Remember me
▼ Content

Nuclear fussion should be available in the next ten years...



Page 1 of 212>
Nuclear fussion should be available in the next ten years...28-09-2021 02:39
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
https://hackaday.com/2021/09/27/commonwealth-fusions-20-tesla-magnet-a-bright-sparc-towards-fusions-future/

After decades of nuclear fusion power being always ten years away, suddenly we are looking at a handful of endeavours striving to be the first to Q > 1, the moment when a nuclear fusion reactor will produce more power than is required to drive the fusion process in the first place. At this point the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor holds the world record with a Q of 0.67.

At the same time, a large international group is busily constructing the massive ITER tokamak test reactor in France, although it won't begin fusion experiments until the mid-2030s. The idea is that ITER will provide the data required to construct the first DEMO reactors that might see viable commercial fusion as early as the 2040s, optimistically.

And then there's Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a fusion energy startup. Where CFS differs is that they don't seek to go big, but instead try to make a tokamak system that's affordable, compact and robust. With their recent demonstration of a 20 Tesla (T) high-temperature superconducting (HTS) rare-earth barium copper oxide (ReBCO) magnet field coil, they made a big leap towards their demonstration reactor: SPARC.


Long article, lots of links, and graphics. I remember hearing/reading about fusion reactors, as a child. It has always been almost there, and never delivers. I've been of the opinion it's just another 'free-energy'/perpetual motion dream. Seems to take a whole lot of energy input, just to start the fusion reaction. The containment and cooling, also require a huge amount of energy to maintain, for the few seconds fusion obtained. I've really haven't seen a whole lot about how they plan to harness the fusion energy released, once they get a stable reaction going. All that energy released in the reaction, needs to be converted to something we can use. With a fission reactor, we simply boil water, to spin a steam turbine generator, to produce electricity. Not particularly efficient use of all the energy being released, but relatively cheap and stable to operate for quite a while, once built and started up. With fission though, we do control the rate of reaction, and the consumption of fuel. lasts a long time. Fusion doesn't seem to allow for any such controls, once started, it consumes the fuel at a steady pace regardless of what we use. Stopping the reaction, means pumping in a lot of energy to restart. Creating, containing, and sustaining a fusion reaction is all cool, but how to recover useful energy, efficiently, so there is sufficient surplus to be useful, and practical? Obviously the tried and true steam turbine solution isn't going to pay the bills. Let alone, leave any energy to do a useful amount of work.

Seems like if there was a better way to extract energy from a nuclear reaction, we would have been using it by now, with the fission reactors.
28-09-2021 03:40
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.
28-09-2021 04:28
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
I'm no rocket scientist... But, sudden acceleration/deceleration is rough on the body... There are limits to what we can survive, mostly intact... Won't be of much use, if much of the distance is used to get up to speed, only to need to use the remainder to slow back down. Still comes down to making efficient use of the fusion reaction, where it's either on or off, and we only use a small portion for the work we wish performed. Not very efficient use, if most of the potential goes to waste. Humans can only think, react, so fast. Moving a such high speeds, automated controls will be the only option. We'd be just along for the ride, hoping nothing fux-up.
28-09-2021 07:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
Is nuclear fussion when molecules get fussy?

The problem with nuclear fusion is that it is a new high-risk technology that is uber-expensive. Research is still being performed. No one has ever engineered a working nuclear fusion plant.

This means that governments needed to work together, as they were able to work together on the far less expensive international space station. The governments involved were not, however, able to work together, which is understandable considering the complicated and tricky ramifications of the financial and political complexities. Fusion really was ten years away from full working agreement ... which never came about.
28-09-2021 10:33
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
I am interested in any new technology however a gas turbine spinning a generator is going to take some beating for efficiency.I was at Wagerup Aluminium refinery in 1980 and the 2 gas turbines installed can create up to 380MW.I am going to assume there has been maintenance and upgrades over the years but Kudos to the state government for hooking 3 refineries in the Southwest in to the grid.Alinta Energy is an Australian electricity generating and gas retailing private company owned by Hong Kong-based Chow Tai Fook Enterprises. It was sold for $4 billion and was approved by Treasurer Scott Morrison in 2017.Not sure why it is not owned here?
28-09-2021 18:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
28-09-2021 19:54
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.



