Tri Alpha Energy reportedly makes important breakthrough in developing fusion reactor

August 26, 2015 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org weblog

(Phys.org)—Science Magazine is reporting that physicists working at Tri Alpha Energy in Los Angeles have succeeded in building a device that held a ball of superheated hydrogen plasma for five milliseconds, longer than any other effort before, offering proof that it is possible to hold such gases in a steady state. The development represents a possible breakthrough in the development of a fusion reactor as the process involved is a move towards developing technology that can hold gases at temperatures high enough to sustain a fusion reaction.

A true fusion reactor, if one can be built, would of course represent a transformative event in human history—it is believed such reactors could provide the energy needed to relieve our reliance on coal, and nuclear fission. The idea is relatively simple—it is the implementation that has proven to be difficult. A gas is heated to a temperature high enough so that its atoms lose their electrons creating a mass of ions and electrons, i.e. plasma. If those ions run into each other with enough force, they fuse together, causing some of their mass to be converted into energy (as happens in the sun). The trick is in heating the gas to such a high temperature that no known material could hold it—to get around that, researchers have two main possibilities, cause an implosion that occurs so quickly that the material holding it would not be impacted, or use a magnetic field—the researchers at Tri Alpha are reportedly using the second approach, but with a twist, they put magnets around a cigar shaped field-reversed configuration that allows for firing angled plasma beams at one another and hemmed in the results with magnets and electrodes. Using this approach, they were reportedly able to heat the gas up to 10 million degrees Celsius and only stopped the machine because they ran out of fuel.

While impressive, the achievement by the team in California still falls far short of the 3 billion degrees Celsius temperature needed to achieve a fusion reaction—the team next plans to tear down the machine, dubbed C-2U and replace it with an upgraded model which they believe will allow them to achieve a ten-fold increase in temperature.

Explore further: Scientists propose an explanation for puzzling electron heat loss in fusion plasmas

Related Stories

Lockheed Martin pursues compact fusion reactor concept

October 16, 2014

Lockheed Martin is making news this week with declarations about putting the Atomic Age on Restart and advancing in the realm of energy. "We are on the fast track to developing compact nuclear fusion reactors to serve the ...

UW researchers scaling up fusion hopes

June 2, 2015

Producing reliable fusion energy—the same process that powers the sun—has long been a holy grail of scientists here on Earth. It releases no greenhouse gases, can be fueled by elements found in seawater and produces no ...

One step closer to controlling nuclear fusion

January 13, 2012

Using a heating system, physicists have succeeded for the first time in preventing the development of instabilities in an efficient alternative way relevant to a future nuclear fusion reactor. It’s an important step ...

Recommended for you

Structure of fossil-fuel source rocks is finally decoded

November 13, 2018

The fossil fuels that provide much of the world's energy orginate in a type of rock known as kerogen, and the potential for recovering these fuels depends crucially on the size and connectedness of the rocks' internal pore ...

Atomic parity violation research reaches new milestone

November 12, 2018

A reflection always reproduces objects as a complete mirror image, rather than just its individual parts or individual parts in a completely different orientation. It's all or nothing, the mirror can't reflect just a little. ...

224 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tscati
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
" of the 3 billion degrees Celsius temperature needed to achieve a fusion reaction"

errrm...no, I don't think so....try 100 million K. Which ties in with their aim to increase their present 10 million by a factor of 10.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (42) Aug 26, 2015
We do not need a Magic Box. We need to understand technology and use it appropriately. I do not want to be dependent on somebody's magic box.
my2cts
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
@gkam
You are typing this on somebody's magic box, the signal is passed through some more magic boxes to end up in my magic box. Using energy generated from a few other magic boxes.

What was your problem again ?
gkam
1.1 / 5 (32) Aug 26, 2015
Yeah, 2c, I made ICs in the 1970's for National Semi. If we lose the ability to produce these high-tech products we are in big trouble.

Why would you want to depend on some high-tech,finicky, sensitive device, which needs a specially-trained priesthood to deal with?

Go depend on it. I'll use more appropriate technologies.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (32) Aug 26, 2015
Yeah, 2c, I made ICs in the 1970's for National Semi.


Which IC? Model and make?

Why would you want to depend on some high-tech,finicky, sensitive device, which needs a specially-trained priesthood to deal with?


Because we can't go back to living like the Amish people - not all 7 billion people. There's simply not enough room on earth to support us without technology.

You couldn't even construct your own lead acid battery if you had to do it without the help of the "magic box" of modern industrial complex to produce you something as simple as sulfuric acid.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
Which IC? Well, it was in 1974, so it qwas a long tome ago. I do not remember any digital ones, and few of the linear devices, but the LM1812, the LM1813, (one of them was the Jedco fish-finder chip), the LM555, the 1900/2900/3900 families of quad devices, . . too long ago.

We used Teradyne J-283 for digital and others for linear, operated by the 18-bit M365 Computing Controller. Look it up.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
We do not need a Magic Box. We need to understand technology and use it appropriately. I do not want to be dependent on somebody's magic box.

We need fusion. Not necessarily for domestic energy production (although it would be inifnitely preferrable to coal, oil, gas and fission - and being an energy source that can be switched on and off in a very short time it would be ideal as an indefinitely available backup for variable renewables. Even better than gas turbines)

But most of all we need to get fusion working if we ever want to make a serious bid at going into space (i.e. anything beyond sending washingmachine-sized probes to various bodies within this solar system).
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (33) Aug 26, 2015
I do not want to be dependent on somebody's magic box.


The age of the "self sufficient man" is said to have ended somewhere around the turn of the 18th century. Beyond that, the technology we hold a simple necessity of life became too complex for any single person to learn, comprehend and master it all.

A person cannot in a single lifetime become a farmer, a blacksmith, a glassblower, a mason, a plumber, a cobbler, a barber...

The problem you're really pointing out is that we don't want to become dependent on any -single- person's "magic box" because that gives too much power to the person. That fear is unfounded, because if nuclear fusion is practically feasible, it should be repeatable by anyone with the resources to build the physical device, and our patent system and peer review system in science ensures that the information on how it is built and operated is public knowledge.

So, the "magic box" is only magic to those who don't wish to look inside.
katesisco
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
I have been thinking that India with its caste system disparaged in the US is much more appropriate than first thought. It sounds evil, people are born to be what their caste is. But if it was so evil, then why is it is not constantly reviled against?
I think the reason India has been a country for so long is the caste system. I also think the US has a hidden caste system that is now more obvious since we have the elites controlling all forms of raw materials and their production uses.
India uses caste to allow a sense of empowerment to its people. That makes for low stress if you feel you have power. But what about the Dalits, you say. Consider that the Dalits have home villages that belong to them. Consider that the Dalits are the hidden backbone of India being the farmers. India is the second largest exporter of meat in the world; this fact surprises everyone. Buffaloes outnumber Indians in India and provide meat, milk and dowry. India only exists because of Dalits.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
My business was "looking inside" power production means. These are not appropriate. Go hook yourself up to them.

And the the problem I'm "really pointing out" is the one I just described.
hb_
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
Does anyone know anything about the density they achieved? Temperature is only one parameter, if I understand the process correctly. They are ~2 orders short in temperature, but how about density?

And how can the temperature be sustained just by injecting more fuel? At what speed is the fuel injected, and do the injected particles have enough kinetic energy to "heat" themselves?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
All they need now is to complete the Vaporware Amplifier, and we will be set!
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (29) Aug 26, 2015
the LM555


Absolute bullcrap.

By saying you made these chips "for" National Semiconductor, you imply that you had something to do with the design of them.

The LM555 - one of the most famous chips in the world, was designed in 1971 by Hans Camenzind, for a Dutch company called Signetics which was later aquired by Philips Semiconductors.

Teradyne J-283


What you really appear to have done is stood by the production line working a circuit tester machine.

I too did that for a summer job once for a cellphone network equipment manufacturer. Didn't need any sort of training either, just show that you can use a soldering iron and that was that. 30-40 power supply or filter boards per shift, populated and soldered by hand, X-rayed and tested to work, working in three shifts with the weekends off. It was the shittiest job I ever had.

Doesn't mean I understood anything of the circuits I was assembling.
ForFreeMinds
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
"a device that held a ball of superheated hydrogen and boron for five milliseconds, longer than any other effort before, offering proof that it is possible to hold such gases in a steady state."

I fail to see how this is "proof that it is possible to hold such gases in a steady state." Five milliseconds isn't very long, as it doesn't really test the materials holding it and the heat it generates. Further, that they ran out of fuel so quickly shows another issue in the ability to obtain sufficient fuel to create a steady state reactor. And we heard nothing about the energy required to hold the plasma, as compared to the energy produced.

I wish them well, but I have doubts we'll ever have a fusion reactor in my lifetime.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
My business was "looking inside" power production means. These are not appropriate


And why would that be?

Don't just lean on your "authority" - make an actual argument. Otherwise what you're saying doesn't mean anything.

I fail to see how this is "proof that it is possible to hold such gases in a steady state.


It isn't. The next statement where they say that they only stopped because they ran out of gas is the proof. They held it in a steady state until they ran out of stuff to pump in.

Further, that they ran out of fuel so quickly shows another issue in the ability to obtain sufficient fuel to create a steady state reactor.


No it doesn't. It just shows that they didn't bother to build it with a fuel tank.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, your attempt to demean my experience falls flat. Yeah, I put together the test system to second-source the LM555 timer. I had special cables made, then tuned the J-259 to the program, system, and device integration. If you think electricity in a wire travels at the speed of light, you never worked in high tech.

Gosh, you worked as an intern one Summer. It is just slightly different than being an Integrated Circuit Test Engineer, and being held responsible for the products, . . . you think.

"Doesn't mean I understood anything of the circuits I was assembling."
That's the difference right there. You were a goober, I was an Electronic Engineer for National Semiconductor at 2900 Semiconductor Way in Santa Clara.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (27) Aug 26, 2015
The cold fusion achieves COP > 3 routinely and in much simpler/cheaper arrangement.


Well, since these reactors exist and are apparently very simple and cheap to build, why aren't the cold fusion researchers sending copies of them to be tested independently by reputable universities and research facilities?

Why do they have to keep the demonstrations to their own labs and their own controlled environments and not let any mainstream scientists take them apart for study?

I'll tell you why: because it's a scam.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka was in a low-end job breathing lead solder fumes, while the Knowledge Workers told him to do it right next time. Then, he assumes we were all in those pathetic jobs. Sorry Eikka, I came from Igloo White, which was all they needed to know.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
Gosh, you worked as an intern one Summer. It is just slightly different than being an Integrated Circuit Test Engineer, and being held responsible for the products, . . . you think.


Now, what proof do we have that you actually worked as an Integrated Circuit Test Engineer and did all the stuff you said you did, instead of just standing by the production line working as an intern like I did?

Nothing.

And most importantly, how is this in any way relevant to the argument you're trying to make? Can you design and manufacture your own CPU and computer, and software based on the experience you claim to have?

No you can't.

