to react and burn. The reactor itself would be largely self-sustaining, meaning it would continuously heat the plasma to maintain thermonuclear conditions. Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.

"This is a much more elegant solution because the medium in which you generate fusion is the medium in which you're also driving all the current required to confine it," Sutherland said.

There are several ways to create a magnetic field, which is crucial to keeping a fusion reactor going. The UW's design is known as a spheromak, meaning it generates the majority of magnetic fields by driving electrical currents into the plasma itself. This reduces the amount of required materials and actually allows researchers to shrink the overall size of the reactor.

Other designs, such as the experimental fusion reactor project that's currently being built in France – called Iter – have to be much larger than the UW's because they rely on superconducting coils that circle around the outside of the device to provide a similar magnetic field. When compared with the fusion reactor concept in France, the UW's is much less expensive – roughly one-tenth the cost of Iter – while producing five times the amount of energy.

The UW researchers factored the cost of building a power plant using their design and compared that with building a coal power plant. They used a metric called "overnight capital costs," which includes all costs, particularly startup infrastructure fees. A fusion power plant producing 1 gigawatt (1 billion watts) of power would cost $2.7 billion, while a coal plant of the same output would cost $2.8 billion, according to their analysis.

"If we do invest in this type of fusion, we could be rewarded because the commercial reactor unit already looks economical," Sutherland said. "It's very exciting."

Right now, the UW's concept is about one-tenth the size and power output of a final product, which is still years away. The researchers have successfully tested the prototype's ability to sustain a plasma efficiently, and as they further develop and expand the size of the device they can ramp up to higher-temperature plasma and get significant output.

The team has filed patents on the reactor concept with the UW's Center for Commercialization and plans to continue developing and scaling up its prototypes.


Explore further

Research team uses remote control to replace the fusion reactor cassette collecting impurities

More information: www.sciencedirect.com/science/ … ii/S0920379614002518
Citation: UW fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal (2014, October 8) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-uw-fusion-reactor-concept-cheaper.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 08, 2014
How many nanoseconds can it stay online ? right now.

This will be fantastic if it can stay online 24 x 7.

I see there is still some work but hopefully someday !!

Oct 08, 2014
It sounds like a stationary plasma soliton - ball lightning in a bottle.

Oct 08, 2014
Well, why not give it a whirl.

As a side note: whenever I hear:
Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?

If we ever want to go deep space we'll surely need fusion power (if nothing better presents itself)...and a steam cycle seems just not sensible in that scenario.

Oct 08, 2014
Here's another "small fusion" concept that a private company is working on: http://lawrencevi...ics.com/

The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion." They're currently rebuilding their experiment to eliminate arcing that was vaporizing their electrical connection and contaminating the plasma. They expect to have the new device up in a few months; they've already moved the connector outside the vacuum chamber, and have successfully used an indium ring and silver plating on the steel baseplate to reduce the resistance to 6 μΩ.

And another, unfortunately their website is being rebuilt, called "Polywell fusion" that's based on the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, as extended by the late Dr. Robert Bussard. They have finished proving that their magnetic containment scheme will work for a net-power-output fusion device, and posted a paper on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/...33v1.pdf

There are a few others out there, including an LENR ("cold fusion") concept.
(cont'd)

Oct 08, 2014
Also worthy of note are Electron Power Systems http://www.electr...ems.com/ and General Fusion http://www.generalfusion.com/ both of which are less promising to my mind than either the Plasma Focus or the Polywell. LENR isn't dead, but it's going very slowly.

Here's a blog post on the Polywell arXiv paper, which details what they've accomplished and announced, and what remains to be done: http://nextbigfut...hes.html

I hope fusion will be solved this decade; I think it's a virtual certainty that if it's not, it will be in the 2020s.

Oct 08, 2014
Perhaps the biggest roadblock to adopting fusion energy is that the economics haven't penciled out.


That might be a future road block, but as of now a bigger roadblock is that we haven't yet achieved a sustained fusion reaction that exceeds break-even.

@AA - it does indeed seem steampunk, and charged particles should lend themselves to more direct generation of electric current. And for space, magnetic fields that release the particles in one direction, at their fusion energies (or at least at the full plasma temperature) should be the most efficient thrust producer.

However for the first reactors the scientists and engineers have so many other things to think about than replacing a tried-and-true off-the-shelf turbine with an experimental generation approach, so steam turbine make sense. And if the reactor has to be cooled anyway to keep it from melting, then using the heated coolant for a steam turbine may remain as a 'combined cycle' even in the future.

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
The tiny problem is none of these designs have created sustained fusion at a rate that generates more power than it takes to get it going. They consume energy, they do not generate it. This state of affairs has been going on for fifty some years with each person wanting a grant saying theirs is the greatest thing ever. Hucksters comes to mind.. The other tiny problem is the currents generate fields which twist and bend shorting out the field against the wall when run at the currents neccessary for power production fusion and unless this device has solved that problem it is just way to get grant money and that PHD position. From the picture it is a variation an old design which never worked at fusion current densities.

Oct 08, 2014
The tiny problem is none of these designs have created sustained fusion at a rate that generates more power than it takes to get it going. They consume energy, they do not generate it. This state of affairs has been going on for fifty some years with each person wanting a grant saying theirs is the greatest thing ever. Hucksters comes to mind.. The other tiny problem is the currents generate fields which twist and bend shorting out the field against the wall when run at the currents neccessary for power production fusion and unless this device has solved that problem it is just way to get grant money and that PHD position. From the picture it is a variation an old design which never worked at fusion current densities.

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
The conditions at the core of Sun are much more aggressive both in temperature, both in plasma density - yet the hot fusion generates only few watts per cubic meter


While the density in the sun's core is indeed much higher than in a hot fusion reactor (~1,000,000x), the temperature is LOWER. The sun's core is ~15,000,000 Kelvins, and the ITER is expected to have a plasma temperature of ~10 times that, or ~150,000,000 K.

Because the fusion rate depends much more strongly on the temperature than on the density, 10x higher temperature more than makes up for 1,000,000x lower density. This combined with fusion reactors using easier-to-fuse isotopes instead of bare protons means that the ITER is expected to produce 500 MW in 840 cubic meter of plasma, or~600,000 Watts per cubic meter. This is over four orders of magnitude more than the sun (~4x10^26W in a core of ~~10^25 m3 = ~40 \W/m3).

Oct 08, 2014
Princeton had a spheromak back in the 80s which I saw in the flesh.
http://books.goog...ZwEACAAJ

-Big vertical stainless steel clamshell device.
The cold fusion deniers just managed the deletion of few thousands of my posts from this forum
Leider so.
but what the did actually prove? Only the fact, the science is driven with the same ideology, like the totalitarian regimes
Naw it proved you are a pest.

Say, I guess you missed the publication of rossis 3rd party peer-reviewed report today?

"The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume."
http://www.e-catw...eleased/

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free ... see below

http://www-pub.ia...S-24.pdf
"Table 1.6.3-1 Masses of Radioactive Materials
Total radioactive material at shutdown ~ 30,000 [t]
Material remaining as waste after a decay time up to 100 years ~ 6,000 [t]"

https://www.iter.org/safety
"During the operational lifetime of ITER, remote handling will be used to refurbish parts of the vacuum vessel. All waste materials will be treated, packaged, and stored on site. The half-life of most radioisotopes contained in this waste is lower than ten years. The fusion reaction will produce no long-lived waste: within 100 years, the radioactivity of the materials will have diminished in such a significant way that the materials can be recycled for use in future fusion plants. This timetable of 100 years could possibly be reduced for future devices through the continued development of 'low activation' materials..."

Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free ... see below


That is not true, aneutronic fusion is totally clean without any harmful waste.

Oct 08, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Here's another "small fusion" concept that a private company is working on: http://lawrencevi...ics.com/

The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion." They're currently rebuilding their experiment to eliminate arcing that was vaporizing their electrical connection and contaminating the plasma. They expect to have the new device up in a few months; they've already moved the connector outside the vacuum chamber, and have successfully used an indium ring and silver plating on the steel baseplate to reduce the resistance to 6 μΩ.
Good man! That's a real option which hasn't received anywhere near the (comparable to other fusion projects) grants funding from govts/science institutions it should have. Some years back I made a donation to that Focus Fusion project. I then went on to make my own modifications solving some of the troublesome technical issues. That will be one of my 'for profit' projects once I finalize/publish my 'not for profit' ToE. Cheers!

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free ... see below


That is not true, aneutronic fusion is totally clean without any harmful waste.
So is this device.http://www.generalfusion.com/

-Talk about steampunk. I suppose you could use steam for the pistons instead of hydraulics.

Oct 08, 2014
whenever I hear:
Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?
MHD offers some possibilities, but is extremely mathematically complex, and work is ongoing. Also, you have to figure out how to get the energy out of the plasma without cooling it so far that you lose so much heat that it's not worthwhile, and we have a lot of engineering experience in using and building turbines and heat exchangers, especially compared to MHD.

Fusion powered rockets will most likely discard the plasma as reaction mass, probably combined with some material that will increase the specific impulse, like methane or water. The heat will then be used to accelerate the reaction mass in the fairly traditional way in a rocket engine.

Oct 08, 2014
Why do those infatuated with cold fusion think we are all in some kind of conspiracy to keep us from getting it?

Oct 08, 2014
The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion."
Not exactly,
Errr, it says "plasma focus" right there at the top of the front page of their web site.

What exactly isn't exact about it?

The tiny problem is none of these designs have created sustained fusion at a rate that generates more power than it takes to get it going.
Polywell has recently (June of this year) shown their device scales at the seventh power of the size. This is one of the three things they need to prove to show it will work. I seriously suggest you read up a lot more on it.

The UW project probably scales approximately the same way, given what I've read about it since posting. I'm still studying it, but it looks workable at this point. It's certainly not a boondoggle.

Oct 08, 2014
Current and possibly future fusion designs are not nuclear waste free
So? They generate orders of magnitude less waste. That's not good enough for you?

Why do those infatuated with cold fusion think we are all in some kind of conspiracy to keep us from getting it?
Because humans are used to making determinations based on insufficient evidence, and are therefore infatuated with conspiracy theories. It's a mental defect we all share. The scientific method is specifically designed to avoid this sort of thing, but most conspiracy theorists ignore it.

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
Scaling has always been the problem. You can't just make the parts 10x bigger. Further, you can't easily predict how the plasma will behave with 10x the radius, magnetic field strength and temperature.

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion."

Not exactly,

Errr, it says "plasma focus" right there at the top of the front page of their web site.

What exactly isn't exact about it?


The UW process above mentions they heat a coolant which in turn spins a turbine. The Lawrenceville PP process creates electricity directly from the excess protons flowing out of the reactions which reduces the cost and increases the efficiency a great deal.


Oct 08, 2014
It should be tried multiphase acceleration instead of magnetic compression to produce cheaper scalable prototypes. http://youtu.be/u8n7j5k-_G8

Oct 08, 2014
We do not need a magic box to provide us with unlimited power.

Think of unlimited power in the hands of someone you do not trust.

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 08, 2014
When I saw the copper and rivets the first thing I thought was 'Jules Verne'

Oct 08, 2014
Why is nobody talking about break-even?

Oct 08, 2014
Good Luck, but I still think an emphasis should be put on Electric Fusion (using Lithium blankets) which directly produces electricity (electrons) without the intermediary conversion required to make steam for turning electric generators.

Oct 08, 2014
Good Luck, but I still think an emphasis should be put on Electric Fusion (using Lithium blankets) which directly produces electricity (electrons) without the intermediary conversion required to make steam for turning electric generators.