And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope. An ion is a gas. With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.
Edited on 28-09-2021 20:02
28-09-2021 21:06
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.



And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope. An ion is a gas. With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.


When are yiu going to harness the 'brown' energy trapped, in you crap-sack? Methane is a potent, planet-killing 'greenhouse gas. Causes about 5 times the warming, of manmade CO2.
28-09-2021 21:15
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.



And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope. An ion is a gas. With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.


When are yiu going to harness the 'brown' energy trapped, in you crap-sack? Methane is a potent, planet-killing 'greenhouse gas. Causes about 5 times the warming, of manmade CO2.



You just had to go there, didn't you? You just couldn't resist. My God how that hurts, ouch

I don't think CO2 is the issue and as for methane, its bark is worse than its bite. It's well known in some circles that when CO2 and H2O allow for O, O2 and O3 to occur naturally, the byproduct is methane and CO2.
This actually suggests that hydrocarbons and ODSs are the real problem. But you couldn't help yourself? could you? You had to go straight to methane and CO2.


p.s., with farming, some farms are converting biological waste into methane. Then when CH4 + 2O2 > CO2, 2H2O we have a gas (CO2) that has a lower GWP than CO2 and water as a result. And the net benefit is that this generates Green Energy. Why I say it creates Green Energy is the effect that emissions has on our atmosphere is less than if the process did not produce energy.
And Thank You Harvey for giving me the opportunity to exercise my 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.


p.s.s., When you said "brown energy", you were talking about perpetual motion, right? You know I work a lot with oak and it's brown. My work got delayed by a week because I have to move a set of pulleys in closer to the frame. And since I'd like to use both my miter saw and impact driver, my neighbor can't be home. I live in a duplex so I do need to be respectful of my neighbor. And I do like how well the last test went. Because of previous tests I know the results were different from previous efforts and only reinforces why I think it will work. Some would say I believe but I am following where the work I have done has led me. My previous efforts suggests quite strongly that I know what I am doing and that this is the effort that will lead to a working Bessler wheel. If not then I have other ideas I can pursue based on math and engineering.


p.s.s.s.s., with science, he helps to show what not understanding the history of science allows for. And if I change anything in science, that is extremely rare.
And yet I do wood working and have worked in a warehouse/factory. I simply didn't fit in just as when I went to church, just was different. Of course with an ileostomy, I'd be working in a warehouse today and would probably have a girlfriend who works with me. What my medical situation did not allow for.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-physicists-sure-that-gravity-is-quantized-even-though-we-havent-found-any-proof-to-that/answer/Valdis-Kl%C4%93tnieks?comment_id=223412513&comment_type=2&__filter__=all&__nsrc__=notif_page&__sncid__=19331644695&__snid3__=26831802520
Attached image:


Edited on 28-09-2021 21:57
28-09-2021 22:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
James___ wrote:And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope.

Obviously Into the Night should have realized this since "ion" and "isotope" have the same number of syllables, the same number of vowels and the exact same quantities of the letters "s," "t," "p" and "n." On top of that, he knows that whenever you don't say what you mean or mean what you say, it's his fault.

What was he thinking?

James___ wrote: An ion is a gas.

I pity the losers who think that an ion is somehow a charged particle.

James___ wrote: With the fusion process they use at ITER.org,

The fusion process might be described on ITER.org but there is no website that uses any fusion process.

James___ wrote: ... it seems that they want to create helium

Considering that helium is what you get when you successfully fuse hydrogen, that's a good thing for them to want to create with their fusion reactor.

James___ wrote: It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.

Nuclear explosions are fission. Fission has the cascading effect. Fusion does not. The moment you stop providing fuel to a fusion reaction it stops dead.

If only the sun-hot material would cool as quickly.

James_I_am wrote: I think I'll stick to Green Eggs and Ham for my well-being.


Stick to them here and there.
Stick to them anywhere.
Stick to them in a house and with a mouse.
Stick to them in a box and with a fox.
Stick to them in a car because here they are.
Stick to them in a tree and you will see.
Stick to them in the rain or on a train! A train! A train! A train!
... and in the dark.
Stick to them with a goat on a boat.
Stick to Green Eggs & Ham, James_I_Am.