Your computer is still a magic box to you because it requires more skills than you could hope to learn in a lifetime to take it from the level of individual ICs consisting of a handful of transistors, to an integrated system consisting of billions of transistors interoperating with software and standards that could fill the Library of Congress.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (27) Aug 26, 2015
Then, he assumes we were all in those pathetic jobs.


You give no reason to assume otherwise.

You have lied about your positions and expertise before, and you lied here as well by claiming you made these ICs, then changed the story to being a testing engineer.

Furthermore, you use your claimed credentials to back up claims where they do not apply. Such as the ICs to computers, or your expertise on power generation, when in reality you've said that you are a Power Quality engineer by trade. In reality, all you've pointed out towards any actual training in the field is a solar energy course in the 70s, and we don't even know if that was real or just a story.

Elsewhere you've proven yourself unfamiliar with basic concepts of power generation, basic physics and circuit theory, with incomplete understanding of concepts such as "impedance", and your tendency to claim knowledge of things you've only ever stood by once such as the case of the hydroelectric turbine.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Besides, gkam, you have previously claimed that your title at National Semiconductors was an "Electronic Engineer", not "Integrated Circuit Test Engineer"

These are very different job descriptions. Which one of them is true?
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Gosh, Eikka, if you do not understand it, do not blame me. Are you bringing up your confusion again over whether impedance includes resistance? That's pretty basic, Toots.

Yes, being a Test Engineer is "making" integrated circuits. I used computers and computing controllers, dealt with hardware and software, the entire integrated test system.

Power Quality? Thanks for bringing that up. I was solving power problems in the facilities of our customers in the late 1980s when it came to the attention of the Electric Power Research Institute. Those problems were of the integration of new technologies, those with very different characteristics than the old equipment, into our grid made for filament bulbs and induction motors.

They hired me to help write and deliver the national course in Power Quality to their utility members, of which there were 600 at the time. I spent most of the next 20 years teaching and troubleshooting technical problems for power companies.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
"These are very different job descriptions. Which one of them is true?"
-----------------------------------

No, silly, one is a general category, the other more specific. Have you ever had a job?

Know the difference between an MD and a cardiologist?
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
They're actually doing it - at least these guys from MIT - you can buy their NANOR for your own tests. It's small and handy and it achieves the COP over 100 reliably.


If that's so, then why are we reading of the results from "e-catworld" instead of from MIT itself?

Are you bringing up your confusion again over whether impedance includes resistance? That's pretty basic, Toots.


No, it was you who was confused about inductance being part of impedance in the context of long power lines having sufficient inductance to cause arcing in a switch.

Something which you should have known if you had anything to do with power transmission or power quality for that matter. Another case was when you kept arguing that "ramp rate" isn't a thing in power generation, when I showed you the definition found in the system operator's glossary, etc.

Yes, being a Test Engineer is "making" integrated circuits.

Not in the same sense as you implied before.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Just look me up, Eikka. Did they hire me or you? Hmmmm?
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Just look me up, Eikka. Did they hire me or you? Hmmmm?


I tried. I get nothing for you from National Semiconductors. No information.

And it's not my job to look you up anyways. The burden of proof - as always - rests solely on you.

And from our earlier discussions, I seem to recall that you were only at National Semiconductors for six months - which is about the lenght of an internship. It's highly implausible that they'd pick just pick some barely in 20's airforce dude to build and set up their testing environment from scratch and then "let him go" after just six months.

It sounds more like you were fired.

Eikka
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
But let's get back to the topic.

Gkam. You object to the idea of a fusion reactor because it's a "magic box". Care to extend the argument? Why exactly is it unsuitable - other than the "I can't make it myself" argument from before?

If it's reasonably priced, reasonably safe, and reasonably available to anyone who would want it, what's the problem?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
I love it! A nobody is challenging me.

Like otto and Ira, you can make up whatever makes you feel better. I showed you who I am, and what I did. You cannot deal with it. Go back to your toys.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
"If it's reasonably priced, reasonably safe, and reasonably available to anyone who would want it, what's the problem?"
-------------------------------------

We do not need it any more. We are better off with distributed power, and now it is the cheapest. We are finding the ways for integration now. (That's what Power Quality is about).

When we do, we will be more self-sufficient, have the set of choices only great competition gives us, and lets us rely more on ourselves, not specialized nuclear engineers.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
I love it! A nobody is challenging me.


Argument ad hominem.

For all you know, I could be the current CEO of National Semiconductors trolling you. The point is that even if I was, it wouldn't change anything, and neither do your "credentials".

I showed you who I am, and what I did.


You haven't actually shown anybody anything. You've just made a list of claims.

We do not need it any more. We are better off with distributed power, and now it is the cheapest. We are finding the ways for integration now. (That's what Power Quality is about).


This is exactly what I meant the other day when I said that people who believe in false progress are deferring real progress in favor of their personal pie-in-the-sky favorites.

Your argument is based on persistent lies about the price and availability of these alternative sources of power, and you have no idea how little work is actually done towards integration, and how little progress there is.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015

Basically, you're arguing that we're all set and done so there's no need to research other avenues.

lets us rely more on ourselves, not specialized nuclear engineers.


And instead rely on specialized chemical/material engineers to produce the batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and whatever materials that go into them?

Again, the "magic box" argument doesn't work because all our technology is already too specialized. We stopped being personally and communally self-sufficient in technology 200 years ago, and had to start relying on the specialization of a limited number of individuals in most matters of society and life.

The "problem" of having to rely on specialized nuclear engineers is to become a specialized nuclear engineer in your own society, and then you're just as self-sufficient as before.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, I am not going to play your semantic games. You look at technical terms and misunderstand their meanings in those fields. You assume whatever makes you feel better at the expense of others.

Go ahead and put your eggs in the fusion basket. We are weaving many different kinds of technologies easier to understand, more distributed, less concentrated, more amenable to what we need where we need it. Factories may need bigger powerplants, but for the rest of us, no.

Read EF Schumacher and Small is Beautiful.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2015
We need fusion
AA_P
I totally agree! without it, we will be stuck on this rock with only temporary excursions to micro-gravity, much like we already do

.

The cold fusion must piss the mainstream physicists quite a lot
no more than unicorns piss you off when they stampede through your fairies
reality sucks for you, eh?
They're actually doing it -
problem is... it is also e-cat (Rossi): those bastions of scientific credibility who've given us... erm
rossi?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
That last part of my above is to ZEPH, not AA_P
Why are you visiting the PhysOrg and why don't you read the original research articles instead?
ZEPHIR
because PO is a PopSci clearing house of science articles in multiple genre that allows a broad spectrum introduction to the basics and links original content as well as links in the article that allow for further investigation
The original MIT report
that is NOT a link to MIT, that is a link to infinite-energy.com... it only has MIT in the header, and says that there was a meeting AT MIT
this is like the eu claims that, since their pseudoscience is posted on a gov't server at los alamos, it must be connected or valid because it is los alamos

you could also say that, since a person has a Google+ account, then Google supports all their claims, right?

OR that searching for faeries and unicorns on Google brings up millions of pages, so...that would mean that Google believes in faeries and unicorns, right?
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, I am not going to play your semantic games. You look at technical terms and misunderstand their meanings in those fields.


If you're still talking of the ramp rate thing; the definition was right there. There was nothing to misunderstand, especially when -you- claimed that no such term as "ramp rate" exists, and then changed your statement to say that it refers to something that contradicted the definition given by the operator's glossary.

Admit it. You just didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

This is rather strange question just at Physorg. Why are you visiting the PhysOrg and why don't you read the original research articles instead? Because it's more accessible for laymen and you can discuss here. The original MIT report is also linked at ecatworld.


That's not an original or offical MIT report or research article, that's a copy of a crank magazine called "Infinite Energy".
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Go ahead and put your eggs in the fusion basket.


Actually, I'm putting them in all baskets, at least for my investments.

I'm just not so arrogant to claim that we don't need fusion research, or that we don't need nuclear power in general because we have this magical "renewable power" that is already solving all the world's problems despite not actually working worth a damn.

JIMBO
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2015
When will physorg stop running these Ludicrous articles ballyhooing the BS put out by the fusion community ? Ignorantly, its not just temp alone, but the Lawson criterion, plasma density x confinement time which is the true gauge of any fusion reactor's performance. This pipe dream, now approaching 70 yrs worth of failures, will never be killed as long as its tied to nuclear weapons testing (LLNL) & operates under the front of `energy research'. Purdue U. had a successful fusion research pgm ~ 15 yrs ago, but a single Indiana senator defunded it & destroyed the career of its eminent research leader.
Countless small fusion wannabees have come & gone since Penthouse funded Bob Buzzard's `Inesco' in the 80s,, & Tri-Alpha will be no different.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, you took a term from turbine startup and assumed it meant the ability to follow loads with generation.

In the impedance debate, you asserted it was reactance only, and did not include resistance.

Sideliners are a real pain sometimes.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, you took a term from turbine startup and assumed it meant the ability to follow loads with generation.


This is exactly what I meant. The real definition given by real experts in the field differs from yours.

http://en.openei....rator%29
"The rate, expressed in megawatts per minute, that a generator changes its output."
Source: NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards

It has nothing to do with turbine startup times. In reality it is used to describe both the turbine's ability to follow loads, and the actual rate of change of the load on the grid, depending on context.

In the impedance debate, you asserted it was reactance only, and did not include resistance.


I did not. You are lying. I explicitly stated that it is the sum of resistance and reactance (specifically, the root of their squares).

Sideliners are a real pain sometimes.


Liars more so.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2015
We do not need a Magic Box. We need to understand technology and use it appropriately. I do not want to be dependent on somebody's magic box.

It isn't a "magic box" to all of us who had a reasonable education and aren't completely ignorant of basic physics. We understand the technology just fine thank you, even if you don't. And what is this " and use it appropriately"? are you saying we aren't using fusion power "appropriately"? If so, given the fact we haven't even started to use it, in what sense?
What would be an "inappropriate" use of fusion power?
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
This is the part of anti-cold fusion propaganda.


And there comes the conspiracy theory again.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Hey, toots, I am not stopping you from having a life of your own, instead of living online. I am 71, and had mine, with great experiences, apparently.

Go live in Wiki.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
"What would be an "inappropriate" use of fusion power?"
----------------------------

A village in a poor country.

A city in a poor country.

It puts them in debt to the Priesthood of that specialized and probably classified information and technology. It takes a tremendous societal infrastructure to do all that.

Instead, let's show them how to use simpler technologies they can operate and maintain themselves, . . stuff without such concentrated power.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Go live in Wiki.


Rather than live in ignorance.

Sayings of the Buddha:
Verse 73. Desire For Pre-Eminence

For position a fool may wish:
among the bhikkhus precedence,
in monasteries authority,
from other families honours.

Explanation: He is fond of being recognized for what he, in reality, is not. Yearns for pre-eminence among peers. He craves for preference in matters relating to residences. He is enamoured of the idea of receiving gifts and requisites from other families as well.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
It puts them in debt to the Priesthood of that specialized and probably classified information and technology. It takes a tremendous societal infrastructure to do all that.