Oct 08, 2014
What about the Thorium reactors?

Oct 08, 2014
Good Luck, but I still think an emphasis should be put on Electric Fusion (using Lithium blankets) which directly produces electricity (electrons) without the intermediary conversion required to make steam for turning electric generators.

Oct 08, 2014
I don't get why hot fusion guys go after cold fusion guys and vice versa. I for one would be tickled pink for both technologies to succeed.

Oct 09, 2014
Like most fusion power proposals this is a bunch of hype from a university press release and it was beneath Phys.Org to publish this. It's a lie to claim that the only thing holding fusion energy back is its economics. Billions of dollars have been sunk into this research for at least five decades with only tiny, momentary evidence that fusion energy was actually achieved. In this article there wasn't even the claim that they had achieved a self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction, or even evidence of break-even energy production. It is not beneath great universities, like the University of Washington to fool the public in the effort to attract investors.

Oct 09, 2014
Please investigate the history of fusion power energy research. Look at the claims of the managers of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LANL) in California. They have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars over about a 20-year period in the effort to demonstrate a break-even fusion reaction on a tiny scale and nanosecond time-scale. It has failed miserably over and over again, missing many milestone goals and going way over budget. It's always been funded as H-bomb project but sold to the public as a viable path to a fusion power future. Many of to users don't care because it's a really fun toy to play with.

Oct 09, 2014
Sounds great but economics isn't the real hold back. It is the fact that plasma physicists have no idea how to control microinstabilities that tend to become sizable rapidly. Their only solution is to make it bigger and bigger and hope that the time-constants will eventually be long enough to sustain a reaction that is not trivial. It was the same problem 35 years ago. That plasma physicists continue to pretend that they have a solid grasp on controlling the nonlinearities of the problem is why they haven't been able to either abandon the magnetic confinement designs or to come up with serious proposals to even understand the issues.

Oct 09, 2014
People should check out Dr. Lerner's Focus Fusion. He currently has a problem with funding so is trying to 'crowd fund'. I would think he would do better to allow small investors to really invest in it rather then throw their money away without any stock certificates to show for it. Sell some stock, Dr Lerner, to the little guy and do not turn away from us. Going to Iran is kinda like selling out we Americans. Your process is gonna work. You already have generated temperatures in the billions of degrees where no other process even comes close. So do not just take our money and run with that glitzy 'crowd funding' scam. Let us reallllly invest, no matter how small...and get voting stock for our money. Before you only let the rich invest in you and that was wrong.

Oct 09, 2014
it would be nice to see real science debated by intellectually honest individuals not close minded agenda driven propagandist for a change.

Oct 09, 2014
So do not just take our money and run with that glitzy 'crowd funding' scam. Let us reallllly invest, no matter how small...and get voting stock for our money. Before you only let the rich invest in you and that was wrong.


Don't blame Mr. Lerner, the reason why you cannot invest is because of our masters at the SEC. Rules and regs written by them only allows "Accredited" investors to participate. "Accredited" basically means "rich". http://www.sec.go...cred.htm
In order to allow small investors, it would require teams of accountants, lawyers, and other such costly leeches to report to the head leeches at the SEC.
Going to Iran is kinda like selling out we Americans.

He is partnering with a Japanese group, Iranians not sure. If we really want to break the geopolitical choke hold by the petrochemical/military/industrial complex, does it really matter who does it?

Oct 09, 2014
Please investigate the history of fusion power energy research.

Part of this issue has been a misunderstanding of plasma and how to contain it. Iter type fusion devices are doomed to failure. Aneutronic fusion such as Lerner's at least has a chance.

Oct 09, 2014
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?


One can use CO2, helium or nitrogen as the working fluid to achieve higher temperatures and efficiencies, but the question then becomes that the materials of the reactor can't withstand it.

The problem with other than "steampunk" approaches is, that the energy from the fusion reaction is carried in the kinetic energy of the resulting particles. It's heat. Only a small portion of it is stored in the electric potential of the charged particles, like helium ions.


Oct 09, 2014
Fusion powered rockets will most likely discard the plasma as reaction mass

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of fusion powered rockets but more of the mundane energy needs of any kind of large-ish spacecraft over long periods of time. Given that energy delivered by voulme of fuel is the figure of merit in that case fusion seems like the natural choice.

In the end we'd be talking about long travle times - and that rules out (to me) anything with moving parts. Which steam turbines can't do without.

Oct 09, 2014
it would be nice to see real science debated by intellectually honest individuals not close minded agenda driven propagandist for a change
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already. To urge for change of the dismissive attitude after one hundred years is close-minded by you? Maybe I'm Martian or something...

Oct 09, 2014
We do not need a magic box to provide us with unlimited power.

Think of unlimited power in the hands of someone you do not trust.

Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse. You could crack one open and nothing much would happen.
And those whom we do not trust already have fission (and fusion) warheads.

Oct 09, 2014
"Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse. You could crack one open and nothing much would happen."
---------------------------------------------

That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world..

Oct 09, 2014
"That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world.."

Any heat that man is able to create is miniscule in comparison to the output of the sun. You worries are groundless.

Oct 09, 2014
We are not on the Sun.

Q - For every Btu of electricity put out by nuclear plants, how much heat is put into the environment directly in addition?

A - About four!

Oct 09, 2014
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already.


What technology existed 100 years ago that isn't easily recreated now?
Instead of constantly asserting that mainstream science is out to get them and is keeping them down, why don't cold fusion proponents just do it themselves? If it's so obvious and well established, just make a generator already.

Oct 09, 2014
Let me be a little more specific. The solar energy hitting the surface of the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

http://www.ecowor...rth.html

The amount of heat man contributes to the system is meaningless.


Oct 09, 2014
BTW, Eric Lerner is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe and uses the same physics developed by Alfven, Peratt, et al.
@cd
funny thing... that would mean that he supported the electric star crap too then, right? and how can he support that while building a fusion generator? that voilates the eu philosophy a great deal, as it directly contradicts the main arguments that eu uses to define stars and large masses of plasma
it also directly defends the basic premiss that moder physics and plasma physics uses to support the conclusions that stars are huge fusion reactions made from gravity etc
Oddly he has made more progress in the last few years than ITER-type
which also suggests that he is studying fusion and modern techniques, right?
which have been used to support modern star creation as well as define and improve the accuracy of the knowledge of fusion reactions in stars.
his science is not a bad thing IMHO

Oct 09, 2014
The intellectually honest fact is, the cold fusion was demonstrated working before one hundred years already. To urge for change of the dismissive attitude after one hundred years is close-minded by you? Maybe I'm Martian or something
@tec12 -Zephir
yeah... right
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

To piggyback on what SoylentGrin posted:
build it yourself and prove that it works and we will have free energy

You keep making this sound as though the world is ignoring cold fusion, and yet just yesterday you linked a site that was strictly LENR ... this is a direct contradiction
the only one being "intellectually dishonest" here is you

if there is a viable working technology that give great results, it would be in production right now, Zeph, and the makers would be stupid rich- beyond bill gates rich
LOGIC 101


Oct 09, 2014
That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world..

No power without heat. That's just entropy at work. We just need to make sure that the heat isn't retained (e.g. by covering the planet in a CO2 blanket).
The heat generated by powerplants isn't really a problem (no matter the type). That's inconsequential compared to the amount of heat the sun imparts to the planet.

Oct 09, 2014
It is not inconsequential. It warms the waters and the air around it, with gross amounts of thermal pollution which change the biota in the local area. It is especially bad in rivers and oceans, where the thermal plumes change the local biota, then shut off periodically for maintenance or refueling, killing off the new biota.

The need for water to cool nuclear plants, which have the lowest thermal efficiency of any major system, is especially significant, since the thermal efficiency is in the twenties.

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
We are not on the Sun.

Q - For every Btu of electricity put out by nuclear plants, how much heat is put into the environment directly in addition?

A - About four!


That is completely inconsequential. The sunlight hitting the earth dwarfs all the electricity and heat man is currently using and producing by a factor of 6000.

The need for water to cool nuclear plants, which have the lowest thermal efficiency of any major system, is especially significant, since the thermal efficiency is in the twenties.


That's just a bald lie. Steam turbines in nuclear plants don't differ from any other steam turbine. They're limited by the temperature where superheated steam becomes corrosive, to about 37-41% efficiency.

A gas cooled reactor design that operates on a combined cycle with a secondary steam turbine can feasibly operate up to 80% efficiency, so there's that as well.

Oct 09, 2014
with gross amounts of thermal pollution which change the biota in the local area.


That can be a good thing.

They're growing grapes for wine in Finland by pumping a part of a nuclear plant's waste heat to underground pipes to keep the ground free from frost well into the winter and thaw it early in the spring. If all the waste heat was used that way, they could extend the growing season over vast areas of land by months.


Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse
Actually, theoretically, fusion reactors could be used to breed plutonium.

"Produced 239Pu is compared with two typical fission reactors to find performance of plutonium breeding ratio in the case of the fusion reactor. We found that 0.92% of initial U is converted into fissile Pu by our suggested fusion reactor with thermal power of 3000 MW. For comparison, 239Pu yield of suggested large scale PWR is about 0.65% and for LMFBR is close to 1.7%. The results show that the fusion reactor has an acceptable efficiency for Pu production compared with a large scale PWR fission reactor type."
And those whom we do not trust already have fission (and fusion) warheads
Ahhahaa aa is talking about the US. How droll. Aa did you see the vid of B-1 bombers over ISIL positions? How about we let the luftwaffe field this one instead? Jah I am sure you think they are our fault as well.

Oct 09, 2014
You keep making this sound as though the world is ignoring cold fusion, and yet just yesterday you linked a site that was strictly LENR
The world is indeed reacting favorably to the latest independent 3rd party testing report.

"Elforsk CEO: Swedish Energy Institute to Build LENR Research Initiative... Today on Elforsk's web site and in the Swedish science and technology magazine Nyteknik, Elforsk's CEO Magnus Oloffsson has written an article responding to the E-Cat testing report published yesterday by the independent European research team... "Clear isotope changes in the analyzed fuel indicates instead that in the case of nuclear reactions at low temperatures. It suggests that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy.Probably without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could eventually become very important for the world's energy supply . . ."

Oct 09, 2014
if there is a viable working technology that give great results
-A 1 mw commercial plant has been installed in a customers facility and is operational.
http://www.e-catw...etitive/
it would be in production right now
-This is like saying that if self-driving car tech was viable then it would be in production right now. You may want to reflect on all the regulatory, legal, insurance, etc issues involved with both technologies. Which is why they are being fully tested and implemented in steps.

With devices which put out this much energy supposedly involving nuclear reactions, they want to be sure no one is fried or blown up. Which has happened you know.
http://www.scienc...0u19.htm

Oct 09, 2014
Scaling has always been the problem. You can't just make the parts 10x bigger. Further, you can't easily predict how the plasma will behave with 10x the radius, magnetic field strength and temperature.
It's just the radius, now. The EMC guys have already shown the behavior at full operating temperature and full magnetic field strength, and they've just shown that the plasma is better-behaved at high values of β (the magnetic field pressure/plasma pressure ratio) near unity. When β is high, the plasma becomes stable even with large perturbations, according to their results. This is a unique characteristic of the cusp-based confinement system of the Polywell. The two remaining questions are whether they can reduce the electron loss to a low enough level that they'll get net power output, and whether the electrons can sufficiently accelerate the ions in the plasma to support a continuous reaction. Their preliminary tests indicated so, but they have yet to show scaling effects.

Oct 09, 2014
The technique they're using is called "plasma focus fusion."