28-09-2021 23:12
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote: It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.

Nuclear explosions are fission. Fission has the cascading effect. Fusion does not. The moment you stop providing fuel to a fusion reaction it stops dead.



Stick to them here and there.
Stick to them anywhere.
Stick to them in a house and with a mouse.
Stick to them in a box and with a fox.
Stick to them in a car because here they are.
Stick to them in a tree and you will see.
Stick to them in the rain or on a train! A train! A train! A train!
... and in the dark.
Stick to them with a goat on a boat.
Stick to Green Eggs & Ham, James_I_Am.



[/quote]


With Dr. Kaku of NYU, annihilating hydrogen is a fusion process.
How did I know this?
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200712/physicshistory.cfm

With the experiment of Otto Frisch, Lise Meitner realized that the mass lost when matter split into 2 was accounted for by Einstein's E = MC^2. Even after she was deported from Nazi Germany, she continued working with him.
Who doesn't know this? It led to the Manhattan Project in the US which led to 2 atomic bombs.
With Meitner, she moved to Switzerland which was never occupied by the 3rd Reich. Norway had heavy water but not Sweden. Kind of why Hitler occupied Norway. Heavy water is necessary for producing both atomic and nuclear weapons. This is grade school stuff.
Basically fusion absorbs energy because it is creating a heavier/denser form of matter. With Dr. Kaku, it's fission when he says fusion.

p.s., I like the way you quote me when you say it's you.


p.s.s., when I crossed the equator on a ship, we did have green eggs for breakfast. That is because we went from being pollywogs to shellbacks. And because I like green eggs, I am a shellback.



How IBDM sees himself? In reality it's probably misogynistic.

p.s., this is art.

Attached image:


Edited on 28-09-2021 23:55
29-09-2021 01:05
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Oh c'mon guys, we're back to Klimpt and priceless art. Fission was first observed in a Nazi laboratory and realized by a Jewish female scientist. And again, she was deported to Switzerland and kept in communication with him. You know, they both liked science. The Jew made the Nazi aware that Einstein's E = MC^2 explained the loss of mass when fission happened. Don't you guys know anything about Krystallnacht or any other events that led to the rise of the 3rd Reich?
Politically speaking, I support a 2 state solution where Israel and Palestine are concerned.

As for myself, pizza and beer sounds good right now but that will wait until tomorrow.
Just thinking about pizza; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN-wj5YbWis
29-09-2021 02:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
James___ wrote:With Dr. Kaku of NYU, annihilating hydrogen is a fusion process.

It's kind of stupid to use the words "annihilating hydrogen" when the hydrogen is really being "fused" into helium. It's sort of why they call it nuclear fusion and not nuclear annihilation.

James___ wrote: Lise Meitner realized that the mass lost when matter split into 2 was accounted for by Einstein's E = MC^2.


... so you have no excuse for writing:

James___ wrote: Basically fusion absorbs energy because it is creating a heavier/denser form of matter.

Fusion releases energy because matter is converted into energy ... so there is less matter, not somehow more or denser matter.

29-09-2021 04:23
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:With Dr. Kaku of NYU, annihilating hydrogen is a fusion process.

It's kind of stupid to use the words "annihilating hydrogen" when the hydrogen is really being "fused" into helium. It's sort of why they call it nuclear fusion and not nuclear annihilation.

James___ wrote: Lise Meitner realized that the mass lost when matter split into 2 was accounted for by Einstein's E = MC^2.


... so you have no excuse for writing:

James___ wrote: Basically fusion absorbs energy because it is creating a heavier/denser form of matter.

Fusion releases energy because matter is converted into energy ... so there is less matter, not somehow more or denser matter.




With ITER.org, hydrogen is being fused into helium. With Dr. Kaku and his friends at NYU, hydrogen is being annihilated.
Who won? Beta or VHS? This is basically the same thing. Money being invested in 2 different technologies.
29-09-2021 12:55
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
For fun, when ions that are protons drop to a less energetic state, It's like steam giving up it's heat when it condenses into water.
And with the laser creating an ion takes less energy. This would need to be a cascading effect as well. The energy released releases the energy in another hydrogen element.
29-09-2021 16:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


James___ wrote:For fun,

What?