Instead, let's show them how to use simpler technologies they can operate and maintain themselves


Like what? A solar panel they can't manufacture themselves? A battery they have to buy? A wind generator that they have to import because they have no means to produce magnets, or electronics, or the bearings, or even the copper wire required to wind the generator?

You're talking of the foreign aid problem, where truly poor societies are totally dependent on their helpers to bring them technology until they develop as a society to the point that they can afford to produce it themselves.

It has nothing to do with fusion power - it has to do with any technology whatsoever, including your renewable energy. It's just an open playground for big multinationals like Vestas to exploit the people.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
This is the part of anti-cold fusion propaganda
@Zephir/docile/lajib
this is called conspiracy ideation: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

it is also why you reject anctual validated science over debunked BS pseudoscience
If you want to force people to forget the cold fusion, you should also provide some alternative
this is circular reasoning of the pseudoscience and conspiracy theorist. in science, you follow the EVIDENCE, not "make sh*t up and hope no one notices that it aint true"
whereas the really perspective research gets ignored
spoken like a true pseudoscience radical who believes in conspiracy
see study linked above

NO SCIENTIST following the evidence will "ignore" empirical evidence
the reason cf isn't being promoted is because there is NO EVIDENCE supporting the claims (no reputable evidence- see rossi/mills et al)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
It's the result of economically motivated pluralistic ignorance instead
@Zephir/docile/lajib
it is NOT "pluralistic ignorance" to ignore evidence that has been proven to be false or that has been debunked or falsified (or... etc)
this is called following the EVIDENCE...
Why do you think? [that it is conspiracy theory]
because it has been demonstrated to be thus, and you can see the evidence in the continual refusal of you to accept SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE over your BELIEF and FAITH in the pseudoscience - this can be demonstrated by your continuing effort to denigrate mainstream science by libelous comments like
The scientists just want to keep their jobs
if you can't PROVE pluralistic ignorance with evidence, which would require a validated study, then you are simply assigning a big fancy word to something via ignorance because you are tenaciously clinging to an idea that has been debunked -that is a FAITH... not evidence
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
It has to do with a technology they have to buy from other nations, and be maintained by other nations, which probably supply the fuel, and then they are stuck with an investment for the long term.

We should enable them with investments in themselves, in less expensive and more appropriate technologies for the situations. Central plants and transmission lines are not practical everywhere. The use of natural systems can be done on small scales, allowing bootstrapping.

Selling them the other stuff is essentially economic colonialism.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
It has to do with a technology they have to buy from other nations, and be maintained by other nations, which probably supply the fuel, and then they are stuck with an investment for the long term.


That's equally true of renewable power. Any way you look at it, a poor nation is absolutely dependent on other nations and other peoples' industries until they develop enough to start their own.

Go to a village in the middle of Africa. Try to buy a pair of 608Z bearing and a bicycle dynamo to build a water wheel for a nearby stream. There is none, no shop that sells those parts. You have to mail-order them in, and when they arrive after months, what does it say on the parts?

It says "Made in China".

The use of natural systems can be done on small scales, allowing bootstrapping.


Without large concentrated power, you have no large concentrated industry or agriculture, and no export products. You're effectively stuck at the small scale.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, I am not going to play your semantic games. You look at technical terms and misunderstand their meanings in those fields. You assume whatever makes you feel better at the expense of others
-Says the expert in nothing. Explain to the audience how you misused the term actinide because you didnt know what it meant.

I see your meds are kicking in with a vengeance this morning.
I love it! A nobody is challenging me
-says the psychopathic megalomaniac. Hint: you are a 'nobody' by your own admission. No education, no degree, no relevant experience, no self-control.

Although the right meds CAN change this self-perception.
I showed you who I am, and what I did
You constantly lie about what you did which shows us WHAT you are; a lying, cheating psychopath.

This is much more important than knowing who you are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Just look me up, Eikka. Did they hire me or you? Hmmmm?
And did they fire Eikka or you? Hmmmmm? How many jobs you lost george - 20? 22?

This would never have happened if HR depts had been established earlier.

Which is why you hate them so much. Which is also why you became a maytag consultant, isnt it?

Anyone who encourages this sicko on any subject whatsoever is being irresponsible.
Gosh, Eikka, if you do not understand it, do not blame me. Are you bringing up your confusion again over whether impedance includes resistance? That's pretty basic, Toots
"But there is something else about the speech of psychopaths that is equally puzzling: their frequent use of contradictory and logically inconsistent statements..."
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
gkam, you forget how the electrification started in the US, and by the same token pretty much everywhere else in the world. Large hydroelectric projects.

Electricity didn't really take off until Westinghouse built the Niagara Falls power station and brought power to thousands. Everywhere in the world, electrification started in places that already had access to industrial power in the form of rapids and falls that were used to turn mechanical systems like saws and looms with belts.

A competing proposal for transmitting power from Niagara Falls involved using compressed air in a big pipeline. That's how badly they wanted Big Power instead of Edison's small DC grids. It was the big concentrated power that enabled the further expansion of electricity.

Now that we are rich, there's the illusion that distributed small power is feasible, but only because you ignore the big industry and big services and big transportation that uses the other 4/5th of our energy.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Yeah, and now it is history. They needed it because they did not have the technology for individual power systems which could hook up to lines made by the big companies. There weren't any. It is the evolution of power systems.

Now we have the technology to be more independent, for the granularity of our systems to be smaller. We can still find benefits in integration, but will not always need it.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Basically, there's a certain "power treshold" for society that they have to cross before they can become richer. It's not something you can creep up to by installing a generator here, a solar panel there.

When you reach the point where you need to scale your industry up from individual cottages to factory halls, you suddenly find the need to build a power grid to draw power from your power sources and concentrate it on a small number of points where industry can build up efficiently.

If all your energy production is diffused around the countryside in small self-sufficient power islands consisting of a few houses or a town at most, the task of collecting their surplus for industry uses becomes insurmountable.

This was the problem in the UK before they built their national grid: thousands of local electric operators all over the country were all disconnected from each other. The industries couldn't grow because they had insufficient access to power.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
I was an Electronic Engineer
This is a lie.

Everybody here knows what an ElectronicS Engineer is.

"Electronics engineers typically possess an academic degree with a major in electronic engineering. .. usually three or four years..."

-which you werent smart enough to achieve.

"...includes units covering physics, chemistry, mathematics, project management and specific topics in electrical engineering.[including] the subfields of electronic engineering."

-None of which you were ever educated in.

"... the first step towards certification and the degree program itself is certified by a professional body. After completing a certified degree program the engineer must satisfy a range of requirements (including work experience requirements) before being certified."

-which you could never have hoped to get.

You LIE about what you are in order to convince people you know what youre talking about.

You obviously dont.

Only losers would ever attempt this HERE.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Folks, the diversification and distribution of electric power is the best of all worlds. If you are a Capitalist, you can choose to generate and sell. If you are a customer, you can buy whatever kind of power you want. If you are a libertarian, you can get off our lines.

It is the best of Capitalism and the best of Socialism, and you can have any proportion you want.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
They needed it because they did not have the technology for individual power systems which could hook up to lines made by the big companies.


In your "bootstrap" scenario, there are no lines by big companies to hook up to, because there are no big companies. The big companies cannot exist until you have big power for them to hook up to, and only then you can hook the little guys in.

So you're really climbing ass-first into a tree with your poor nation argument.

You can give them distributed small power systems, but that doesn't help them to grow rich, and they will forever be tied to your help.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
you're the crystalline example of how it works
@Zephir/docile/lajib
wow... just... WOW... this is called transference (and delusion)

b/c i ask for reputable evidence & i don't accept false, debunked claims that have been refuted, or link to known pseudoscience sites, it is somehow ME that is a conspiracy theorist?
what do you call a cop/judge that won't "take your word" on a subject without also researching it to find the truth? a delusional mentally deficient Alzheimer's fool?
The typical experimental evidence. I'm just following it, whereas you don't
no... you will accept ANY claim..
UNLESS it debunks what you already WANT to believe

the proof? your acceptance of daw/aw when there is EVIDENCE refuting it (validated more times than you changed your underwear last decade)
i can link that evidence- you ignore it

THIS is what makes you a conspiracy ideation pseudoscience acolyte pushing your religious belief more than anything else
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, the technology has changed. I am not going to play your semantic games of what can happen. We have the ability now to help them bootstrap themselves into societies with modern technologies they can understand more easily, can train their people to maintain, train their people to improve.

Putting in a fusion or fission central plant is economic colonialism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
We need to understand technology and use it appropriately. I do not want to be dependent on somebody's magic box
Folks, gkam/george kamburoff is intimidated by complicated things he doesnt understand.

He prefers simple things he doesnt understand, with esoteric terms he can pretend to know the meaning of.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, the technology has changed


This is no semantic game. The practical reality in the poor nations you're talking about is the same as in the west pre-industrialization.
We have the ability now to help them bootstrap themselves

These societies exist as distributed and separated agrarian communities with little common infrastructure save for a footpath, and the larger towns and cities are mainly concentreted around trade and not industry. Whatever industry there is is concentrated around sources of power and transport - typically a mountain river or a port.

When you introduce distributed power sources such as solar or wind power in that kind of environment, it does not help them grow industry because they still have no infrastructure to support it.

They can't "bootstrap" themselves without concentrating power somewhere, because proper industry requires five times more power per worker, and will become starved in the distributed and diffused power system.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
I am not going to play your semantic games of what can happen.


Btw. do you actually understand what "semantic" means?

with modern technologies they can understand more easily, can train their people to maintain, train their people to improve.


A basic working fusion reactor (Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor) is such a simple thing to build that even schoolkids can manage one on a weekend budget. You're just making the assumption that fusion power is hard to understand because you don't understand it.

It's about as hard to explain a steam engine to a kid in Africa who doesn't know how to read and can't count 1 + 4. You're starting from rock bottom in any case.

Putting in a fusion or fission central plant is economic colonialism.


So is selling them solar panels and wind turbines, which they have no hope to construct or maintain on their own.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, you are just like the typical goober on the sidelines, assuming the worst, thinking ALL the power will be one way or another. Wake up. All systems will probably be blends, integrations of what is available and appropriate.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Folks, the diversification and distribution of electric power is the best of all worlds.


@ glam-Skippy. Truce for a minute okayeei? I have the serious question to ask. Actually it is the serious question from Mrs-Ira-Skippette. Well that is not right either, it is her mother has the question after Mrs-Ira-Skippette showed her some of me fooling around with you here on the physorg.

What she wanted to know is, do you have every copy of the Mother Earth News going back to 1970? And every one of the Fire Fox books from the days before I was borned? She said all of your speechifying sounds just like those magazines and wanted to know if that is where you get your material from.

I have never heard of them so I do not know if that is good or bad, just that she thinks it is really funny.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, you are just like the typical goober on the sidelines, assuming the worst, thinking ALL the power will be one way or another. Wake up. All systems will probably be blends, integrations of what is available and appropriate.