Not exactly,
Errr, it says "plasma focus" right there at the top of the front page of their web site.

What exactly isn't exact about it?
The UW process above mentions they heat a coolant which in turn spins a turbine. The Lawrenceville PP process creates electricity directly from the excess protons flowing out of the reactions which reduces the cost and increases the efficiency a great deal.

OK, while all of that's true, it still doesn't prove it's not called "plasma focus" fusion. What did you think I was claiming?

Why is nobody talking about break-even?
Because if they were we'd already have fusion energy. Baby steps at first. Prove the concepts before you get the big bucks to build the full-sized one. Then they'll give you the money.

Good question, though. I gave 5 stars.

Oct 09, 2014
We do not need a magic box to provide us with unlimited power.

Think of unlimited power in the hands of someone you do not trust.
It's not unlimited, and the major people I don't trust already have fusion weapons. You can't use it to blow stuff up. And the reactor won't blow up much, either, any more than a coal-powered steam plant would. Most of all, it doesn't burn fossil fuel. Think of the Chinese and Russians with all those coal deposits, and consider whether you want them to burn all that coal for electricity. Much better if they have an alternative.

Oct 09, 2014
What about the Thorium reactors?
They're still fission reactors, and they still make loads of radioactive waste, and they can still melt down. They have their place, but fusion is far cleaner and safer. It doesn't blow up, doesn't melt down, and makes minimal amounts of radioactive waste from neutron bombardment of the vacuum containment. Plus the supply of fuel is many orders of magnitude larger than thorium and uranium put together.

Oct 09, 2014
Sounds great but economics isn't the real hold back. It is the fact that plasma physicists have no idea how to control microinstabilities that tend to become sizable rapidly. Their only solution is to make it bigger and bigger and hope that the time-constants will eventually be long enough to sustain a reaction that is not trivial.
You should read the blog post I linked and the arXiv paper associated with it. In fact the Polywell guys have shown that at magnetic-to-plasma pressure ratio (β) near unity, and with a cusp confinement system, large-scale perturbations (generated by the microinstabilities you speak of) are suppressed; the plasma is stable.

Oct 09, 2014
It warms the waters and the air around it, with gross amounts of thermal pollution which change the biota in the local area.

True. that's why I think doing steam turbine conversion isn't optimal. But in the end it's going to replace existing reactors and other sources (wind, PV) are going to make up a larger and larger fraction. So the the thermal pollution from these reactors will be less than that from current reactors (as a total). Not optimal, but way better than what we have now.

And I do think that havig some massive powerplants with short run-up times as backup is a good idea. And in that category fusion would be better than even gas.

Oct 09, 2014
"Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse. You could crack one open and nothing much would happen."
---------------------------------------------

That is not the problem, even though the materials become radioactive. The problem is what we do with the power, which increases entropy and leaves heat signatures in a warming world..
Heat is not causing global warming, at least not the heat humans generate. Nor will it in the foreseeable future. The problem is CO₂ trapping solar heat. Fusion doesn't generate much CO₂, and most of what it does generate is during construction, by using concrete and steel, production of both of which generates a lot of CO₂.

Oct 09, 2014
Fusion powerplants are sort of hard to misuse
Actually, theoretically, fusion reactors could be used to breed plutonium.
Not if they're low- or a-neutronic, which several of the systems being discussed here are. Plutonium breeding turns U238 into U239 by adding a neutron to it, which decays into Np239, which decays into Pu239, the primary fertile isotope of plutonium. No neutrons, no plutonium.

Oct 09, 2014
if there is a viable working technology that give great results
-A 1 mw commercial plant has been installed in a customers facility and is operational.
http://www.e-catw...etitive/
Ummm, actually not so much. They're still claiming they're *going to* install it.

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
@Ghost - thanks for yesterday's link to a peer-reviewed paper on the E-cat (https://www.scrib...e-fuel).

While previous Rossi reports have sounded like they involved rigged demos, this one is good write-up of a decent experiment with very interesting results, and was well worth reading.

Oct 09, 2014
If Rossi has actually accomplished what he has claimed well God bless him for he will be known as a savior of modern society. All that I can say for sure is that if this technology is real it will be funded and will become a commercial reality. If it does not succeed then undoubtedly the conspiracy theorists will blame it on "Big Oil" and not the fact that the underlying science cannot be proven.

Oct 09, 2014
thanks for yesterday's link to a peer-reviewed paper on the E-cat
Bite me stinking troll ;)

From ExtremeTech

"Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline... produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours... The researchers were also allowed to analyze the fuel before and after the 32-day run, noting that the isotopes in the spent fuel could only have been obtained by "nuclear reactions"... there is an isotope shift from a "natural" mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion). The researchers say there is just 1 gram of fuel inside the E-Cat..."
"http://www.extrem...gasoline

Oct 09, 2014
During last five years you all opposed me regarding the cold fusion as a single man - and from the same reason: your ability to determine, what is physically feasible and what not is close to zero. You're brainwashed with your educational system. Now you're demonstrating it again regarding the hot fusion: most of things you're dreaming here about are just a plain nonsense ideologically motivated. A collective Dunning-Krueger effect just manifest itself here. You can downvote me into oblivion, but you cannot change the apparent facts.
All those posts... all that effort... all that unparalleled wisdom and unique insight... gone. Too bad you didnt put all that time into something more permanent eh?

Oh well. Its not like it was actually something real.

"Father McKenzie writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear
No one comes near... Father McKenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
No one was saved."

-Its just... so... sad...

Oct 09, 2014
"A large part of Thursday's selling happened in energy stocks, particularly oil and coal companies. The price of oil fell sharply again Thursday, continuing its multi-week decline. Investors are concerned that global oil production remains high despite signs that global demand is slowing."

-Strange. I wonder if this has anything to do with the rossi ecat report. Probably just a coincidence.

Oct 09, 2014
@Ghost - thanks for yesterday's link to a peer-reviewed paper on the E-cat (https://www.scrib...e-fuel).

While previous Rossi reports have sounded like they involved rigged demos, this one is good write-up of a decent experiment with very interesting results, and was well worth reading.
LMK when it's peer-reviewed. Not to mention published in a scholarly journal of record, not scribd and not arXiv.

Oct 09, 2014
From Cd to CapS:
BTW, Eric Lerner is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe and uses the same physics developed by Alfven, Peratt, et al.
From CapS in response to that from Cd:
@cdfunny thing... that would mean that he supported the electric star crap too then, right? and how can he support that while building a fusion generator? that voilates the eu philosophy a great deal, as it directly contradicts the main arguments that eu uses to define stars and large masses of plasma it also directly defends the basic premiss that moder physics and plasma physics uses to support the conclusions that stars are huge fusion reactions made from gravity etc


Again from Cd to CapS:
Oddly he has made more progress in the last few years than ITER-type


And again from CapS in response to that from Cd:
which also suggests that he is studying fusion and modern techniques, right? which have been used to support modern star creation as well as define and improve the accuracy of the knowledge of fusion reactions in stars. his science is not a bad thing IMHO


Hi CapS, it is clear from your responses to Cd above that you either didn't read or understand properly what the Focus Fusion Device is all abut. The device uses the self-pinching plasma streams created by electron flows into the device from the periphery and meeting at the 'focus' position where they 'coil and constrict' the plasma streams into what is called a PLASMOID which produces huge temps and fuses the fuel ionised gases, producing a polar exiting stream of Helium nuclei.

In other words, the FUSION system in this Focus Fusion device is NOT like the fusion system in the conventional fusion devices.

And in fairnss to Cd, I must point out that our sun is replete with internal/surface plasma streams which twist and converge and pinch/coil into PLASMOID features on large scales, and that is where some of the fusion is taking place. The 'confinement/pressures/temps' due to gravity creates fusing conditions deep down, but in the intermediate and surface layers there is much fusion possible due to the 'self-confinement/pressures/temps' which these PLASMOID features create. So it's not all as black and white as you would think.

Is that enough REAL UNBIASED SCIENCE for you to be going on with, CapS?

Withall, then, your above remarks to Cd would appear as irrelevant as they are incompetently based on your own IGNORANCE in the matter which you still parrot and crow and allude to without understanding properly what you link/allude to in your repeated spam posts. Stop it, CapS. Take a few days off until that homebrewed 'speed and moonshine' wears off. Ok?

Oct 09, 2014
Ummm, unfortunately RC, it seems you're beating up on the Cap'n for agreeing with you.

Say "d'oh."

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
Meanwhile, according to http://fusedweb.l...ers.html 99% of the fusion in the Sun happens inside the middle 24% of its radius. Where did you get all this stuff about fusion in the radiative zone, RC? It's not dense enough to support fusion.

Oct 09, 2014
BTW Fusion Education Web is produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who I would say are probably the foremost fusion experts on Earth.

Oct 09, 2014
Hi Scneib. :)
Ummm, unfortunately RC, it seems you're beating up on the Cap'n for agreeing with you. Say "d'oh."
NO science in your post, Schneib. What's worse, your 'observation' is misrepresenting what happened in the context. How can you call yourself a 'scientist' when you collude, approve and otherwise countenance such idiots as your buddy and his even greater idiot Uncle when they are being so hypocritical and just plain anti-science-ethics with their spamming and uncomprehending links, suckups and allusions to stuff they have no hope of even coming close to understanding let alone qualify them to keep making comments/votes which are a mockery of all they 'profess' to stand for?

How about advising your idiot buddy to 'cool it' and stop baiting and trolling and then accusing his targets of doing it? It's so silly that even you must have twigged that "he isn't the full quid", and is just another internet loser pretender and riding on the coat-tails of those he sucks up to.

Oct 09, 2014
But there's logic in it, and I notice you didn't refute it.

Not to mention all your weird stuff about fusion in the radiative zone of the Sun. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?

Oct 09, 2014
LMK when it's peer-reviewed. Not to mention published in a scholarly journal of record, not scribd and not arXiv.

It's worth reading regardless of being published on the E-cat web site instead of Physics Letters B. The power output exceeding the input is exhaustively documented and is cross-checked by isotopic analyses of the fuel and the ash.

It is still possible that there was sleight of hand on the fuel-to-ash - what I'd like to see is the experimenters 'tag' the fuel with another element's isotope know only to them.(e.g., add a microgram of silicon 29). This would verify that the 'ash' came from the fuel rather being pre-fabricated (nickel-62 and lithium 6 can both be purchased from Trace Sciences in enrichments comparable to those in the 'ash').
(There is no evidence that the ash was tampered with, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).


Oct 09, 2014
Oh, I read it; but I want to see the peer review results. Rossi's a bit too slick to be real. And there are lots and lots of free energy hustlers out there. Mostly they prey on old people.

Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
But there's logic in it, and I notice you didn't refute it.
What 'logic' are you alluding to in CapS' post? CapS had confused focus fusion methods with conventional fusion methods. Obviously.

Not to mention all your weird stuff about fusion in the radiative zone of the Sun. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
What? Are you claiming there is no crossing over and/or coiling of plasma streams within the plasma convection/magnetic flux dynamics/process within the various layers of the sun plasma? The 'density' is created 'locally' within the PLASMOID feature itself and by its self-pinching/coiling pressures which are strong enough. That is what happens in the Focus Device which fuses fuel within the plasmoid which is NOT using any gravity/external pressure confinement for its fusion process/conditions. Nothing unusual or 'alternative' about the physics involved at all, mate. :)

Oct 09, 2014
No, I'm referring to the logic in *my* post.

No, I'm claiming there's little or no fusion in the radiative and convective layers of the Sun.