James___ wrote:... when ions that are protons

When are protons ions?

James___ wrote: ... drop to a less energetic state,

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting they become ginseng protons, or caffeine protons?

James___ wrote: It's like steam giving up it's heat when it condenses into water.

How does it give up being heated, or how does it give up heating?

James___ wrote: And with the laser creating an ion takes less energy.

Where is the less energy taken? How does the laser somehow require less energy if an ion is what it is creating?

James___ wrote:This would need to be a cascading effect as well.

You have mentioned nothing that requires any sort of cascading effect.

James___ wrote:The energy released releases the energy in another hydrogen element.

No. The energy released is the energy generated by the reactor, a small portion of which is used to power the generator and keep energy being generated.

Otherwise, your post is very clear and brilliantly written.

29-09-2021 17:58
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote:... when ions that are protons

When are protons ions?




You need to do some reading. I can't do your reading and your thinking for you. When an atom (hydrogen has 1 proton) loses energy (an electron), it becomes ionized.
https://www.quirkyscience.com/atoms-that-are-ionized/

With ITER, the electrons that orbit the nucleus becomes plasma so it becomes an ionized state of matter. And the nucleus loses energy as a result because it lost its electron.https://www.iter.org/sci/makingitwork
Your local library I am sure has books on physics that you can check out and read at your leisure. If you can't get the easy stuff right, then.......
I mean seriously, if a warehouse/factory worker can know this......and I walked 10 to 12 miles a day at Amazon.com and during peak worked 6 days a week.
So between you and Wally, ? You can't spend your leisure time reading?
With ITER, the hydrogen they're working with has 1 proton and 1 neutron (deuterium) and 1 proton and 2 neutrons (tritium).
If they form 2/4He then it's obvious that an extra proton is left over. Quoting ITER;
The fusion between deuterium and tritium (DT) nuclei produces one helium nucleus, one neutron, and great amounts of energy.

The energy would be released when the proton of the deuterium moves to the tritium. Basically it would be bond energy that held the nucleus together and in a 2/4He the bond strength would be less. And that is what theoretically allows for energy to be generated.

p.s., fusion occurs when helium is generated. Why it's called a fusion process.

p.s., with bonding energy, that is what's released with an atomic or nuclear explosion. The nuclei are tightly packed but unstable. Why a compressive blast causes the nuclei to interfere with each other releasing energy which allows for a cascading effect.

p.s.s.s., I realized when I was younger that my service connected hearing loss was going to be a problem so decided to learn. And I think now I should be enjoying my life more.
Edited on 29-09-2021 18:14
29-09-2021 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.



And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope.

If you meant isotope, why didn't you use the word 'isotope'?
James___ wrote:
An ion is a gas.

An ion is not a gas.
James___ wrote:
With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.

I think you'll stick with your idiocy and buzzwords like usual. What is 'Green Energy'?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
29-09-2021 20:56
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(615)
Harvey, if you want to read about fusion then go to this forum:

https://fusor.net/board/

By R.Hull:

The endless quest for safe, easy accessible energy.

There is no perpetual motion. We all know that. However there has been posited that there is a universal energy source. Tesla was one of the first to propose it. Quantum theory relies on energy as a supposed zero point energy field. Today, many purport to view the zero point energy as a possible source of universal energy. Tesla did not know of this but he did say.......

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for Coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels."

To this I must add and explain our energy dilemma and note the fact that Tesla did understand, should his prophesy not be found to be true, what would forever limit man's energy.

When Tesla made the above statement he had "ideas". There is no doubt that electrons abound loose and free here on earth, or there would be no static electricity to shock you and no lightning. Electrons are electricity. Nothing else in the real world can produce electricity without the flowing charge bound up in the electron. Free electronic charges do exist in nature. Not everything is strictly electrically neutral at all times. Tesla knew this. All positive charges in the macroscopic sense are due to an imbalance absence or loss of electrons, while all negative charge is due to a collection of excess electrons.