No I don't.

You're just projecting that opinion on me to dismiss any and all arguments I make. You're pretending that I am unreasonable to remain unreasonable yourself.

And you're backpedaling harder than a rower about to fall over the Niagara Falls by changing your statement to "all systems will be blends" after just claiming that we don't need fusion/fission power because we have renewables.

In the past you've blamed me for an anti-renewable shill, anti-progressive, whatever. You are absolutely not interested in constructive and honest discussion - you simply want to push your own political agenda that happens to exclude everything but your favorite renewable energies - even at the point of lying blatantly about the rest.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Tell her she would enjoy EF Schumacher. Really. And she would learn some. It's a short book, but with a big message of appropriate technologies.

I inherited some foxfire books when I got married, and my thesis was on the integration of alternative energy systems, not living in the 18th Century. The companies for which I worked all had advanced technologies. I understand appropriate.

Those giggles sound like they come from folk who rely on stereotypes.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
my thesis was on the integration of alternative energy systems


You know what would be exceedingly interesting.

If you would find the paper, scan it and upload it to one of the free filehosting services online. That would be a perfect proof and show on what your understanding of these matters is and what you're actually capable of.

At least we could see what the 1970's level of understanding about renewable energy system integration was.

Btw. You have previously claimed that you have a master's degree in Environmental Management. That is not a field that requires extensive knowledge of electrical engineering or power systems.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Okay, here goes: Eikka, we needed central plants in the past because we were in cities, already concentrated, living in buildings and layouts not optimized for wind or PV power generation. They had lots of cheap coal, and could build stinky plants, so that's what they did, in areas already laid out, with other utilities already.

You use APPROPRIATE technologies at all times within your means.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
"Btw. You have previously claimed that you have a master's degree in Environmental Management. That is not a field that requires extensive knowledge of electrical engineering or power systems."
-------------------------------------

Eikka, you're an idiot. Did you ever work in either of them? Did you hear of my thesis on the integration of alternative energy systems? I did not need my experience in energy for that, but I used it for the thesis, because energy is my field.

If you beg, I will explain it to you in a series of posts. Perhaps it can give you some insight into why we do not need fusion. We can use it, but we do not need it.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2015
Those giggles sound like they come from folk who rely on stereotypes.


More like running across the peoples who are where the stereotypes come from.

I have no idea what the magazines she was telling about are. Maybe I will look them up on the interweb so I have a better idea about what she meant.

She said: "He sounds like the guy who waited with bated breath for each new issue and spent the next two months telling everyone how the things in that issue would change the world if only everyone would do it".
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Yes, . . the silly stereotype. I was already through the war, and sufficiently mature to not get overly excited. What I got was Scientific American, Science News, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. And three daily newspapers from cities.

What she is snickering about are the solid means for alternative structures and living systems. I guess she thinks Sun orientation, Trombe Walls, skylighting and the use of superinsulations is silly.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Okay, here goes: Eikka, we needed central plants in the past because we were in cities, already concentrated, living in buildings and layouts not optimized for wind or PV power generation.


That's not even wrong. It's just a complete lack of understanding of history and technology.

Back before electrification, the growth of industry was limited by the amount of power they could generate, because they could not transmit any power beyond how far you could reach with a leather belt.

The fact that they had lots of cheap coal didn't help, because individual powerplants were limited in size to about 100 HP, because at any larger scale and the power transmission problem became too costly and difficult to solve.

Electrification made it possible to transmit much more power and that allowed a higher concentration of power, which meant factories that produce more stuff, employ more people, and that lead to the explosive growth of cities and the economy alongside it.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Eikka, you're an idiot. Did you ever work in either of them?

Another ad hominem.

Did you hear of my thesis on the integration of alternative energy systems? I did not need my experience in energy for that, but I used it for the thesis, because energy is my field.


But you have no formal education in the energy field, so how can we know you are competent at all?

You wave your thesis around as if it would prove that you are competent in commenting about power generation systems and integration, but in reality you have not a shred of evidence going for you. That's why I asked to see the thesis - to find out whether it's just full of trivia that you managed to pass off as research to people who weren't intimately familiar with the topic.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
You use APPROPRIATE technologies at all times within your means.


Yes. An appropriate technology for a society that wishes to build up infrastructure and industry from scratch is one that actually allows the concentration of power for industry to happen.

That means no small time tinkering with car batteries and solar panels. It means building a reasonably big powerplant near a good transportation hub, close to resources and people, and giving the people the necessary surplus of cheap energy with which they can process, transport and manufacture goods for trade.

You can't go from a simple agrarian diffused society into a modern self-sufficient nation without concentrating people and power as resources for the industry which is used for trade to pay for all the technology you're consuming.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
If you beg, I will explain it to you in a series of posts.


I should not need to beg you for anything.

If you really have something relevant to say, you would say it instead of posing and pretending.

You're constantly just talking about how you know this and that, how you have experience in this an that, how you could explain this and that - but you never show the money. One has to assume it's because you don't actually have any.

gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Uh, . . I had thermodynamics of energy systems for both undergrad and graduate degrees. All those powerplants I was in were mostly while in school on field trips where we had to do analyses of the systems, operating parameters, enthalpy, efficiency and such. I spent most of my PG&E time focused on the customer side of the meter, which got me into Power Quality.

If you want the description of the system, just ask very politely.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
I had thermodynamics of energy systems for both undergrad and graduate degrees.


As did I. I know the courses you're talking about and I know they don't actually entitle you to make anything but superfical commentary about these things as such.

You can basically calculate the increase in pressure of a heated steam vessel and know the difference between e.g. a Brayton cycle and Otto cycle in terms of pressure-volume diagrams etc. but that is about as far connected from power system integration as gardening is to industrial agriculture.

And your information is woefully outdated, as proven by the other time when you had to ask for proof that a steam turbine can reach 37% thermodynamic efficiency.

If you want the description of the system, just ask very politely.


Again, if you had something relevant to say, you would just say it.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
And if you were real, you would identify yourself, and ask for it nicely, and learn something.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
I spent most of my PG&E time focused on the customer side of the meter, which got me into Power Quality.


And again, that does not qualify you to comment on the producer side of the grid. You're basically more familiar with line noise than with wind energy integration. Even your own website where you sell yourself talks about measuring power factors etc. at the point of consumption, which is again as far removed from power system integration as gardening from industrial agriculture.

And if you were real, you would identify yourself, and ask for it nicely, and learn something.


Who I am has absolutely no bearing on what is true. You would simply attempt to use the information to harass me and pull out irrelevant appeals about character (ad hominems).

You know what I'm talking is true.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
"You would simply attempt to use the information to harass me and pull out irrelevant appeals about character (ad hominems)."
-----------------------

Where would I get that idea?

Yeah, it does give me the right to comment on the production side of the process. How did you get yours?
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
Where would I get that idea?


You tell me. You're already doing it by projecting me as all sorts of nasty people, goobers and oil company shills and whatnot. If I gave you my real name, you'd probably phone my boss and tell them I'm an idiot just out of spite.

Yeah, it does give me the right to comment on the production side of the process. How did you get yours?


Everybody has the -right- to comment.

What you don't have is the necessary qualifications, or proof of knowledge, to present yourself as an authority on the subject. Your word is no better than the other guy's because we don't know you know anything about the subject, and we can't trust that you aren't trying to feed us baloney.

What you can do is present a well-reasoned argument to show that your opinions are valid, which we can then debate. That is something you unfortunately have never bothered to do. Instead, you always restort to simply appealing to the authority which you don't have.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015

Ask nicely for me to (very) technically describe the system, or, . . go trade insults with otto.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Ask nicely for me to (very) technically describe the system, or, . . go trade insults with otto.


What system?

Is it relevant to the topic?

Again, if you had something relevant to say in support of your own arguments and your standpoint, you would simply say it. This thing you're doing right now is just stalling and throwing a smokescreen on the fact that you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.

Btw. I can see that you're 1-voting every single message I post everywhere you find them. That's very childish of you.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
You dared me to send you the system, but it is over 200 pages and the block diagram is on a D-size sheet.

If you want the detailed description, you need to ask nicely.

Since you cannot do so, I do not have to write it out.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
You dared me to send you the system


What system?

What the hell are you talking about?

I asked you to upload a copy of your thesis to some free hosting service and show it to folks.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
"Btw. I can see that you're 1-voting every single message I post everywhere you find them. That's very childish of you."
----------------------------------

Go count and see who is childish. I vote when offended.

No, I am not going to look it up, find it, and send a 200-page manuscript. I did it over 30 years ago. No internet then.

I'll describe the inputs and outputs, process parameters, mass flow, and energy flow at every one of the 15 blocks. I want you to see how stupid you have been.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Go count and see who is childish.


What does that even mean?

I pointed the fact out, because it is another example of your malicious underhanded behaviour against people you disagree with. That is another indicator that you are not interested in honest constructive discussion or debate - you simply want to push an agenda.

That is why you have no authority here.

I'll describe the inputs and outputs, process parameters, mass flow, and energy flow at every one of the 15 blocks. I want you to see how stupid you have been.


How can we trust that you aren't just lifting stuff out of someone else's paper you just googled, or making it up as you go?

You don't have to send all of it. Just a good representative sample that includes at least the cover, abstract and conclusion.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2015
mass flow, and energy flow at every one of the 15 blocks.


Before you do, would you describe what these 15 blocks stand for? What is the scope of the paper?
humy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
"What would be an "inappropriate" use of fusion power?"
----------------------------

A village in a poor country.

A city in a poor country.

It puts them in debt to the Priesthood of that specialized and probably classified information and technology. .


What planet are you on?
Why on earth would it be "probably classified"? That sounds like some kind of really weird paranoia.
If it was classified, we wouldn't have this link about it explaining how it works.
If a village is poor, they may not afford to pay for one being built there anyway thus it would have no effect on them. If they can afford to pay for one then there wouldn't be anyone telling them they can't.

Would you object to have a fusion power plant built in US or UK and, if so, why?
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
We do not need a Magic Box. We need to understand technology and use it appropriately. I do not want to be dependent on somebody's magic box.


When jet engines were new, some old farts did't want to fly because there was no propellers.

We need fusion. Not necessarily for domestic energy production....


Um, what.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
"Would you object to have a fusion power plant built in US or UK and, if so, why?:"
---------------------------

No, but I would rather put our money and talents into more appropriate technologies.

But when Noum whines "When jet engines were new, some old farts did't want to fly because there was no propellers." he speaks of someone else. Himself, perhaps.

Demonstrate your technology working.

Oh, . . you don't have one?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2015
Folks, I would love to see something come out of our billions on these technologies. But we can use less concentrated and more distributed power systems now, and should not holding out hope for some technical miracle.
Benni
3 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2015
Folks, I would love to see something come out of our billions on these technologies. But we can use less concentrated and more distributed power systems now, and should not holding out hope for some technical miracle.