Change the subject much? Just askin'.

Oct 09, 2014
PS: It may even be that such plasmoid fusing features arising at the surface layers cause such solar-plasmoid fusion products to shoot out the fusion products away from the sun as 'solar flares' whenever the direction of such plasmoid poles are approriately oriented.

Oct 09, 2014
Ummm, no, actually active areas are created by magnetic confinement and don't contain fusion, they contain heat (that is, gas hotter than the surrounding areas). You know, kinda like how steam comes out of a pot of boiling water: in spurts. But confined by the magnetic field lines.

You have some really weird ideas about the Sun, RC.

Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No, I'm referring to the logic in *my* post.
What 'logic'. The Caps responses to Cd were insensible and uncomprehending. That was the point. What was your 'logic' supposedly pertaining to other than that?

No, I'm claiming there's little or no fusion in the radiative and convective layers of the Sun.
Did you now catch my above PS to you?

Change the subject much? Just askin'.
I haven't changed the subject. What 'subjects' do you think has been the subject if not CapS bad responses; and the perfectly valid solar plasma/plasmoid fusion science I mentioned to you?

Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Ummm, no, actually active areas are created by magnetic confinement and don't contain fusion, they contain heat (that is, gas hotter than the surrounding areas). You know, kinda like how steam comes out of a pot of boiling water: in spurts. But confined by the magnetic field lines.

You have some really weird ideas about the Sun, RC.

Where do you think the 'heat' comes from, mate, the 'heat elves' workshop? When the flux streams cross and pinch and create unusually high heat from extra fusion, the magnetic flux tubes break as usual. No biggie. :)

Oct 09, 2014
The core. Duh.

Oct 09, 2014
TEP320
You stated.
"During last five years you all opposed me regarding the cold fusion as a single man"

Funny but your account was created at October 8, 2014, 4:38 pm NOT 5 years ago.

You're not an individual. You're multiple accounts, the number of which ebb and wane as they are banned from this site.

Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The core. Duh.
That causes the convection overall, such that the flux tubes form and writhe etc as they rise and twist due to sun rotation/coriolis etc. But I am speaking of the local processes when plasma streams behave like in the focus fusion device but at larger scale. Solar flares are local not from the core.

Oct 09, 2014
@ Captain Stupid,
@cd
funny thing... that would mean that he supported the electric star crap too then, right? and how can he support that while building a fusion generator? that voilates the eu philosophy a great deal, as it directly contradicts the main arguments that eu uses to define stars and large masses of plasma

As RC points out, you are completely wrong once again. It is your own stupidity that precludes your ability to grasp that there is fusion in an electric sun as well. After all this time you still don't get it, but you've already proclaimed your inability and lack of desire to learn anything new. I think you said you're too old and suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's disease, wasn't that right?


Oct 09, 2014
PS: Sorry Schneib, gotta go. Friend with car emergency. Have to pick them up. Speak to you tomorrow. :)

Oct 09, 2014
Flux tubes are empty of plasma.

Convection happens in the convection layer, which is outside the radiative zone. We can see the tops of convection cells on the photosphere; they're called "granules" and I've personally seen them through a telescope (a Coronado; it's specially filtered, don't try this with your ordinary telescope without precautions!).

Yet more weird beliefs from RC.

Oct 09, 2014
RC leaves again right about the time he knows he's going to get pwnt for more weird stuff.

Not merely typical, but invariant, behavior. Straight up trolling, nothing more or less.

Oct 09, 2014
Schneib. :)
RC leaves again right about the time he knows he's going to get pwnt for more weird stuff.

Not merely typical, but invariant, behavior. Straight up trolling, nothing more or less.

Not at all. I said I would return to this. Why make such comments before we resume? I will try later today if I get back in time. Logging out...now. :)

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
Rossi's a bit too slick to be real.


@Da Schneib - Hence my suggestion to tag the fuel to eliminate the possibility of slight of hand.

I found it a bit suspicious that the reaction was still going full force until the experimenters stopped it after 32 days, yet when they analyzed the 'ash' ~99% of the lighter nickel had already been converted to nickel 62. That implies 1: that the experimenters coincidentally stopped JUST before the lighter nickel ran out (or that Rossi knew how long the experiment would run and tuned the almost fuel exactly, which decreases the independence of the experiment), and 2: that the reaction does not slow down as it gets low on lighter nickel fuel.

While that is far from evidence that the ash was tampered with, the experiment could easily be enhanced to eliminate the possibility.

Oct 09, 2014
it also directly defends the basic premiss that moder physics and plasma physics uses to support the conclusions that stars are huge fusion reactions made from gravity etc


Once again, totally wrong. As I mentioned, Lerner is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology and as such sees gravity with it's limited role within the Plasma Universe. You must have also missed his book 'The Big Bang Never Happened', before long I'm sure you'll start claiming he is a pseudo-scientist in direct conflict with reality. Dementia and reality don't really go hand in hand, do they.

which also suggests that he is studying fusion and modern techniques, right?

Yes, MODERN techniques, not those that were theorized back in the 20's that astrophysicists use.
which have been used to support modern star creation as well as define and improve the accuracy of the knowledge of fusion reactions in stars.

I said he's a Plasma Cosmologist.

his science is not a bad thing IMHO


So what is it? In one thread you'll call PC (Alfven, Peratt, Lerner) pseudoscience, but here where "his science is not a bad thing".

Your stupidity is endless, or as Einstein put it;
"Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Captain Stupids stupidity..."

Oct 09, 2014
Rossi's a bit too slick to be real.
@Da Schneib - Hence my suggestion to tag the fuel to eliminate the possibility of slight of hand.

I found it a bit suspicious that the reaction was still going full force until the experimenters stopped it after 32 days, yet when they analyzed the 'ash' ~99% of the lighter nickel had already been converted to nickel 62.
Yep. Another thing too slick to be real.

Oct 09, 2014
Sorry I am late for the turd throwing contest.
Otto beat me to the punch. I recieved the third confirmation of Rossi's apparatus in yesterdays mailbox.
I posted it on peakprosperity but it went over like a lead balloon. Why are the deniers so adverse to the empirical evidence? The best explanation is that they are trying to protect old people from charlatans.
How about protecting them from Peak Oil? (Modern farms are machines that convert 10 units of oil energy int 1 unit of food energy)
Even with cold fusion in the bag there will be a 20 year lag-time rolling out the technology. We are talking about moving the economy off oil and onto nuclear.
There is too much rah rah about ensuring that the production of energy remains in the hands of large utilities, instead of in the hands of the people.
Expect the Utilities to go down swinging like the whip makers with the advent of the automobile.

Oct 09, 2014
I'll believe Rossi when his method is transparent and he's submitted to complete outside control of the experiment.

Like I said, too slick to be real.

Oct 09, 2014
He has sold the whole kit and kibudle to Industrial Heat and they keep him on as a researcher. Does that count?
As for his character, he is in good company. Newton was very unpopular at fun events. A real party pooper.

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
He has sold the whole kit and kibudle to Industrial Heat and they keep him on as a researcher. Does that count?
No.

As for his character, he is in good company. Newton was very unpopular at fun events. A real party pooper.
It's not about his character. It's about how slick everything is. And how there's always a hole where someone could be committing fraud. Always.

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 09, 2014
Meanwhile, according to http://fusedweb.l...ers.html 99% of the fusion in the Sun happens inside the middle 24% of its radius. Where did you get all this stuff about fusion in the radiative zone, RC? It's not dense enough to support fusion.

BTW Fusion Education Web is produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who I would say are probably the foremost fusion experts on Earth.


Regardless of what LLNL says, ALL that which supposedly happens within the Sun is completely hypothetical. Until you provide some in situ data, it is conjecture.


Oct 09, 2014
But there's logic in it, and I notice you didn't refute it.

Not to mention all your weird stuff about fusion in the radiative zone of the Sun. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?


As mentioned, the "radiative zone" is the hypothesis from a theory developed by a man born in the gas light era who deemed proper the guess the sun is as they claim.

Oct 09, 2014
Ummm, no, actually active areas are created by magnetic confinement and don't contain fusion, they contain heat (that is, gas hotter than the surrounding areas). You know, kinda like how steam comes out of a pot of boiling water: in spurts. But confined by the magnetic field lines.

You have some really weird ideas about the Sun, RC.

You have some really weird ideas as to how plasma behaves. You're so 19th century.

Oct 09, 2014
Lord help me keep my ego out of this.
The real problem is better explained by Dr Iain McGilchrist (phyciatrist) in his well read book "The Master and his Emissary."
http://www.iainmc...tion.asp

Basically, the Left brain makes up a model of the universe and it confuses the model with reality. Because it has Vernica's and Brocka's areas, it is very vocal on it's own behalf.

Here is a video with a quick rundown on the problem.
https://www.youtu...9WO2B8uI

Oct 09, 2014
Hi Schneib. My friend got through to his sister at last and she was closer, so she went to pick them up. So I didn't have to go. Now, where were we....oh yes.

What do you think is happening below the surface layers where you see the 'granules' and the spiraling plasma streams which come up one 'granule' paired 'pole' and down into the other pair 'pole' where the 'loop' flows break the surface? The plasma streamlines may be swirling together and self-pinching. And when that becomes extreme 'plasmoid' situation, there may be fusion within that plasmoid feature....just as the Focus Fusion device demonstrates with its swirling plasm streamlines and plasmoid forming pinching/coiling process. Not strange at all. Happens quite ordinarily, just as it dos in the Focus Device scenario/process. Ok?

PS: Just to be clear, my ToE has gravity as an emergent phenomena. Here I am just pointing out the plasma processes/complications as to the sun's behavior/processes. That's all.

Oct 09, 2014
RC
Which peer-reviewed journal is your ToE going to be published in and when?

Oct 09, 2014
Hi OzGuy. :)
RC
Which peer-reviewed journal is your ToE going to be published in and when?
The WHOLE COMPLETE reality-based maths-physics ToE, including gravity consistent from go to whoa, will be published WHOLE in a BOOK as that is the only way to do it 'all at once' and avoid endless piecemeal and cross-conversation BS that afflicts all current incomplete theories. It wll be done when it is done properly and in toto, as I have no 'publish or perish' or other 'premature publishing' imperatives, since I am totally independent.

And when are you, OZGuy going to wait until a conversation is done properly before voting like a 'lemming' gangmember due to your own trollish prejudices/tactics? Wise up to yourself, OZ. :)

Oct 09, 2014
RC
So you're ToE is a novel...
Your "conversations" NEVER end, you ramble on and on with the same tripe. You post crap and I'll vote 1 every single time.

Oct 09, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
RC
So you're ToE is a novel...
Your "conversations" NEVER end, you ramble on and on with the same tripe. You post crap and I'll vote 1 every single time.
Spoken like a true troll already prejudiced regardless what the developing exchanges may bring.

It is prejudiced stupidid UN-scientifc mentality like that which had decided me to mostly withdraw from detailed science discussion on the forums. You merely confirm I am right about the daisy-chain-wankers parading so blatantly on the ratings pages, like here...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...where your username is part of the sad case parade of trolls and nitwits pretending to have anything to offer original conversations advancin science. Sad.

I only enter now on the rare occasion when an interesting item arises and my input to the discourse will not put my upcoming publication in jeopardy of being plagiarized. Or whenever silly trolls make hypocritical stupid cheap shot posts to/about me. :)

Oct 09, 2014
"You merely confirm I am right "
No I don't, what I wrote confirms nothing of the sort and simply stating that it does is spurious .

So when is is Toejam the novel being released?