Tesla's mind raced far ahead of his ability to prove many of his musings. Today, we know many of his thoughts, even when he was in command of his senses, are wrong. Tesla was careful to not allow himself to be linked to the impossible physics of perpetual motion so long held by the loony fringe in science for over a thousand years. The laws of thermodynamics will now allow that and Tesla knew it.

Instead, he envisioned a mechanism that could tap into what he considered a pre-existing font of natural energy found throughout the universe. Thus, the statement he made above. All of this was laid out in his huge article in 1900, "On Increasing Human Energy", (Century magazine)

Tesla had just returned from the heady days in Colorado and had it in his head that such a universal field of energy existed all around us. He could not prove it, but had huge hopes for the idea. In the above grandiose statement, he followed up within a number of news paper articles a proviso. This proviso, none of his boosters ever notes due to their being besotted with everything Tesla and their abject lack of knowledge related to the physics of the universe. Tesla, when pressed, tended to tell both sides, but to the press, he waxed eloquent with speculations which any good newspaperman would pump to a higher and more fantastical level to sell papers and make Tesla appear as if he stepped down from Mount Olympus.

Now to what Tesla predicated in his bold statement regarding universal energy. After his firm belief in a universal font of electrical energy just waiting to be tapped into, he noted, and I paraphrase as close to his quote as I can.

"I seek, via mechanisms made by man, to connect with the very wheel work of the universe.... To capture unlimited amounts of energy from the boundless font which makes up the very fabric of the universe. If man fails in this effort, he will forever be doomed to be a hunter-gatherer."

I hold this to be the most prophetic and well spoken statement Tesla ever made so long as he lived. Tearing this statement apart, you can see his true genius and depth of thought. With his seeing the power of his work in Colorado Springs in 1899, he had come to believe in a universal source of energy just waiting to be tapped which lay just beyond his immediate grasp. Realizing that the laws of thermodynamics might limit this dream, should there be no such real source of hidden universal energy, Tesla noted the fact that man has always been a hunter-gatherer and may yet be doomed to continue along this path. So..... 1.Tesla had dreams and hopes firmly in his mind related to endless energy. 2. He, as a trained college science graduate and knowing physics and the laws of thermodynamics had to admit that with no such energy source, man would have to continue along his ancient path of seeking out energy sources containing "pre-cocked", "energy guns". 3. In such gatherings, all we had to do is apply a tiny amount of seed energy (pulling the trigger) to reap that stored molecular energy found bound up in what we had gathered up.

In short, man must gather up sticks or mine coal which have stored molecular energy due to photosynthesis from the sun over years (wood) or millennia (coal). Then, to pull the "trigger" by applying a single small flame for but a moment. Finally, to stand back and allow that stored energy to pour out over hours to warm us at the hearth or to boil water to drive steam trains and boats. This, is hunter-gathering in man's effort to capture and use energy forever for as long as he has existed. We are still nothing but hunter-gatherers to this very day. Nothing has changed nor will it ever in the foreseeable future.

Tesla had no idea about nuclear energy. Yet all of nuclear energy is just hunter-gathering! All nuclear energy derives from stored binding energy... Give it a thought as a scientist.... Uranium and all matter beyond hydrogen is created only in long ago, exploded, giant super novae. In these giant explosions, energy is created solely by the potential energy source of gravity. Gravity has acted upon the collapsing star to force an energetic explosion of such a magnitude that the helium thru carbon which fused during the life time of the exploded star can only now fuse even these "unfusable" stellar products to produce yet more massive higher elements.

The "stellar vomit" resulting from these huge explosions drifts through space and ultimately form a nebula and a new star is born: our sun. Much of the solid elemental rubble is kept away from the new star by the violent solar radiation pressure. Doomed to orbit the star at various distances and to, ultimately, accrete into planets with all the heavy elements.

Man, in the late 1890's, discovers radioactivity from only the heaviest two metallic elements. They seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics so closely guarded by science. Slowly we learn that molecular energy is not the only store of universal energy! The nuclei of these heavy elements are unstable and as the nucleus decays, a far more vast outpouring of energy called nuclear energy is released. This nuclear energy makes the chemical molecular energy appear as but a baby's breath in comparison, mass for mass with wood or coal. The process is called fission. (we split atoms with pre-cocked energy guns)... We quickly, and almost overnight, learn to use nuclear energy to first kill and then to grow our society by leaps and bounds. What pulls the nuclear trigger in nuclear energy? First hunt for it, then, gather it, refine it, separate out one isotope of uranium. Then, merely bring two pieces of it close together and unbelievable amounts of energy will pour out, releasing stored nuclear binding energy from that original nova billions of years ago.