I'll give you the synopsis on your viewpoint, but the upfront costs for the average homeowner to install & then maintain a decentralized energy system is beyond their technical skill level. The present level of costs for solar, etc, needs to change more dramatically. The technologies are far too inefficient to justify upfront costs of many thousands of dollars when you can connect immediately onto the grid for a mere $100/month.

Unless economies of scale between centralized & decentralized power generation change dramatically, your vision will never come true, but there are those of us who are still holdouts.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
Benni, I still have to disagree. I do not mean we all have to be independent, but every one of us who contributes makes the grid stronger and more efficient.

And economies of scale are going away with distributed power coming in cheaper than central plants. Nuclear plant are closing along with coal, and others are either going to be subsidized by consumers or go away as well. We fill them in with much smaller fields of wind, inputs of PV, geothermal, energy conservation, LEDs, very efficient gas thermal plants, fuel cells, improved controls, all of it.

It is all part of the punctuated equilibrium of power system evolution.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2015
"The technologies are far too inefficient to justify upfront costs of many thousands of dollars when you can connect immediately onto the grid for a mere $100/month."
---------------------------------
People are already connected to the grid, and now want to lower that price. I am now comparing systems for our installation, which will make a group of four houses with PV systems.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
The technology is spreading because third parties having PPAs, power purchase agreements, with the utilities can generate on your roof and sell at retail to the utilities, or sell it to you at rates lower than the utility. No costs for the system or maintenance at all for the user. They have already inverted the economies of scale in some respects.
Egleton
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2015
Where is that ignore button? You guys are polluting the bandwidth.
Rossi has got his US patent.

Here is the hot fusion angle. "That is how the sun does it. Therefore that is the only way possible. End of story."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't prove a negative.

I'll say it again for the self anointed gatekeepers of the truth. Rossi has got his US patent.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (24) Aug 27, 2015
I do not mean we all have to be independent, but every one of us who contributes makes the grid stronger and more efficient.


How?

By installing more and more solar panels and wind turbines, you're making the grid less efficient and more unstable by introducing ever more power fluctuations into it, while making other people pay exorbitant amounts for the energy you produce, while giving the owners of solar panels free fossil fuel energy under net metering schemes to hide the fact that they can't even use their own output.

The way you are doing renewable energy right now is completely unsustainable, both economically and practically, and is about to hit a wall once you get to the same level of grid penetration as Germany or Denmark.

There's only so much you can build before you have to start dealing with the power surges in inefficient and costly ways, such as dumping it for low level heat, or maintaining mountains of batteries.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (24) Aug 27, 2015
should not holding out hope for some technical miracle.


The scale of the renewable energy problem - how to make and utilize the energy in a controlled fashion and stockpile energy against daily, monthly and yearly variations in output - does require a technical miracle.

They key point in the question is that we need hundreds of TeraWatt-hours of some kind of energy storage that costs no more than a couple cents per kWh to operate.

Actually building any such system with any currently foreseeable means would simply break our bank - we have neither the resources nor the economic output and processing capability to produce the materials and build it in any meaningful timeframe.

This is a cost that is consistently ignored by all renewable energy advocates I have talked with. Nobody looks at anything but the direct cost (after subsidies) of power to argue how cheap and wonderful it is, and any time I point it out they merely flicker for a bit, and ignore it again.
Kedas
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
5ms? how long do we need?

It's a bit like tossing something up and say it was floating for 5ms before it came down again.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (23) Aug 27, 2015
5ms? how long do we need?


It was 5 ms until they ran out of gas to shoot into the reactor. The point is that they were able to maintain steady plasma temperature as long as they kept injecting it.

The system is a kind of inertial confinement fusion. They have a torus of plasma which is rotating around really fast. Since the plasma is a flow of charged particles, it is effectively a very strong electric current, which forms a magnetic field, and this magnetic field compresses and holds the plasma together because charged particles are deflected along the magnetic field lines. Eventually, particles bump into each other and lose momentum, and drift out of the field and the plasma fizzles down.

By shooting in new plasma into it is like blowing on a ball bearing with an air hose - it keeps it spinning.

The idea is to eventually collect the escaping gas and inject it back in a continuous loop.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
This is fifty years behind tokamak research.


This version of fusion confinement was invented in the 60's but the company itself has only been developing it for 8 years now. It's going along much faster because there's less to build. It's a far simpler system.

They have already inverted the economies of scale in some respects.


What does that even mean?
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (25) Aug 27, 2015
If we compare it with poor experiments with cold fusion


You're flip-flopping between claiming cold fusion has strong experimental proof and reactors already built and working and producing hundreds of times their energy input, and claiming it has sloppy and poorly funded experiments to excuse the lack of any actual evidence.

There is no conspiracy - you're just practicing double-think, or have some sort of mental illness that affects your cognition.

Whereas the cold fusion eliminates the Coulomb barrier instead


And this is based on your 100 year old obsolete "plum pudding" understanding of atomic physics.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
betterexists
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
Just slowly drop it into a Giant Volcano. You got it!
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
I explained here and here


Your explaination is based on a fundamental misunderstanding that the electrons around the nucleus neutralize its charge ("coulomb barrier") allowin another nucleus to collide, when in reality the atom only appears neutral over such a long distance that it can be seen as a point entity.

When you put two atoms together "cold", their electron clouds push against each other and provide an additional energy barrier.

Your explaination requires that the electron cloud is absorbed into the nucleus so that the nucleus itself becomes neutral in charge, but this is identical to the 100 year old plum pudding model of an atom and simply isn't so. If it was so, there could be no atoms because electrons and protons combine into neutrons and everything would instantly just blow apart.

docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (23) Aug 27, 2015
it will behave like macroscopicaly neutral particle from certain particular direction


That doesn't make any sense.

but what will happen, if most of electrons will get collected at the opposite side of atom temporarily?


You're trying to make the point that the electron cloud will pull the incoming proton just as much as the protons repel each other, thus neutralizing the coulomb barrier.

But it just doesn't happen. Instead the atom forms a temporary dipole with a positive end and a negative end because the charge of the electrons of a neutral atom is equal but opposite to is nucleus' charge, and the influence of a charge diminishes over distance. The electrons behind the nucleus are further away from the incoming nucleus, and there's too few of them, so the coulomb barrier is still there.

Trying to put two such dipoles together is like trying to stick two magnets north-north or south-south. They repel and try to flip around.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
Both forces will effectively compensate mutually.


This simply does not happen.

It is not possible for an electron to neutralize the charge of a proton as seen from any direction unless the electron happens to occupy the exact same point in space as the proton, but when that happens the two combine into a neutron and the left-over energy kicks off a neutrino.

If that happened often enough to produce "cold fusion", you couldn't have stable matter at all because any time you managed to get as much as a single hydrogen atom, it would spontaneously degenerate into a neutron and the whole universe would just be a thin particle soup.

docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2015
But this moment may be enough for proton to sneak across Coulomb barrier.


The probability of such an even it so astronomically tiny that it won't happen in the lifetime of this universe - not unless you've already squeezed the two nuclei together to narrow the coulomb barrier.

But then we're really talking of hot fusion.

Both electrons, both atom nuclei are pinpoint particles


They are not. An electron and a proton are both probability density waves with no specific location. They theoretically occupy all space, and are simply most concentrated at the electron orbital, or inside the nuclear radius.

they can sit effectively at same point like their common center of mass


When that happens, when their probability density waves overlap sufficiently, they combine into a neutron and a neutrino and your atom blows up spontaneously.

Eikka
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
Many electron orbitals intersect itself just at the place of atom nuclei - their electrons get fastest there, but the density of deBroglie wave gets also high there, which increases the probability of electron presence there.


The probability of finding the electron of a hydrogen atom inside the nucleus is about 1/10^14

It does not mean the electron is entirely there at any point in time. It means that 1/10^14th part of the density wave of the electron exists inside the nucleus - that is, that much of the electron is always "present" at the nucleus.

In order to actually get the electron into the nucleus to neutralize its charge, you have to squeeze its PDW to within the nuclear radius, and that takes significant external force, and the end result is that the nucleus gets neutralized into a neutron and the energy you put in is released in the form of neutrino radiation.
Estevan57
4.8 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2015
Thank you Eikka for the lovely, and logical beatdown of gkam.
He certainly is an artful codger, er, dodger.
gkam
1 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2015
They have already inverted the economies of scale in some respects.

"What does that even mean?"

It means big is not better, or more efficient or more efficacious. Look up the terms.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2015
It means big is not better, or more efficient or more efficacious. Look up the terms.


Economy of scale usually refers to the fact that when you make more of something in a larger batch, it's cheaper.

"Inverting" the economy of scale would mean that making less of something in smaller amounts is cheaper.

What you're unwittingly saying is that it's cheaper if we make less renewable energy. Ironically, that is pretty much true, as renewable energy does get increasingly expensive and increasingly inefficient the more we try to make.

In other words, what you're doing is admitting that renewable energy does not scale up to meet the demands of whole societies.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2015
The basic reason why utilities are installing solar panels on peoples' roofs is because they get to subsidized up to 90% of the investment as tax credits or direct subsidy.

If you put $1000 in you are guaranteed $900 back, but you also get to write off the $1000 as expenses anyhow, so you avoid corporate tax on the $1000 amount. That means, for what is effectively a $100 investment, you gain between $150-350 by evading tax - and that's before you sell any of the electricity. You make profit simply by building it.

It doesn't take a very brilliant mathematician to figure out why solar power is expanding exponentially. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of the technology.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (23) Aug 27, 2015
Btw. gkam - you still haven't provided any information about your thesis.

What was the scope, what were the methods, the results - not even an archival number if anyone wishes to contact the university for a copy. For all we know and for all anyone should care, your thesis simply doesn't exist.

I guess you didn't want to show how real you are afterall.
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
And this is based on your 100 year old obsolete "plum pudding" understanding of atomic physics
The "plum pudding" model wouldn't even work so well. I explained https://www.reddi...cmzbmo5, what the electrons around atom nuclei actually doing.
@zephir et al
do you really think linking to a known pseudoscience site on REDDIT is somehow valid evidence of your claims?

that's like linking to Grimms' Fairy Tales as support for the claim that wood nymphs are real and causing Ocean acidification by dissipating unicorn fecal matter into rainbows which then evaporate and fall into runoff...

and just because you up-rate your comments with another of YOUR OWN sock puppets doesn't make your comment correct any more than standing in a yard makes you a tree

gkam
1 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
"Btw. gkam - you still haven't provided any information about your thesis. "
-----------------------------
You scorned it without having any idea of what it is.

Who are you? What did you take in school? Show me what you have done. Prove to me you would understand it.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
"What you're unwittingly saying is that it's cheaper if we make less renewable energy."
------------------------------------
No, you are the unwitting one. I said the economies of scale are now inverted, with the smaller systems being more cost-effective and CHEAPER!

Compare the prices for BIG Vogtle versus much smaller small PV. I can produce power cheaper for me than Moss Landing, . . or Diablo Canyon.

Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2015
"What you're unwittingly saying is that it's cheaper if we make less renewable energy."
------------------------------------
No, you are the unwitting one. I said the economies of scale are now inverted, with the smaller systems being more cost-effective and CHEAPER!

Compare the prices for BIG Vogtle versus much smaller small PV. I can produce power cheaper for me than Moss Landing, . . or Diablo Canyon.


I'd like to see a breakdown of your costs for going 100% off the grid, do not include tax credits because that only distorts costs of manufacturing. Just the fair market value of equipment as per your proposal.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
You scorned it without having any idea of what it is.


I asked you a question to find out what it is, and you refuse to answer.

All I can do at this point is to assume that the contents of the thesis give you no credit. Otherwise you would have provided the necessary information to vindicate yourself instead of playing passive-agressive kindergarden games. If you had something relevant to say or something to show, you would have done so already.

So put up or shut up.

Who are you? What did you take in school? Show me what you have done.


All that is entirely irrelevant to the question.

Prove to me you would understand it.


If I don't understand it, other people will and correct me in my understanding of it. That is why I asked you to make the information public. You see this has absolutely nothing to do with me, and everything to do with you making high claims about yourself, and then refusing to back any of it up with anything.

Eikka
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
Compare the prices for BIG Vogtle versus much smaller small PV.


"Big Vogtle" is likely to cost no more than 8 c/kWh even according to pessimistic estimates. Remember the nuclear power calculator article? Meanwhile "small PV" or PV in general costs you over 23 cents per kWh, as in, we are actually paying that much money for it, right now.

I said the economies of scale are now inverted, with the smaller systems being more cost-effective and CHEAPER!


But that simply isn't true.

Small solar PV costs nearly double that of large industrial solar PV due to the larger amount of labor needed per unit energy. The cost of the panels themselves are a minor part of the deal, with labor, maintenance, operation and financing taking way more than half the money.

The only sense in which it is cheaper is that you're buying less of it.

It's like buying 1 lb of sugar for $1 instead of 2 lb for $1.50 - you pay less money, but it's not cheaper.
Eikka
5 / 5 (20) Aug 28, 2015
The difference between residential and industrial solar isn't double anymore today, however, the economy of scale remains:

http://greenzone....al-2.jpg

The economy of scale is a simple fact of practicality. For example, a grid tie inverter for 100 solar panels isn't ten times more expensive than an inverter for 10 solar panels, so stringing up 100 solar panels to one inverter becomes that much cheaper than having 10 groups of 10 panels each with their own inverter, meter and grid hookup. You also need to do 10 times less work because you only need to monitor and maintain one inverter instead of 10 - which would all be on different properties so you'd need to drive around.

That's why the "inversion" of the economy of scale is just plain bullshit.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
Sorry, Eikka, I guess you cannot take being corrected, like with the car battery.

You used the calculator to "prove" Vogtle is at 8 cents/kWh, while the analysts themselves say because of the financing costs, it will be 11 cents/kWh? And that is with the $8,300,000,000 taxpayer loan guarantee!!

Those big monsters are not economic, and now it is for all of us to see.

Cut the crap and understand you are supporting losers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
... my thesis on the integration of alternative energy systems,,, energy is my field
'Energy' is your 'field'. Your thesis for Environmental Mgt for your alleged MS was based on a dairy farm, correct?

Perhaps this is why you are reluctant to share any info on it, even though you said you would.

Here is a typical MS in your 'field'.

"REQUIRED COURSES
MS in Environmental Policy And Management with a concentration in Environmental Management requires completion of 48 credit hours (12 courses)"
http://university...#courses

-None of these courses has anything to do with 'energy'. And re your 6 yr PG&E job, we can assume that you worked as an 'engr' just long enough for mgt to discover your incompetence, at which time they made you part of a lunch-and-learn team that delivered presentations prepared by real professionals.

Sadly, you apparently washed out of that as well.

Six years.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
Ignorance is a useful tool of the goober set. My courses included Thermodynamics of Energy Systems. Both in undergrad and graduate courses.

Shall we discuss a typical supercirtical steam system with cross-compound turbine-generators?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
Ignorance is a useful tool of the goober set. My courses included Thermodynamics of Energy Systems. Both in undergrad and graduate courses.

Shall we discuss a typical supercirtical steam system with cross-compound turbine-generators?
Well I doubt that based on your sorry performance in this and other threads.

Perhaps this is why you dropped out?

George - all you have to do to shut up your detractors is send ira PROOF of your MS, as you promised. Your ignorance of issues kind of indicates that it is just more typical bullshit,

Are you scared?

Do you really think the people here are going to let this go?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 28, 2015
Those who could not tell a recuperator from a regenerator are taking shots at others.

Hidden behind their silly pseudonyms, they think they are saying something anybody cares about, or has any meaning. They are not real people, but fake IDs playing the games otto bragged about.

Those who have no idea of these fields go crazy trying to find something to throw at us,the real folk. otto looked up some company's requirements for an engineer for a small city, and said I did not meet the requirements. He thought my job as electronic engineer at National Semiconductor and as Plant Engineer of the iron foundry were the same!!

Sorry, Toots, you lurkers, snipers, and phonies will not drive me out. You will just have to grow up.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
Okay, I'll dig it up and send it to Mike. I'll also send him the vignettes I wrote about my experiences at Edwards, including the one now owned by Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine, reprinted by permission. I will also include how we put together a new mission, with new technology never done before, developed it, deployed it, and operated it in the Vietnam War.

You won't like it, so you will find some silly way of attacking it, . . from ignorance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
Those who have no idea of these fields go crazy
You have no idea of these fields based on the ignorance you display every time you participate.
trying to find something to throw at us,the real folk. otto looked up some company's requirements for an engineer for a small city, and said I did not meet the requirements
Youre a liar. I provided many examples of the kind of positions you claimed to have held, and you were not qualified for any of them.

I provided reqts directly from the PG&E website for senior level positions. You definitely werent qualified for that, which is evidently why you were shit canned after only 6 years.

Your transparent bullshit coupled with your lies and unverified claims tell us WHAT you are.
I wrote about my experiences at Edwards, including the one now owned by Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine
Ahaahaaaaaa what does THAT have to do with your lies about an MS and expertise in 'energy'?
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
Gosh, toots, I left PG&E to teach what I had been developing. I was asked by the Electric Power Research Institute to help write and deliver the national course in Power Quality (the term did not yet exist), for the engineers of their 600 utility members at the time. It dealt with the effects of new technologies on a system built for linear currents.

It was cool - analyzing waveshapes, doing the sleuthing work and then teaching it. I did that for about 20 years, but am retired. What did you do?

Maybe I'll send Mike a page of a report, just for you. That ought to do it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
Gosh, toots, I left PG&E to teach what I had been developing. I was asked by the Electric Power Research Institute to help write and deliver the national course
From another thread:
I got a real kick out of having an Industrial Technology degree and a Master of Science in Environmental Management, but got to teach hundreds of engineers for PG&E, and over 30,000 total around the country in basic and finer points of electricity and its effects
Like I said toots you were removed from your senior level position and shunted to team teaching where you washed out as well.

6 years.

Youre a liar.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
"Youre a liar."
--------------------------------
No,mister apostrophe, you have not besmirched my reputation, you have revealed you r own character. For the rest of you: Go look me up with 7X24Exchange. It's been a decade, but there might still be some stuff out there.

Then, otto can admit who he/she is, and if he/she has done anything his/herself.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (24) Aug 28, 2015
Go look me up with 7X24Exchange.


I did that already Skippy. You are listed as the guy who give the seminar talk on basic electricity. If you dig a little deeper you can find out that the seminar was for the non-technical office staffs.

It's been a decade, but there might still be some stuff out there


Yeah, that's what I been trying to tell you. When it comes to giving out the proofs, you are a lot better off not giving any. So far while you try to prove one thing, the proof proves three other things are the lie.

glam-Skippy. I can't fool around you with all day and night today. Mrs-Ira-Skippette has got some chores that I better do before she gets mad and makes me the misere, eh? Anyhoo, it has been the pleasure like always I am sure and I will try to pick it up with you again tonight but probably tomorrow, eh Cher?
docile
Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
denglish
5 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2015
Which IC? Well, it was in 1974, so it qwas a long tome ago.

Think Boy George was shaking when she typed this?

Its not easy to be caught lying on the internet.
gkam
1 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2015
"The first usage of "Skippy" word usually indicates, . . "

docile, how do we get out of this dependence on personal attacks? You and I differ in views, but you are honorable and rational, and I respect you. But the gamers are ruining it. We have to find a way to dump the denglish, otto and other vandals.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2015
you have not besmirched my reputation
Youve done that yourself. You have a very bad rep here.

Of course you cant acknowledge that because youre a psychopath who thinks that providing your real name allows you to lie and make up facts as you see fit.

"They are absolutely the world's best manipulators, liars, and fabricators of truth. They do so convincingly because they believe their own lies. After all their life is nothing but a lie, a sham..."

"Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people. This goes a long way to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in their speech..." [and georges penchant for floods of 1-line t shirt slogan posts]

Your name is shit here george. This is your own fault.

Look at your ratings. 2.2

Explain how and what you 'taught hundreds of engineers for PG&E'.
denglish
5 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2015
Just post matter of fact on-topic stuffs and the "gamers" will remain silent.

It would be nice to see this. Allegedly, George has knowledge that would be a good contribution to the knowledge base here. Despite repeated requests, he is yet to produce anything of value.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2015
I like this line: "Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people." explaining the monomaniacal fixations of losers on winners.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2015
I like this line: "Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people." explaining the monomaniacal fixations of losers on winners
-But according to the evidence youve provided, youve lost every job youve ever held. How many was it - 20? 22?

And you arent skillful enough to get away with lying and fabricating facts for long.This makes most everybody here smarter than you.

And the only way you can tolerate all the firings and defeats is by lying to yourself that all these people are 'goobers' who arent smart enough to understand you.

Correct?

But youre right - not many people are smart enough to believe that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer or that a Pu fission explosion didnt make a crater at fukushima because it was an airburst.

No it takes a very uncommon intellect indeed to believe in those things.
denglish
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2015
George is given very good advice on how to abate the hate, and what does he do? Shits himself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2015
George is given very good advice on how to abate the hate, and what does he do? Shits himself.
Aw he wouldnt do that. He's his own favorite turd.

By the by, in case anyones interested, rossi has gotten his first US patent
http://www.e-catw...-office/

-And, in this patent he discloses exactly what his ingredients are
http://www.e-catw...k-mills/

So eikka - you got anything to say about this?

On the same site you can see that a number of people are producing similar results with similar apparati.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
The age of the "self sufficient man" is said to have ended somewhere around the turn of the 18th century. Beyond that, the technology we hold a simple necessity of life became too complex for any single person to learn, comprehend and master it all.
You promulgate zionist propaganda of learned helplessness, likely due to addiction to credit crack
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
Give it up. Your verbal vandalism is not going to bully me out of here.