Oct 09, 2014
Meanwhile, according to http://fusedweb.l...ers.html 99% of the fusion in the Sun happens inside the middle 24% of its radius. Where did you get all this stuff about fusion in the radiative zone, RC? It's not dense enough to support fusion.

BTW Fusion Education Web is produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who I would say are probably the foremost fusion experts on Earth.
Regardless of what LLNL says, ALL that which supposedly happens within the Sun is completely hypothetical. Until you provide some in situ data, it is conjecture.
We can see it.

Maybe you forgot.

Oct 09, 2014
What do you think is happening below the surface layers where you see the 'granules' and the spiraling plasma streams which come up one 'granule' paired 'pole' and down into the other pair 'pole' where the 'loop' flows break the surface?
Those aren't granules, they're sunspots.

So you think fusion makes the Sun cooler?

Like I said, you have some really odd ideas about the Sun.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
"You merely confirm I am right "
No I don't, what I wrote confirms nothing of the sort and simply stating that it does is spurious .

So when is is Toejam the novel being released?
You said clearly that you vote based on the person irrespective of the conversation results. Period.

Have patience. :)

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
What do you think is happening below the surface layers where you see the 'granules' and the spiraling plasma streams which come up one 'granule' paired 'pole' and down into the other pair 'pole' where the 'loop' flows break the surface?
Those aren't granules, they're sunspots.

So you think fusion makes the Sun cooler?

Like I said, you have some really odd ideas about the Sun.
Of course. The point was that the violent areas of such 'granules' break up into the polar features (ie, the sunspots regions) when the flux tubes have plasma streams on their periphery which swirl as they flow from one 'spot/pole' region to the other where the surface is breached by the flux tubes. Below the visible 'spots' is where the flux tubes may swirl and coil together and 'self-pinched' into a plasmoid feature which creates conditions for fusing the plasma therein. As per the Focus Fusion Device processes.

Who said anything about them "making the sun cooler"?

Oct 10, 2014
You just moved the goalposts, RC. That's a logical fallacy.

You also ignored that flux tubes are empty of plasma again.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You just moved the goalposts, RC. That's a logical fallacy.

You also ignored that flux tubes are empty of plasma again.
The plasma stream are ON the flux tube, not in it. I just explained that. The pinching below the surface of the sun causes the 'sunspot' loops to break below the surface when the plasmoid fusion explodes the plasmoid and the HEAT load and directed fusion products heat the surroundings and also propel the solar flares/mass ejections we see.

Oct 10, 2014
PS: Schneib: It could be the mechanism mainstream has been looking for to explain those huge mass ejections which are still unexplained as to how they are propelled away from the surface of the sun.

Oct 10, 2014
That wasn't what you claimed at first.

You only started claiming that when you found out they're empty.

Like I said, moving the goalposts.

Now you're claiming there's fusion under sunspots... but sunspots are cooler, not warmer, than the surrounding areas.

Furthermore, the Sun is not dense enough to support fusion outside its core, which is only the middle 25% of the Sun. 99% of the fusion happens there, where it's hot and dense enough to support it. The Sun is 800,000 miles across; that means the core is the middle 200,000 miles, the top of which is therefore some 300,000 miles from the surface. The radiative transfer zone is outside the core, and the convective transfer zone is outside the radiative zone and just under the surface.

The magnetic currents make sunspots, which are cool spots, where they exit and enter the solar surface. They are not associated with fusion, which is happening 300,000 miles away in the core.

Please stop making stuff up.

Oct 10, 2014
I think there has GOT to be a better way to convert this radiation into energy. Steam turbines just seem so ...steampunk?

If we ever want to go deep space we'll surely need fusion power (if nothing better presents itself)...and a steam cycle seems just not sensible in that scenario.

I bet you always wondered what those burst pipes on Star Trek were, every time they got into a battle. Turns out that the ship is steam/antimatter powered! (antimatter reactor powering a steam turbine)

Oct 10, 2014
PS: Schneib: It could be the mechanism mainstream has been looking for to explain those huge mass ejections which are still unexplained as to how they are propelled away from the surface of the sun.
CMEs originate in the corona, as their name states in as many words. They are often associated with active areas (sunspot groups) on the photosphere. Since sunspots are cooler than the surrounding surface of the Sun, it's obvious that fusion has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if the interior below the surface doesn't get hot enough to support fusion, how can the corona possibly support it? It's only a million degrees, not nearly hot enough, to say nothing of the density.

Stop making stuff up, RC. You're making a fool of yourself.

Oct 10, 2014
Patience?
I vote based on the content, so far I haven't read anything worth more than a 1; as I said if you write crap I'll vote 1.

You claim on a publicly accessible science forum that you have written a ToE and are certain is it 100% correct, then you are aghast that anyone questions it. If it is a validated ToE then CERN and a LOT of universities are going to be looking for new work and Stephen Hawking will have a new bestie!
You will not put your ToE up to scientific scrutiny, you will not state when it will be published., you do not provide any evidence that it even exists. Have you been in touch with ANY accredited scientific groups regarding your ToE... my guess is you never have and never will!

You make unsubstantiated grandiose claims regarding a ToE then you will be subject to ridicule. Please prove me wrong and publish your ToE and once validated I'll sing your praises from the rooftops. Until it's validated I'm assuming (yes it is an assumption) that your ToE is BS!

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
That wasn't what you claimed at first. You only started claiming that when you found out they're empty. Like I said, moving the goalposts.
I noted the flux tubes and the plasma streams which swirl around it, just as in the focus fusion device, they are FANNED OUT when they are not 'pinched', hence they form the tube 'surface', not the interior of the tube there.

Now you're claiming there's fusion under sunspots... but sunspots are cooler, not warmer, than the surrounding areas.
they are not 'cooler', they are less radiative than their surroundings but the energy is IN there but channeled along rather than escaping for us to 'see'. It is hot but not radiating the energy as readily the rest of the unaffected solar surface is.

Furthermore, the Sun is not dense enough to support fusion outside its core, which is only the middle 25% of the Sun. 99% of the fusion happens there, where it's hot and dense enough to support it. The Sun is 800,000 miles across; that means the core is the middle 200,000 miles, the top of which is therefore some 300,000 miles from the surface. The radiative transfer zone is outside the core, and the convective transfer zone is outside the radiative zone and just under the surface. The magnetic currents make sunspots, which are cool spots, where they exit and enter the solar surface. They are not associated with fusion, which is happening 300,000 miles away in the core. Please stop making stuff up.
The 'density' is NOT a probem if PLASMOID process occurs and the plama is CONCENTRATED and 'pinch' within the pasmoid, just as in the Focu Fusion Device which has ordinary pressures UNTIL the gas is confined and constricted BY/WITHIN the plasmoid.

Do you understand this now?

Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
Patience? I vote based on the content, so far I haven't read anything worth more than a 1; as I said if you write crap I'll vote 1. You claim on a publicly accessible science forum that you have written a ToE and are certain is it 100% correct, then you are aghast that anyone questions it. If it is a validated ToE then CERN and a LOT of universities are going to be looking for new work and Stephen Hawking will have a new bestie! You will not put your ToE up to scientific scrutiny, you will not state when it will be published., you do not provide any evidence that it even exists. Have you been in touch with ANY accredited scientific groups regarding your ToE... my guess is you never have and never will! You make unsubstantiated grandiose claims regarding a ToE then you will be subject to ridicule. Please prove me wrong and publish your ToE and once validated I'll sing your praises from the rooftops. Until it's validated I'm assuming (yes it is an assumption) that your ToE is BS!

What is the matter with you, mate? Can't read? I already told you I won't risk being palgiarized now. And the scrutiny will come all at once on th whole kit and caboodle, including the readlity-based axiomatic maths to go with the reality-based physics ToE, which includs gravity consistently....which no current 'theory' can do. If you haven't seen it whole, then don't make pronouncements based on your ignorance of anything in it. A real scientist would wait until it IS published before attacking the 'person' and disparaging what you imagine it will or will not be like? Ok, OZ? If you are a scientist, then be patient and see what issues before going off on some 'personality-cult' rant. Good luck. :)


Oct 10, 2014
Sunspots can be seen, so their temperature can be measured. It is 4,000 kelvins, about 2,500 kelvins cooler than the surrounding photosphere surface. This is a brute physical fact. Magnetism does not affect the flow of heat. This also is a brute physical fact. Both of these physical facts show incontrovertibly that you are wrong, there is not more energy associated with sunspots but less. And there certainly is no fusion happening there; if there were, we'd've had fusion decades ago, if it were happening at the comparatively low temperature and pressure in the photosphere and convective transfer zone. Furthermore, hydrogen is a lousy insulator at those pressures, so there's nothing to contain the heat. We'd be able to see its effects on the surface. We don't.

I repeat, stop making stuff up. You're embarrassing yourself.

Oct 10, 2014
RC
plagiarize YOU? hahaahaha

Mate you're so full of it I have to laugh! Say hi to Hawking for me once you're best buds...


Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Sunspots can be seen, so their temperature can be measured. It is 4,000 kelvins, about 2,500 kelvins cooler than the surrounding photosphere surface. This is a brute physical fact. Magnetism does not affect the flow of heat. This also is a brute physical fact. Both of these physical facts show incontrovertibly that you are wrong, there is not more energy associated with sunspots but less. And there certainly is no fusion happening there; if there were, we'd've had fusion decades ago, if it were happening at the comparatively low temperature and pressure in the photosphere and convective transfer zone. Furthermore, hydrogen is a lousy insulator at those pressures, so there's nothing to contain the heat. We'd be able to see its effects on the surface. We don't. I repeat, stop making stuff up. You're embarrassing yourself.
Inside the sun's surface is all roiling and many such avriously scaled fluxes/pinches are occuring. The 'granules' also give an indication where hot spots may be due to not only the rising plasma from deper layers, but also from the 'pich-fusion' heating locally just below the surface. And the ejection mechanism has still not been identified for the mass ejections FROM the active sun surface.

And you just misread that wiki, Schneib! It is called 'coronal mass ejection' because the mass ejected from the sun's active surface RISES to the corona region on its way out FROM the sun's surface, NOT because the ejected mass 'originates' in the corona. Ok? :)

Oct 10, 2014
Meanwhile, flux tubes can't exist below the surface. The plasma pressure is too high and the magnetic pressure too low to sustain them. The magnetic currents that make them, however, continue on through the Sun to the core.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ. :)
RC
plagiarize YOU? hahaahaha

Mate you're so full of it I have to laugh! Say hi to Hawking for me once you're best buds...

Your mate just misread a wiki. How about you, what's your excuse?

I said I care not a whit about people and associations, irrespective of who they are or on which 'side' they are on in any discourse. I am scrupulously independent and have no need to be 'best buds' with anyone. I follow the science for its own sake, not for the reasons which apparently motivate you and your 'best buds'. You're more about personality cult than science discourse, OZ. Not good.

Speak to me when you have something ORIGINAL to offer the scientific discourse, OZ. Good luck with that. :)

Oct 10, 2014
Furthermore, CMEs and flares happen when magnetic reconnection causes flux tubes to be *disconnected from the Sun*. The material inside the flux tube then rises into the chromosphere and the corona, causing flares, solar storms, and CMEs. There is no fusion involved at all; the energy is due to the reconnection cutting off a chunk of magnetic field, which carries charged plasma trapped in the flux tube along with it, and is the result of the change in energy from old, long connections to new, short ones.

The same thing happens in Earth's magnetosphere.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib.
Meanwhile, flux tubes can't exist below the surface. The plasma pressure is too high and the magnetic pressure too low to sustain them. The magnetic currents that make them, however, continue on through the Sun to the core.
That is why they would swirl and 'pinch' just below the surface. The closure of the 'tube' is when all hell breaks lose, because the temps and pressures within the plasmoid are huge enough to fuse the plasma streams which coalesce and constrict into such a fuisng plasmoid process/feature.

Oct 10, 2014
They can't pinch enough to support fusion. They're not powerful enough. You need temperatures two orders of magnitude higher than those in the photosphere and the top of the convective layer to support magnetically contained fusion, and that's with a much stronger magnetic field.

Lerner's device uses a far stronger electric field than the Sun can make.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Furthermore, CMEs and flares happen when magnetic reconnection causes flux tubes to be *disconnected from the Sun*. The material inside the flux tube then rises into the chromosphere and the corona, causing flares, solar storms, and CMEs. There is no fusion involved at all; the energy is due to the reconnection cutting off a chunk of magnetic field, which carries charged plasma trapped in the flux tube along with it, and is the result of the change in energy from old, long connections to new, short ones. The same thing happens in Earth's magnetosphere.
So you now understand that the mass is initially ejected from the surface of the sun. Good. But your reasoning is back to front as to the magnetic 'bubble' containing the plasma. It is the hot plasma PLASMOID fusion products which take their TANGLED plasmoid magnetic 'lines' WITH them to the corona and beyond, and when the magnetic 'lines' unwind as the plasma instabilities make the mass more chaotic, the whole mass is forced away from the coronal region and into space.

The 'reasons' you have just provided are the usually 'accepted' explanation. Howvwer, most solar physicists admit they still have problems explaining the mass ejections in that way; which is why they are still studying the phrnomena more closely now.

Oct 10, 2014
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior. And it flies away because it's the same polarity as the Sun's magnetic field, and like magnetic fields repel. Basic physics.

Squirm as you might, you don't know enough solar physics to keep up.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior.
Didn't you earlier insist the flux tubes were 'empty'?

Oct 10, 2014
RC
hahahaha
What now I'm part of a conspiracy with mates to undermine you... This is a public forum I don't know Da Schneib at all but it's patently obvious he writes better than you.

OK I'll stop pointing and laughing at you and go back to ignoring you and your mystical ToE ,HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry couldn't help myself and had to laugh at your BS one last time.

Oct 10, 2014
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior.
Didn't you earlier insist the flux tubes were 'empty'?
They are, compared to their surroundings.

You really ought to study flux tubes a bit more carefully before you start casually flinging them around like you know what you're talking about.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi OZ.
RC
hahahaha
What now I'm part of a conspiracy with mates to undermine you... This is a public forum I don't know Da Schneib at all but it's patently obvious he writes better than you.

OK I'll stop pointing and laughing at you and go back to ignoring you and your mystical ToE ,HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry couldn't help myself and had to laugh at your BS one last time.
It is a figure of speech. The connection is that you and he and 'the gang' vote based on the person not the discussion results, even before any proper discussion has been completed. In that sense you appear as a 'troll gang mate on this page...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...where you and Schneib are acting like a downvoting 'tag team'. Quit it, for your own reputation's sake, OZ. :)

Oct 10, 2014
Just for grins, http://lawrencevi...-fusion/ says they use billion-gauss magnetic fields in the plasmoids. A gauss is 100 micro-tesla, so that's about 100,000 T. The magnetic field of the Sun at the photosphere is about 50-400 micro-teslas (source: http://en.wikiped..._field), so that's about 250,000,000 times weaker than the fields Lerner is using.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib.
No, the mass is contained in a flux tube; it comes from the chromosphere and photosphere, not the interior.
Didn't you earlier insist the flux tubes were 'empty'?
They are, compared to their surroundings.

You really ought to study flux tubes a bit more carefully before you start casually flinging them around like you know what you're talking about.
So, you have learned that the mass ejection is from the sun's 'active' roiling surface, not from the corona like you initially claimed. Now you say the flux tube has less in it than its surroundings, but is the 'mass' that is ejected? Which is it? Is there such 'mass density' within the flux tubes to compose the huge mass ejected?

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Just for grins, http://lawrencevi...-fusion/ so that's about a fifty trillion times weaker than the fields Lerner is using.
*Sigh*. The fields are CREATED by the PLASMOID FORMATION and implosion/explosion processes associated with the SELF-pinching, not applied from outside. That is the whole POINT and ADVANTAGE of the focus fusion device/process. It doesn't require the external systems to generate large mag fields for 'confinement' etc. It all happens within the process that forms the plasmoid and fusion therein.

It's the same thing with the 'densities/pressures/temps involved. They are NOT applied 'externally, but are created BY and within the plasmoid forming process etc in normal pressure/temp fuel gas environment. Do you understand this now?

Oct 10, 2014
Ummm, apparently you don't know what the photosphere and chromosphere are. They're comparatively low-pressure gas; the top of the (very, very thin) photosphere is the "surface of the Sun," and the chromosphere is the solar lower atmosphere; the corona is its upper atmosphere. The flux tubes exist within the chromosphere, and when they form, trap some of it inside themselves. Due to the geometry of the flux tube, it's harder for things to get in than get out; therefore, they bleed pressure into their surroundings. That's why they're comparatively empty.

And you're apparently blissfully unaware of how Lerner's device works. The billion-gauss plasmoid is created by a high-voltage current in the gas inside the device; as usual, moving electric fields create a magnetic field, and this electric field is strong enough to create a billion-gauss magnetic field, 250 million to 2 billion times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.

Oct 10, 2014
"...where you and Schneib are acting like a downvoting 'tag team'. Quit it, for your own reputation's sake, OZ. :)"

Eff off, I'll vote how I see fit whenever I choose on whatever i choose.

Bottom line is you wrote crap and Da Schneib countered i every time, that's' why you got 1's and he didn't. If the comments were written the other way around he would have gotten the 1's.

Don't worry yourself about my rep, you should be more worried about the tatters your rep is in following your grandiose ToE claims, bwahahahaha - damn it makes me laugh every time I think about it.

Oct 10, 2014
There are no billion-gauss magnetic flux tubes on the surface of the Sun.

We'd be able to see them.

Also, there are no plasmoids on the Sun's surface. Plasmoids are formed by an electric field, not a magnetic one.

This is duh.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Ummm, apparently you don't know what the photosphere and chromosphere are.

And you're apparently blissfully unaware of how Lerner's device works. The billion-gauss plasmoid is created by a high-voltage current in the gas inside the device; as usual, moving electric fields create a magnetic field, and this electric field is strong enough to create a billion-gauss magnetic field, 250 million to 2 billion times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.

Now you're denying conservation of energy.
But its when the plasma streams swirl together and coil up into a plasmoid that the magnetic fields created are huge. Until then the magnetic fields are merely the usual surrounding 'current' going through the each 'arm' of the plasma swirling from the periphery into the plasmoid forming region 'pinch zone'. That's where the magnetic fields are huge, and that how the pinch is self-effected there. The 'confinement' has nothing to do with external fields away from the 'pinch'.

Oct 10, 2014
There are no plasmoids on the surface of the Sun. There aren't electric currents dense enough to form one.

There is no fusion on or near the surface of the Sun. Conditions aren't dense and hot enough to support fusion.

There are no "plasma streams" on the surface of the Sun. There is convection from below, which creates granules.

Stop making stuff up, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
There are no billion-gauss magnetic flux tubes on the surface of the Sun.

We'd be able to see them.

This is duh.
Who said there was? I keep pointing out that the huge fields/heat effects arise TRANSIENTLY at the SELF-PINCHING point ONLY, not the whole 'system'. Once the pich and fusion unravels the self-containment effects, the whole mass explodes because it has just been heated by the fusion within the TRANSIENT plasmoid feature. The rest is a matter of observable effects once the ruptured process ejects the mass into space if the orientation is suitable for it doing so. Else the effect is hidden below and the heat trapped into one/more of the convection cells which will be more violent in nearby regions.

Oct 10, 2014
If there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, there are no plasmoids.

And there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on or near the surface of the Sun. If there were we'd be able to see their effects and we don't.

There are no clouds of plasma fusing in the solar atmosphere. We'd be able to see them, and we don't.

Stop making stuff up, RC. You're just trolling.

yep
Oct 10, 2014
It would help if you guys could understand what RC is trying to convey. The confusion from granules to sunspots reminds me of an article I read. Is it the top or the bottom...
http://www.kronos...here.htm


Oct 10, 2014
There are no plasmoids on the surface of the Sun. There aren't electric currents dense enough to form one.

There is no fusion on or near the surface of the Sun. Conditions aren't dense and hot enough to support fusion.

There are no "plasma streams" on the surface of the Sun. There is convection from below, which creates granules.

Stop making stuff up, RC.
What do you think plasma 'currents' are? They are charged particle currents which create the magnetic fields and plasma stream swirls that self-pinch as we observe in such plasma current processes in the lab under the same suitable flows geometry.

Oct 10, 2014
It was his confusion, not mine. I know the difference between a granule and a sunspot. Also between a billion gauss and four gauss.

The magnetic fields are created in the Sun's core, not at the surface. The Sun rotates at different rates at different latitudes, which breaks the field lines off and causes the reconnections that cause CMEs, solar storms, and solar flares. Fusion has nothing to do with it (other than the mass creation of positrons at the core, which causes the magnetic fields).

Stop making stuff up, RC. Stop trolling, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
If there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, there are no plasmoids.

And there are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on or near the surface of the Sun. If there were we'd be able to see their effects and we don't.

There are no clouds of plasma fusing in the solar atmosphere. We'd be able to see them, and we don't.

Stop making stuff up, RC. You're just trolling.
Why are you referring to "solar atmosphere"? The self-pinch plasmoid-fusion processes we were discussing are going on at and below the active surface of the sun, not in its 'atmosphere'. You keep misreading references, bringing in irrelevancies, and yoy say I am trolling? I am discussing. I don't know what it is you are now doing, using such tactics and remarks and miss the point made.

Oct 10, 2014
There are no flux tubes below the surface, RC; we already went here, the magnetic pressure is too low and the plasma pressure too high, yielding a low beta which cannot support fusion, even if the plasma pressure was high enough (which it's not by two orders of magnitude).

Stop making stuff up, RC. Stop trolling, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
You know nothing about solar astronomy, heliology, solar astrophysics, fusion, flux tubes, or how Lerner's device works.

All of this is obvious from your numerous and grievous errors. Why are you here, if not to troll?

Oct 10, 2014
There are no flux tubes below the surface, RC; we already went here, the magnetic pressure is too low and the plasma pressure too high, yielding a low beta which cannot support fusion, even if the plasma pressure was high enough (which it's not by two orders of magnitude).
What do you think those paired 'poles' associated with the sunspot processes are? They are ARCING flux tube 'ends' which go down INTO the suns surface for probably kilometers.

And the huge fields which form when the self-pinching creates a plasmoid feature is as TRANSIENT as the plasmoid/fusion 'burst' itself. There is nothing to 'see' of these huge fields because they are self-localizing as part of the plasmoid coiling/constriction topology.

And once the plasmoid explodes and the fields with them into a chaotic HOTTER mass, the effect is easy to observe that there is some heating going on locally which can propel the huge mass ejections from the active sun surface. It may explain the mass ejections.

Oct 10, 2014
Sunspots are on the solar surface, RC. We can see them, remember? That means the flux tubes that emerge from them are in the atmosphere, AKA the chromosphere and corona.

They cannot exist below the surface; the plasma pressure is too high and the magnetic fields, around 400 microtesla, aren't strong enough.