You might work on your fixation, . . . and lack of character.
denglish
5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2015
You might work on your fixation, . . . and lack of character.

George is given very good advice on how to abate the hate, and what does he do? Shits himself.
Zzzzzzzz
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2015
Another interesting question, perhaps not as easily answered as the Fusion question:

Why do most comment sections following phys.org articles devolve into petty arguments and name calling?

Is there something about the ability to leave such comments in a semi-public forum that attracts participants who will invariably lead to this result?

Or does this type of activity/venue invariably lead in this direction no matter the mental makeup of participants, due to "human nature"?
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
Zzzzz, In my case, It was the recitation of experience which did it. We have some folk here hiding behind pseudonyms only to be vandals. As lurkers themselves, they will scream "bullshit" and other stuff in all caps at those they assume are playing their game. They obviously assume we have their character.

After a while you will either respond in kind, or go away, and let them control this space with their nastiness.

I have tried contacting those in charge, but nobody is home.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (23) Aug 30, 2015
Zzzz, perhaps only the correct identity of who we are will do it. Those folk hiding have no intent of being exposed and outed.

These vandals, these snipers these verbal bullies are like all of them: They are personal cowards. Real names might make them take some responsibility for their lack of character.
gkam
1 / 5 (20) Aug 30, 2015
Meanwhile, the issue is fusion, and I support more research, but not too much. We can find immediate use for that research and development money almost immediately in alternative energy, which is already proven.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 30, 2015
Why do most comment sections following phys.org articles devolve into petty arguments and name calling?


Maybe it because a Skippy signs up for the physorg and start off postums stuffs like this,,,,,,

And the psycho delusionists once again rush feverishly to the defense of their fragile delusions...


Naaa Cher. that is not glam-Skippy's first postem. It's one of your first ones. But it is a whole lot like glam-Skippy's first postum. Do you want to see that one too? They are all on here for the hypocratical types (that's the reason for the 3 minute take it back rule.)
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 30, 2015
Just in time, we have one of the subjects show himself.

We really must have these vandals show their names. Personal responsibility is what they fear.

Let's impose it on them.

Meanwhile, we do not need another magic box into which we dump billions of dollars generations of scientists and our future. I do not want to rely or depend on some Nuclear Priesthood and Big Money or Big Government. I can have my own system, and tie it to others like me, and we can tie to the grid.
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
docile, why do you continue to assert it is being suppressed? There are too many rich and greedy developers and corporations or generous liberals like Musk to let that happen.

We would all like to see it work. But the days of mainly central plants are over. We outgrew them.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
@ glam-Skippy. Good morning to you too Cher. How you are?

Just in time, we have one of the subjects show himself.


Yeah, it is me again. But at least when I showed up I did not ever pretend to be anything more that I am.

So what is your opinion of zzzz-Skippy's remark when you see him side by side with his postem? Or your first one too? Why you think you are going to start off saying things like that and then make comments about peoples making postems just like your own is not noticed?

Cher you are not very good at being the hypocratical smart guy because the nice peoples at physorg put in the 3 minute take him back rule just for peoples like you. And all your puppets too that I have in a special folder with your "real" names and real interweb addresses. What you think the nice peoples at physorg are not smart enough to have all that?

Maybe you should start off with another "real" name and try to be a little bit more less silly.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 30, 2015
Ira, can you outgrow your need for vandalism?

This thread is about energy. Do you have any experience or education in this direct field? As a former utility engineer, I maintain it is foolish to continue to depend on a Magic Box for the grid. Maybe for other uses, but we do not need it now.

Hide and watch the transition.
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 30, 2015
"Just show me single official web, which reports about cold fusion patent or recent success in cold fusion replications."
-----------------------------------------
Perhaps there is nothing happy to report. Cold fusion, if it can be done simply, is a good thing, especially if kept small and distributed, and if it leaves no residual radioactivity.

I am all for being potentially independent - not isolated, but able to carry myself, and not have to depend on a central plant. The technologies can let us do that, and perhaps cheaper than what we do now.

Go to utility blogs (e.g., Utility Dive, Fierce Energy), and see what the topics are. The utilities know what is happening.
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
"Everyone is just waiting for others."
---------------------------------

There have been many attempts to do that reaction, but apparently none are sufficiently promising to attract more money. If it were simple, it would have been done. Electrochemistry is not my field, and the math is way over my head.

"In the 19th century the people were capable of quite advanced research in their kitchens and many important findings were invented in this way."

Something tells me this is more complicated than Charles Goodyear dumping sulfur on some rubber in his frying pan. But perhaps that is what it takes.
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IamVal
4 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2015
your experience is worthless if your argument is invalid.
We shouldn't invest in (nuclear research, hot fusion... non "renewable" energies) because...?:
the arguments seem to be
1) because we don't need it
2) because it would cause indebtedness in poor countries
3) because it takes specialized knowledge to produce and maintain the reacors
4) because it's someone's "magic box"....

2 and 4 are blatant non-sequitors. Has nothing to do with physics, the practicality of nuclear power generation or the particular findings of the article.
1 is opinion at best and absolutely objectively wrong at worst. remember, false opinions are still opinions.
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2015
Why do most comment sections following phys.org articles devolve into petty arguments and name calling?


Here's an ad-hoc theory:

Posit:
a) The articles in physorg are based articles/papers written by scientists
b) Scientists are smarter than the average bear (erm...human)
c) Internet posters on this site aren't (for the overwhelming part) scientists (nor are they smarter than the average human)

Conclusions:
i) it is impossible for the overwhelming majority of posters to make a thoughtful contribution on the subject
ii) From i) follows that most all "conclusion" posted here are wrong
iii) This opens the door for counterargument to ii). However that will - because of i) - also likely not be totally correct
iv) When two sides with (at best) cursory knowledge on a subject start to argue there's no path BUT to go into name calling - as the 'factual' arguments mostly don't hold water on way or the other.

...make of this what you will...
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
Hey, YouareVal, I said those were opinions. You can try to share your own opinion if you like, but support them. I noticed you did not try to refute those points, you just tried to dismiss them.

Do not assume I am a Luddite. Look up what Yogi Berra said about theory and practice. All of those expressed concerns are practical ones to be overcome, not theoretical, to be passed on to others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
Zzzzzz if you have been following gkams posts for any length of time you will realize who is the trouble maker here. Gkam exhibits all the symptoms of a psychopath.

He lies and makes up facts and then expects everybody to accept them unquestioned just because he posts his real name.

A dozen or so people have tangled with him over his lies and fabrications and will agree with most of what I say.

His rating has shrunk from 3.4 to 2.2 in the last few weeks, reflecting the disgust of most people who have begun to realize just what kind of lowlife he really is.

This kind of intellectual pervert will show up here from time to time. Websites such as this allow them to spew their garbage without fear of getting fired or thrown out of the house or arrested as they invariably would be in the real world.

His lies cannot go unchallenged which results in ruined threads.

Psychopaths covet attention positive or negative. They will do most anything to get it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
look up what yogi berry said
Psychopaths enjoy making people jump through hoops for them. George refers to this as 'playing you like a cheap kazoo'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 30, 2015
"Psychopaths make their way by conning people into doing things for them; obtaining money for them, prestige, power, or even standing up for them when others try to expose them. But that is their claim to fame. That's what they do. And they do it very well. What's more, the job is very easy because most people are gullible with an unshakable belief in the inherent goodness of man."

-We are gaining useful experience with a garden variety of psychopath; not too bright, not very clever, but prolific indeed.

He has nothing else to do with himself but come here and ply his wares. Nobody is left in the real world who will fall for his bullshit.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 30, 2015
There you have it, Folks, . . . demonstrated Psychopathy begging for help.
AGreatWhopper
4 / 5 (12) Aug 30, 2015
Uh, gkam, "psychopathy" isn't a word and, FWIW, using neologisms without realizing it *is* a sign of schizophrenia.

"Because we can't go back to living like the Amish people - not all 7 billion people. There's simply not enough room on earth to support us without technology."

Ouch! Nailed her right where it counts, right where hypocritical liberals live. Never discuss the population elephant in the room. Witness their whining about GMOs. Are you ready to limit population? Then how are you going to feed them without that tech? I'm a minimalist to, I do everything myself from WALKING (which I'm sure Ms. Kam does not do to buy the weekly groceries) to brewing to making cheese, eating only what I grow, building my computers from discarded parts...you name it. I also have chosen not to have kids because that's a big part of the equation. So, I appreciate the sentiment. Just not the hypocrisy.
NiteSkyGerl
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2015
Ignore the cold fusionists. This is just like powered flight. Right up until the very day the Wright brothers got their flyer working there were people running around flapping their arms in various contraptions that never worked. When powered flight finally happened- after HOW long, those that say "this is taking too long"- they were forgotten.

Until 100 years later when materials science made possible things like hang gliders, but an ultra-lite and hang gliders still owe much more in their design to conventional aeronautic theory than to anyone that went around trying to imitate birds.

I like alternative ideas as much as any thinker, but I'd rather hear them from someone that gets something right every now and then. You look at docile's sock puppet comments in support of returners/Benni and you know there's not an ounce of interesting logic on display there, because, frankly, you can't get pearls out of barnacles.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
Here's a hypothetical: Suppose, hydrogen cloud condensed as it moves within a laminar field. This would be an opportunity for self assembly. The local field defines the local motion, this defines condensation, i.e. molecular fusion. Hence what set or atoms are likely to form, defined by the length of time within this "free fall" state. The bigger "X" is the more "X" gets. Now what if all that energy given off by the sun is actually fission? I'm simply looking at the stabilization of the + & - and have not defined what are the boundary conditions and "why" would that be true. i.e. the possibility they may be stacked onto themselves at a finite point that began space-time. maybe a possibility, however this would redefine continuity. My space time axis stretch from -infinity to +infinity, think I got covered, and yes, it would create an expanding universe, but we are the background noise of this event, any background now is a function of motion of a much later event. P(BB)>=0?
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2015
Otto, what do you call people that throw around lay conceptions of mental health like they know something? I think the clinical term is blowhard. If you want to take that tack, then at least use a modicum of logic and clinical wisdom?

"Psychopath" is not a psychological term. The closest equivalent is sociopath. But a sociopath is a personality disorder. You're either a neurotic, psychotic or have a personality disorder in the eyes of mental health professionals. The first is the one complaining, no one else. The second is uncontrollably out of control. Personality disorders are not psychoses, the person's usually pretty likeable apart from their disorder.

Yeah, she shows signs of sociopath personality disorder, but it could be narcissistic personality disorder as well. She's a left coaster and in the '50s it was endemic. Think of the affected Hollywood types. Reason to write her off? You just wrote off 90% of the CEOs in America.
AGreatWhopper
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2015
Thanks for the case in point for Otto, Hyperfuzzy. Would you care to speculate about the mental health of someone that has to spew his brain damaged Theory of Everything because the article said "hydrogen"??? Now, we're talking possible psychotic. I mean, there's a lack of cosmology articles on here that he could troll? That's speaks to being uncontrollably out of control. He sees something totally unrelated but one word is in common and that elicits a set of rote behaviors. gkam is narcissistic, not megalomaniacal. Hyperscuzzy is megalomaniacal.