You're confusing field size, which on the Sun is enormous and implies a great deal of energy in the field en masse, with field strength, which is extremely low in terms of the sorts of magnetic fields that exist in any practical fusion reactor.

Oct 10, 2014
Da Schneib,
You are preaching the standard theory, everything you claim is based off of that model. These are not facts you claim, they are the result of the "currently accepted" models of ideal MHD ionized gas mainstream astrophysics rely on. The sun contains real plasmas where birkeland currents and instabilities (plasmoids) are ubiquitous. The predictive ability of solar phenomena by the Eddington gas ball theory is pathetically weak, if it weren't astrophysics the models would have been discarded long ago.

Oct 10, 2014
Everything I claim is based off what we can see. Are you denying we can see the Sun, cd85?

We see the tops of the convection cells. We see the effects of the magnetic field reconnections, and of the loops of magnetic field cut off from the main field and pushed away like all same-pole magnets push each other away. We see the sunspots, and we know their temperature, and we know how hydrogen behaves at those temperatures and pressures. We can see the whole Sun shaking with vibration modes like a bowl of jello. We can see sunquakes propagate, and we can see their S-waves' effects just like the S-waves in an earthquake, and we can see the effects when the S-waves hit the boundaries between the convective, radiative, and core layers, just like we can see the effects on Earth of the Mohorovic discontinuity, the boundary between the mantle and core, and other internal features of the Earth.

All of this is clear if you study heliology and solar seismology, as well as physics.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Sunspots are on the solar surface, RC. We can see them, remember? That means the flux tubes that emerge from them are in the atmosphere, AKA the chromosphere and corona.
Did you read where I pointed out that the 'spots' are actually 'paired', and that each 'spot' is actually the 'end' of an arcing fluxtube whose arc is in the 'atmosphrere' but whose 'ends' are IMBEDDED IN the sun's roiling surface layers down for KILOMETERS? And that the swirling, coiling and self-pinching palsmoid/fusion 'burst' is happening DOWN THERE, not in the atmosphere? So its not the part of the flux tubes we can see that are important, it is what we can NOT see down there which transiently creates huge fields and density/temperature spikes within the normal plasmoid which is just the same principle of the Focus Fusion Device process?

Did you read and understand that properly? It's not what you are thinking of, it's what I keep describing it to you as. You are taking of other things.

Oct 10, 2014
You guys are lucky Torbjorn hasn't shown up. He knows a lot more about the Sun than I do.

Oct 10, 2014
Ummm, you apparently still don't understand magnetic reconnection, RC. Nor flux tubes, nor how sunspots are connected with the solar magnetic field, nor where CMEs come from, nor what pressures and temperatures are required for fusion. There are no flux tubes beneath the surface of the Sun, RC. There is no fusion within 300,000 miles of the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun, RC.

You're making stuff up again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You guys are lucky Torbjorn hasn't shown up. He knows a lot more about the Sun than I do.
It's about the plasmoid formation processes that is relevant. The 'known' things about the sun is not what is the point. It is about what is NOT known about the sun, and the processes I just described that could be going on as described, and which could be the explanation which solar scientists have been still trying to come up with in the case of the huge solar mass ejections which are not easily explained by the conventional 'coronal region' mag fields approach. :)

Anyhow, I must leave it there, as I don't want to stray into more 'sensitive' territory and risk being plagiarized.

See ya, Schneib. And again, to be clear, I 'belong' to NO 'side' regarding all this. I merely made my own objective observations about some solar processes which may explain huge mass ejections. That's ALL. I've my own complete ToE, and it's like no other amateur/professional partial theory extant.

Oct 10, 2014
There isn't any plasmoid formation process on the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, RC, and the plasma pressure isn't high enough, RC.

Bye now. Run away and lick your wounds.

Thanks for stopping your trolling, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Scneib. :)
Ummm, you apparently still don't understand magnetic reconnection, RC. Nor flux tubes, nor how sunspots are connected with the solar magnetic field, nor where CMEs come from, nor what pressures and temperatures are required for fusion. There are no flux tubes beneath the surface of the Sun, RC. There is no fusion within 300,000 miles of the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun, RC.
I explained where you are talking of different aspects/things, not what I described to you. That's ok. We'll leave it at that, mate! I haven't any more time to give this discussion; and I have already said all I wanted to say, for your benefit as much as anything else. No hard feelings. Good luck in future, Schneib. :)

Oct 10, 2014
There isn't any plasmoid formation process on the surface of the Sun, RC. There are no billion-gauss magnetic fields, RC, and the plasma pressure isn't high enough, RC.

Bye now. Run away and lick your wounds.
What is the point of continuing if you keep missing the point and making it all pointless to continue? Better we part with our own opinions intact and end the conversation at this impasse. No point in making it unpleasant for everyone by prolonging a pointless impasse. Bye for now, mate! :)

Oct 10, 2014
Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics.

What is the point of continuing if you keep missing the point and making it all pointless to continue? Better we part with our own opinions intact and end the conversation at this impasse. No point in making it unpleasant for everyone by continuing a pointless conversation. Bye for now, mate! :)
I never saw any point in your weird made-up version of physics in the first place other than as a tool for trolling the science forum, so I guess not much point at all.

Oct 10, 2014
All those things we "see" are interpreted by someone and "what they know". You see it through the eyes of someone taught ideal MHD models. You are correct that these phenomena are not possible in those models which you refer.

The disconnect, similar to that of Captain Stupid, you are unwilling to step back from those models and view it from the models developed by Alfven, Peratt, et al., which consider those MHD models to be wrong. Lerner uses the "Physics of the Plasma Universe" in the development of his fusion device, this is a very different model and all those things you claim are impossible become possible. The irony is that the evidence is right in front of your face, but due to ignorance of the actual processes they are misidentified as "magnetic reconnection" and other such pseudoscientific nonsense. If what you claim about what we can see were true then you'd admit the hottest part of the sun is the corona, and coolest below the photosphere. We have never measured the core.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics.
I was talking ONLY and SPECIFICALLY about the principle of the Focus Fusion Device for fusion at ordinary temp and pressures by making use of the well known and demonstrated plasmoid formation processes. I then applied that principle to what may be happening below the active surface of the sun that may explain something which scientists are still unsure about, and that is: how such huge mass ejections from the sun's surface may be created/propelled like they are. Period.

Anything else you bring into it from one 'side' or the other has no relevance to just that aspect I spoke about for that purpose only, and not to support or reject anyone else's whole cosmology, whether amateur or professional. Ok?

Good luck Schneib, everyone! :)

Oct 10, 2014
All those things we "see" are interpreted by someone and "what they know".
No, they're visible in a telescope, and their explanations are available from standard physics. Pressure on the Sun (or in it) isn't somehow "special" or "different" from pressure in the lab. Same with temperature, and we can make temperatures nowadays an order of magnitude or more greater than the core of the Sun, in the lab.

You're committing a fallacy: special pleading. The rules for fusion on the Sun are the same as they are on Earth.

Oct 10, 2014
The focus fusion device has nothing to do with how fusion works in the Sun, RC.

You're still making stuff up, RC. You're still trolling, RC.

I will retain bad feelings as long as you keep trolling, RC. I'm very straightforward and easy to understand: if you lie and I catch you I won't trust you.

Oct 10, 2014
The focus fusion device doesn't work at ordinary temperatures and pressures, RC.

yep
Oct 10, 2014
Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics.

Does not get more ironic then that.
Check that article out, there is a good history lesson in it.


Oct 10, 2014
yep, learn about magnetic reconnection.

I know a fair bit more about magnetism than most EEs, and for that matter most physicists. It comes from designing the magnetics for switchers (EE slang for switched-mode power converters, AKA switching power supplies). Magnetic reconnection is a major hazard there; it can blow either the diode or the transistor in the switch. Properly gapping the cores before you wind them is crucial. This is one of the basics of Dr. Middlebrook's canonical model, and of the Cuk converter, of which I have built several working samples that currently control the current from the batteries I use in the field for power to my telescope equipment. Magnetics, and lack of knowledge of magnetics design, is a principal barrier to the adoption of better, more efficient power converters.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The focus fusion device has nothing to do with how fusion works in the Sun, RC. You're still making stuff up, RC. You're still trolling, RC. I will retain bad feelings as long as you keep trolling, RC. I'm very straightforward and easy to understand: if you lie and I catch you I won't trust you.
What's the point, mate? I keep telling you about known science re the LOCALIZED and TRANSIENT PLASMOID self-pinching fusion system which creates LOCALLY HUGE FIELDS transiently. But YOU keep rabbiting on about oveall huge fields, as if the whole system was involved and not just the plasmoid? The huge fieldds/temps/densities in the PLASMOID system are only within the plasmod! and NOT the whole system. Ok?

Yes, we are talking about different things; you're talking about made-up weird "Electric Universe" BS, and I'm talking about astrophysics. Does not get more ironic then that. Check that article out, there is a good history lesson in it.
I am not talking "EU" as such. Just stand alone aspects irrespective of any 'side'.

Again, Schneib, what's the point if you keep making it about the WHOLE system while I keep pointing out it is only about the PLASMOID REGION/PROCESS?

The Focus Fusion Device is NOT as hot or as dense as the sun, is it? No. Therfore the low temps and low density of the gaseous environment within the device is just that, ORDINARY...until the PLASMOID FORMS...and that is where the LOCAL SPIKE in pressure/density/temp is CREATED by the PINCHING of the plasma streams to form the plasmoid.

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that it is not the whole system but the plasmoid which creates the necessary conditions/fusion? If you still don't get it, then what's the point of you making such comments which miss the point again and again?

So....let's leave it there, hey? And just agree to disagree like reasonable gentlemen. Bye for now, Schneib. :)


Oct 10, 2014
There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there. If they did we could see them, or their effects.

There simply is no place for this conversation to go but you admitting you're wrong. I obviously know far more about magnetism than you do, not to mention the Sun, flux tubes, fusion, and the dynamics of hydrogen. You've made numerous, serious errors of fact, demonstrating your lack of knowledge. You really need to learn what to do when you're out of your depth, dude. Lying simply makes it obvious that you have a major character problem.

Oct 10, 2014
There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there. If they did we could see them, or their effects.
Why do you keep repeating that mantra, mate? We DO see the AFTER effects. We don't see the plasmoids form and explode because they are happening below the roiling surface; and because the plasmoids are transient; and because they quickly explode, as fusion therein causes huge local spikes in temps/pressures. The mass ejections could be the things we are seeing which indicate these are happening as I described. So we ARE seeing something which the solar physicists are still trying to fathom. The huge mass ejections. That is what we are seeing, and that may be the result of what I have been describing. And that may be the mechanism/process which ejects/propels such huge mass ejections which the solar scientists are trying to explain differently than with the magnetic reconnection approach. That was the point. Ok? Good luck. :)

Oct 10, 2014
I blundered; apparently there aren't many S-waves in the Sun. They're mostly P-waves. Nevertheless, they refract from the layer boundaries, just like on Earth, and we can therefore see their effects and use them to find the layer boundaries, just like on Earth.

I also ignored the fact that the core of the Sun can be considered a giant plasmoid; however, this does not obviate the observation that there are no plasmoids on or near the solar surface (photosphere).

Just for accuracy's sake.

There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there.
Why do you keep repeating that mantra, mate?
Because it's the truth, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
We fathomed it, RC. Magnetic reconnection of enormous fields implies enormous energies; that doesn't imply enormous field strength, like that required to form plasmoids like those in the focus fusion device. The energy released by reconnection gets pumped into the low-density plasma inside the flux tube, and results in a flare, CME, or solar storm. This is settled science you apparently missed while chortling over your fake TOE.

I have had magnetic reconnection blow heavy-duty MOSFETs and high-current diodes, not to mention tantalum capacitors, in my power supply breadboards. I know from personal experience what it can do. Your denial of it is yet another denial of brute fact.

BTW, tantalum caps burn with a red flame and release smoke you DO NOT want to breathe. Toxic sxxt. I've had to flee the workshop while they burned. This is reality.

Oct 10, 2014
Turns out we can even make pictures of the far side of the Sun from observing the seismic waves on the near side. That's harder than finding the internal structure by observing them. These pictures are used to forecast solar storms, and they work quite well.

So, cd85, seems that we can see *inside the Sun* quite well using this technique. That makes these layers brute fact, not some sort of theory. You really ought to study these matters far more closely before making blanket statements like "it's all theory." It's not.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I blundered; apparently there aren't many S-waves in the Sun. They're mostly P-waves. Nevertheless, they refract from the layer boundaries, just like on Earth, and we can therefore see their effects and use them to find the layer boundaries, just like on Earth. I also ignored the fact that the core of the Sun can be considered a giant plasmoid; however, this does not obviate the observation that there are no plasmoids on or near the solar surface (photosphere). Just for accuracy's sake.
There aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The conditions for forming them do not exist there.
Why do you keep repeating that mantra, mate?
Because it's the truth, RC.
For someone who blunders but nevertheless downvotes me while blundering,it's a bit rich for you to end your post with "Because it's the truth", mate! But the active roiling surface ans subsurface layers are what the solar psycisists are tring to get a better handle on. The seismic waves approach and other superficial observations/interpretations methods also leave the solar scientists still perplexed as to the mechanism behind the huge mass ejections. That's the point of trying new approaches and hypotheses based on KNOWN SCIENCE involving the TRANSIENT and DYNAMIC focus fusion LOCALISED plasmoid processes which may be the mechanism for delivering the necessary huge spikes of pressure and temps to create localised 'bursts' of hot plasma mass ejections.

That's it, mate. No more no less than that was the point about the focus fusion plasmoids approach/explanation for something which still perplexed the scientists about the mass ejections (which masses are ejected from the sun's surface, and from not the corona as you thought, even though they are called 'coronal mass ejections, yes?). Cheers. :)


Oct 10, 2014
It wasn't relevant. I talked about it to be honest, something you appear to be unfamiliar with. And stupid enough, and transparent enough, to try to use as a stick to beat up on me with. It's more like a wet noodle, since you're criticizing me for being honest.

You're despicable, RC. You'll use anything to troll.

Meanwhile, CMEs and flares originate in the solar atmosphere, not below the surface.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
It wasn't relevant. I talked about it to be honest, something you appear to be unfamiliar with.
It was relevant; insofar as it highlighted the previous methods which did not provide sufficient info on the localised/transient 'spikes' behind the huge mass ejections process. It makes it obvious that other approaches/ideas were necessary to explain what was going on just below the sun's surface to produce such massive 'bursts'. I merely pointed to known plasma Focus fusion principles for the purpose of explaining what may be happening that explains the huge mass ejections. Cheers! :)

Oct 10, 2014
It wasn't relevant; in fact it was part of a different conversation. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

There still aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic field strength isn't sufficient to support them, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

The CMEs and solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

You're cherry-picking my posts, RC. You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

Oct 10, 2014
I can see why you got kicked off Sapo's Joint. You're a troll, plain and simple. You make stuff up on the spot and claim it's part of some imaginary Theory of Everything you claim you're gonna publish Real Soon Now and never do. You won't talk about your TOE, because you claim it will be plagiarized, which is typical troll baiting. You talk about subjects you know nothing about, and deny physical fact regularly and without any apparent embarrassment or even awareness that it's fact, not opinion. You don't know the difference between a conjecture, a hypothesis, and a theory, and don't appear to care.

This is a waste of time. I'm willing to waste time as long as you are; but I make sure the n00bs know you're full of BS.

Oct 10, 2014
HI Schneib. :)
It wasn't relevant; in fact it was part of a different conversation.

You're lying again, RC. You're trolling again, RC.

There still aren't any plasmoids on or in the Sun, RC. The magnetic field strength isn't sufficient to support them, RC.
The source if info doesn't matter, it is the import that counts. The import of that info was that you highlighted thereby the fact that such seismic etc approaches and superficial observations/interpretations still hadn't provided the solar scientists with the explanation they are still seeking for the processes behind huge mass ejections. Why not consider known science and the plasma focus fusion 'plasmoid' processes as a possibility? No more, no less than that is what this was about, mate. Please don't get upset by new ideas; it is what's needed if the science is to advance, you know, mate. Cheer up, at least you know there're people on the case who are willing to think about/around the probs, hey? G'night, Schneib. :)

Oct 10, 2014
The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I can see why you got kicked off Sapo's Joint.
No you don't. You don't know the half of it, mate. He sold out in order to make his buddies happy and try to curry favor with crooked types in order to benefit his own site and to try to suck his way into other sites, at whatever cost to his own impartiality and honor and reputation, such as it was. Leave it alone, mate. G'night. :)

Oct 10, 2014
Erm RC...if all that you posted in this comment section is in line with your 'magnus opus' ToE...then maybe you should start over from scratch.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
That goes against the scientific method principles. The idea/info is what counts, and what is the subject of testing for falsifying or confirming, not the source. How can you have been missing that crucially important distinction all this time? Remember the 'source' for that BICEP2 'info' and 'claims'? What price that 'source' when the 'work' was tested and found to be flawed, despite the 'respectable source'? Think again, mate. :)

Oct 10, 2014
RC, what do you hope to accomplish? Your lack of knowledge, and your arrogance, are clear signs of a massive Dunning-Kruger complex. No one can possibly think you know what you're talking about after this. And this is not the first time you've been pwnt like this; I've looked at the history, and this is a regular occurrence, after which you start whining about some imaginary conspiracy or something, apparently a conspiracy of all the smart people against you.

Why don't you give this up and start behaving normally? You know, ask questions when you don't know, and stop trying to pretend you've got a physics TOE, and stop this EU BS. Are you that attached to trolling? Really?

The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
That goes against the scientific method principles.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing in the scientific method that guarantees you'll be proven right.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Erm RC...if all that you posted in this comment section is in line with your 'magnus opus' ToE...then maybe you should start over from scratch.
No mate, that is why I CAN post/discuss these aspects. These are KNOWN SCIENCE related to the plasma focus fusion device and such like similar situations in nature. Including the sun, as described earlier, that may explain huge mass ejections which still perplexed the solar scientists. That was all. Known science and a specific known possibility for an observed phenomena on the sun. My ToE is not in any way involved on that score. It is the more fundamental aspects underlying the whole universal phenomena per se which the ToE covers, not just such obvious phenomena which already has 'ordinary physics' explanations based on the known plasma science. Cheers. :)

yep
Oct 10, 2014
http://adsabs.har...44...85H
Maybe this will help your understanding of the topic since your perspective is from a steady state condition.

Oct 10, 2014
Furthermore, the scientific method is adept at dealing with facts, RC, something you're very bad at. You should study it a lot more in order to understand it, instead of trying to undermine it.

Hi Schneib. :)
Errr, thanks for confusing me with a moderator, but I'm not AA.
Erm RC...if all that you posted in this comment section is in line with your 'magnus opus' ToE...then maybe you should start over from scratch.
No mate, that is why I CAN post/discuss these aspects.
No, it's why you're always wrong when you do.

Oct 10, 2014
http://adsabs.har...44...85H
Maybe this will help your understanding of the topic since your perspective is from a steady state condition.
If the Sun isn't in a steady state, we're in serious trouble.

Just sayin'.

Furthermore, the solar surface is definitively not in a steady state; so you've made up another one, cd85. Naughty.

Oct 10, 2014
Amusingly, the EU seems to be "astrophysics of the gaps," which keeps retreating as we discover more and the gaps get smaller and smaller. It's a common technique religious nutjobs use to try to preserve their super magic sky daddies and their books by stone age sheep herders.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
RC, what do you hope to accomplish? Your lack of knowledge, and your arrogance, are clear signs of a massive Dunning-Kruger complex. No one can possibly think you know what you're talking about after this. And this is not the first time you've been pwnt like this; I've looked at the history, and this is a regular occurrence, after which you start whining about some imaginary conspiracy or something, apparently a conspiracy of all the smart people against you. Why don't you give this up and start behaving normally? You know, ask questions when you don't know, and stop trying to pretend you've got a physics TOE, and stop this EU BS. Are you that attached to trolling? Really?
The source info matters enormously, you just aren't honest enough to know it. It *determines* the import. If you were an honest person, you'd know that.
That goes against the scientific method principles.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing in the scientific method that guarantees you'll be proven right.
Accomplish? Publish my complete and consistent ToE as an independent researcher not 'beholden' to any 'side' or 'association' which could compromise my independence and objectivity while doing so, of course.

As for the rest, perhaps you could learn from this phys.org article...

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

The necessary humility and objectivity, and less of the trolling prejudicing and condescension and block downvoting in lieu of comprehension, on your part and that of 'the gang' would be a good place for you all to start anew.

Yes, no guarantee in the scientific method that that any source will be proved right. But that wasn't the point, was it? The source doesn't matter a fig. It's the ideas/work that is everything which should stand alone and not be prejudicially 'favored/disfavored' just because of its 'source'. As the BICEP2 fiasco tried to get past by being 'favord' by all who fell for it, just because the 'source' was 'favored' despite my cautions and suggestins for closer scrutiny before you continued bashing the cranks with it.

Anyhow, if that is how you want to do science/discourse, that's your business. My business is objectivity at all costs to personal preferences as to self or source. Period. Cheers, mate. Read you round! :)


Oct 10, 2014
Unfortunately, as AA notes, it appears your TOE is full of holes and not very well informed as to the current (real) states of astrophysics, cosmology, and particle physics.

You should probably fix all that before you try to publish it.

Just sayin'.

First thing you should learn about is magnetism, and the second is a far better understanding of the conservation laws and their impact on what is and is not possible.

It would also probably help if you weren't so arrogant that you defamed real physicists.

Oct 10, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Unfortunately, as AA notes, it appears your TOE is full of holes and not very well informed as to the current (real) states of astrophysics, cosmology, and particle physics.

You should probably fix all that before you try to publish it.

Just sayin'.

First thing you should learn about is magnetism, and the second is a far better understanding of the conservation laws and their impact on what is and is not possible.


You mean the same antialias who fell hook line and sinker for that stinker of a BICEP2 fiasco, and wouldn't listen when I tried to waen him not to use it to bash the cranks? You mean that antialias and the 'usual suspects' gang who likewise showed NO cientific objectivity and just ;went with mainstream source' even though it was obviously flawed to anyone who actually read it UNbiased?

Get real, guys! You've no leg to stand on for preaching/criticizing me. You have failed the test, even when it was an obviously easy test! LEARN from it. G'night.

yep
Oct 10, 2014
You continue to miss understand.
Maybe, forget you already know everything and read the paper.
Maybe, take a look towards yourself as to what you accuse others of.
Are you on the sauce?
And I'm not CD.

Oct 10, 2014
No, I mean the fact that you've made many major gaffes in astrophysics during this discussion, such as placing flux tubes under the solar surface, not understanding that the chromosphere is the lower solar atmosphere, postulating fusion where things are cooler, not hotter, and so forth. Your lack of understanding of the most basic thermodynamics and quantum physics is painfully obvious. You really ought to bother yourself to learn some real physics and stop posing.
</