What the owners of PO haven't foreseen or don't care about is that if you let every climate skeptic spew spam ad nauseam you're allowing for a deeply irrational, deeply disturbed element and you can't then just turn that off on other articles. Every loony knows this is where to spew.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
P(The Sun)&P(BB) = 0! Whew! That scared me for a minute, I thought of a conundrum in logic. Something like what is is = True always, a Tautology. So if nothing beget's something would be a magic Within what field may only the overlay point of "+" is exactly equal to point of "-" due to the existence of any outside field. Since space is continuous, there does not exist a point of assembly. So "Let there light!" P(BB)& P(expanse) = P(BB); P(expanse) = 1, maybe absolutely given each galaxy must exist as not being collected, hence the mix with most moving away, any other thought is head aching. My conjecture is total elasticity. Therefore plasma is detrimental to fusion, least probable environment.

But yes, I am insane.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
P(The Sun)&P(BB) = 0! Whew! That scared me for a minute, I thought of a conundrum in logic. Something like what is is = True always, a Tautology. So if nothing beget's something would be a magic Within what field may only the overlay point of "+" is exactly equal to point of "-" due to the existence of any outside field. Since space is continuous, there does not exist a point of assembly. So "Let there light!" P(BB)& P(expanse) = P(BB); P(expanse) = 1, maybe absolutely given each galaxy must exist as not being collected, hence the mix with most moving away, any other thought is head aching. My conjecture is total elasticity. Therefore plasma is detrimental to fusion, least probable environment.

But yes, I am insane.

p(?) = probability it may exist based upon what exist, what is known is known, all that is known may be described with only the attributes of the "+" and the "-" defined by Maxwell, not Dr. E. Space-Time, use lambda to define units upon all axis.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
Make it a unit less space, then define fusion reaction from requirements. Consider the boundary conditions, do not define any more than the "+" & "-" as occupying a point in space-time. Is it transparent or totally elastic? Try both. i.e. Modern physics used "mass" so assume, no measure is defined correctly. I would simulate the formation of all the elements. Simply place overlays, superposition, applies. Note rotational motion, is it only a singular charge, would the other charge ... Try the software backward and forward, same results? Of don't call a field event a particle, that's just wrong! using only +1 and -1, and Maxwell in a unit less space.
Moltvic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2015
@gkam & @Eikka - Why don't you two exchange email addresses and continue your discussion there.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2015
Understanding E = mc^2. The mass of quanta. Quanta is a field event. Well, OK. Consider a single charge an any point n the field. relative to a stationary field. A quanta is a point on the sphere about the charge, say +/- 1/Surface area. There is no mass. Anyway, mass does not define charge, charge defines mass. No magic! No Higgs. No mass creation. +/- are neither created or destroyed, QED.

From h nu = Energy

Gravity is a superposition of the fields, a simple Summation of the + & - effect. Please try it.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 30, 2015
Hi gkam. :)

Thought you would be interested in this latest move from Fossil Power company here in Oz diversifying into renewable power 'market space' for both economic as well as climate change reasons...

http://www.abc.ne.../6733340

This is happening all over at grass roots level since our moronic, denier PM Tony Abbot attempted to implement his masters' (US GOP/TeaParty and donors) playbook which he was given when he visited them before last election here. That playbook involved mindless and sustained opposition for opposition's sake, denial and sabotage of climate change science/efforts and, most recently, trying to destroy the impetus towards critical penetration by renewables industries.

Like in your country, it's sane folks doing their bit 'locally', because the deniers and their backers are still pouring money into opposition/sabotage instead of helping emerging renewables/solutions industries.

Cheers.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2015
What the owners of PO haven't foreseen or don't care about is that if you let every climate skeptic spew spam ad nauseam you're allowing for a deeply irrational, deeply disturbed element and you can't then just turn that off on other articles. Every loony knows this is where to spew.
.......and vice versa, but because you didn't mention it, this makes you every bit the same problem of which you accuse others who oppose your viewpoints. You are no better than the names by which you define others.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (20) Aug 30, 2015
Hi docile. :)

Re 'cold fusion' research 'suppression', it is unlikely, given the commercial/military potential if such was as feasible/economic as claimed. Consider the uses by all military powers for powering military vehicles/weapons/logistics etc. Also consider that all space-faring nations would be using it for satellite and space-vehicle power/propulsion purposes. Given all these potential participants/users who would be extremely interested in researching/using such cold fusion systems like that, it is inconceivable that they haven't all investigated cold fusion closely and thoroughly already. Any claim they are ALL 'suppressing' it in some way would require Russia, India, USA, China, and all other national military/scientific/political organizations to collude in doing so...and to NOT be using it already! See? If it was a feasible as claimed, then at least ONE of these 'rival nations' would be employing it already to gain space/military/economic/political advantage. :)
docile
Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 30, 2015
RC, that's a great site and story. PG&E is a combined utility, so we went to meetings and conventions for both electric and gas organizations. Gas folk have always been envious at the higher profits allowed the makers of electricity. Taking their business would be a genuine delight for any gas company.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 30, 2015
Hi docile. :)
Which remote planet are you coming from? Such a findings are just suppressed the most (http://www.wired....ents)...
Yes, I have already encountered that 'national security/secrecy classification' in the patent system here in Oz. That only works when only one nation has 'the secret/patent' exclusively. This is not the case with 'cold fusion' research efforts/knowledge now. The many years of open discussion/research etc claims and alleged 'demonstrations' in many private venues in many places/nations, would make such 'security/secrecy' efforts as 'suppression' by any ONE nation ridiculously naive. Wide discussion/research of 'cold fusion' from many quarters means at least ONE of 'rival' nations exploiting any 'successful system' by now for military/space etc. Yet none are? Implausible that they would all be conspiring to keep the 'same secret' and not deploy it for their respective advantages as I listed. Not credible.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 30, 2015
Hi gkam. :)
RC, that's a great site and story. PG&E is a combined utility, so we went to meetings and conventions for both electric and gas organizations. Gas folk have always been envious at the higher profits allowed the makers of electricity. Taking their business would be a genuine delight for any gas company.
Good show! Go sane, reasonable, genuine people! They're the best people when the pressure is on. Local action for global benefit...despite the sabotage/denial of mercenarily/politically/religiously insane, unreasonable, dishonest anti-science and anti-humanity mafia types.

Good luck with your own 'local efforts' there in US, gkam et al. Thanks for caring about us all. :)
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 30, 2015
Mike Massen is "down there" somewhere as well. Good chap.

I sent him the thesis with the integrated system a la 1982, for paste-up on some site, if you're interested.
Irukanji
2 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2015
How to summarise phys.org comments section: Trolls trolling trolls

Anyway, the main problem with fusion at the moment is fuel delivery, most are relying on a tiny target, suspended in the middle of a chamber(usually deuterium in a gold thingymajig, from memory). You can't ever hope to produce viable energy if you have to keep stopping and starting. Do you shoot more pellets into the reacting area from the outside? Since there is no throttle-ability yet...

The second problem is fuel creation: Deuterium isn't easy to make, so actual test runs can only be for a few milliseconds(due to fuel consumption, no doubt). It isn't anything like a fission reactor, which is currently our best method of heating water in a controlled way. The fusion "reaction" would simply consume all of the fuel, and actually extracting useful energy from it would be futile.

There are a lot more problems, like any new technology
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2015
Hey whopper
Otto, what do you call people that throw around lay conceptions of mental health like they know
Ahaahaaaaa psychopathy is a word.

Why don't you take 10 seconds and look things up before spouting off?

This IS the internet you know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2015
RC, that's a great site and story. PG&E is a combined utility, so we went
Isn't that cyuute? George is grooming allies.

He needs to do this because he has lost most every one he had here.

George I suggest you stop your lying, flooding, talking about yourself, and making up facts if you want the respect of the honorable posters here.

But this is probably beyond your capabilities.

Explain why you lied about teaching engrs at PG&E. Was it because you're a compulsive liar?

That would seem to be the case.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 31, 2015
This will probably be a moot development. We can avoid centralized power, supplied by special technicians, maybe classified, and requiring a Police State to guard.

Technology has enabled us to now generate our own power, cheaper than centralized plants. We will decentralize, diversify, and evolve the power system. The grid will be our backup.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2015
You can try to share your own opinion if you like, but support them
Why? You never do except to insist that because you reveal your name, you must be right.

So how come youre wrong a whole lot?
You can't ever hope to produce viable energy if you have to keep stopping and starting
Yeah. This is how an internal combustion engine works. And inertial fusion is not the main object of research; the tokamak is.

And the word is hohlraum which can be found on the INTERNET in 2 minutes.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 31, 2015
" It isn't anything like a fission reactor, which is currently our best method of heating water in a controlled way."
----------------------------------------

Using three-million-degree Neutrons to boil water is not "best", especially with dangerous systems.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2015
@Zzzz
Actually, GREAT questions!
Why ...devolve into petty arguments ...?
mostly? the protection of anonymity and lack of moderation
Is there something about ...that attracts participants who will ... lead to this result?
absolutely right on the money
also note: forcing a person to publish names is not going to produce an change
it will not alter the personality, only change the responsibility of the source (it will also NOT make any posts(ers) more viable or authoritarian, or CORRECT- only evidence does that)
... due to "human nature"?
no. you CAN have logical discourse when it is moderated with established rules, and enforced, this is well known (See also: Roberts Rules) to business as well as demonstrated in other forums, like SciForums or Sapo's Joint
now, accidents happen, but intentional trolling/flaming etc is heavily moderated and abusers banned (including some who still troll PO -banned there, not here: that is evidence, not conjecture)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2015
@Zzzz
Why ...devolve into petty arguments ...?
If you really want to read more about this subject, you can follow these links:
http://phys.org/n...ies.html

http://phys.org/n...lls.html

http://phys.org/n...nce.html

http://arstechnic...nformed/

some studies:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

https://www.psych...-sadists

the articles (linked first) lead into the studies, which offer some insight (and empirical data) to the mindset as well as reasoning

ENJOY...
Irukanji
5 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2015
You can't ever hope to produce viable energy if you have to keep stopping and starting
Yeah. This is how an internal combustion engine works. And inertial fusion is not the main object of research; the tokamak is.

And the word is hohlraum which can be found on the INTERNET in 2 minutes.

Well, see, an internal combustion engine gets it's efficiency from utilising the inertia of other moving pistons to keep losses to a minimum. It's least efficient at start up, and only gets more efficient as you put your foot down(throttle opens, reducing manifold restriction).

Yeah the hohlraum, I had better things to do than google for a single word though(I mean, it used to be under the picture on the wikipedia to make life easy). Does it really matter? Are my comments going to be peer-reviewed and denied publication because I didn't look up a word to keep the autism happy? I addressed the #1 problem and got downvoted, never change phys.org

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

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