Oddly, and by accident, we determine that the very lightest of stable elements can also produce energy just as the sun does via fusion! (forcing the lighter elements together violently and against their electrostatic and nuclear will as dictated by physics). But there is a snag. We can only fuse and obtain such energy from these lightest elements if we first raise the temperature to hundreds of millions of degrees. We must also contain the resultant energy. The only thing that can do this is the energy released in the fission of uranium. We do powerful fusion first in a device designed to only kill, (H-bomb). We surround the light elements with an atomic bomb, (fission) to make it happen. The energy from the H-bomb far exceeds that from the fission bomb used to trigger the fusion reaction.

But now, why not use it to produce useful, controlled fusion energy? To control fusion we must heat the light atoms to temperatures as in the H bomb, but we can't use fission. Some plasmas are in the right temperature range. We try that and we do indeed get well controlled fusion. However, we do not get enough fusion energy to even begin to approach the energy that we put in to achieve the fusion reaction! With more energy, we create more fusion, but a problem rears its ugly head. The laws of physics are ever mindful and prevent such reactions as fusion to occur. As fusion energy grows, the forces needed to contain the violent reaction needed to boil water begin to destroy the reactor vessel. This, and other factors, tend to kill the fusion process. The ruling force is electrostatic repulsion.

Quantum theory is brought to bear here and all fusion is a mere probability that the ions of the lighter elements will or will not fuse even at fusion temperatures! In an H-bomb, the probabilities allow for a high order of positive probability due to a gross and instantaneous temperature rise due to the fission explosion far beyond and many times the fusion temperature required.

To this day, we have no way to control fusion in a reactor at or even near fusion "ignition" temperatures. Only gravity, a potential energy, is seen to be the controller and creator of fusion throughout the universe in far flung remote units called stars separated by light years.

29-09-2021 22:06
keepit
★★★★★
(2256)
There's a simple thing about fusion. The hydrogen atom has an incredible amount of vibrational energy - the atom itself, the proton itself, and the quarks themselves.
When the hydrogen atom is by itself this total energy is very high but when the atom fuses with another hydrogen atom, the hydrogen atoms aren't free to vibrate as much and the vibrational energy is reduced. That energy has to go somewhere and it is released to do what ever it does.
29-09-2021 22:23
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Xadoman wrote:
Harvey, if you want to read about fusion then go to this forum:

https://fusor.net/board/

By R.Hull:

[quote]The endless quest for safe, easy accessible energy.

There is no perpetual motion. We all know that. However there has been posited that there is a universal energy source. Tesla was one of the first to propose it. Quantum theory relies on energy as a supposed zero point energy field. Today, many purport to view the zero point energy as a possible source of universal energy. Tesla did not know of this but he did say.......

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for Coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels."





It's possible that he was trying to tap into the Earth's electromagnetic field. It's energy is everywhere but how to harness it? When electrons are converted into a magnetic field, a motor is powered. So how can electromagnetic energy be harnessed without a generator converting it into electrons or is there a more efficient way?
Edited on 29-09-2021 22:26
30-09-2021 03:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
keepit wrote:
There's a simple thing about fusion. The hydrogen atom has an incredible amount of vibrational energy - the atom itself, the proton itself, and the quarks themselves.
When the hydrogen atom is by itself this total energy is very high but when the atom fuses with another hydrogen atom, the hydrogen atoms aren't free to vibrate as much and the vibrational energy is reduced. That energy has to go somewhere and it is released to do what ever it does.

Nothing about helium reduces thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-09-2021 03:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Harvey, if you want to read about fusion then go to this forum:

https://fusor.net/board/

By R.Hull:

[quote]The endless quest for safe, easy accessible energy.

There is no perpetual motion. We all know that. However there has been posited that there is a universal energy source. Tesla was one of the first to propose it. Quantum theory relies on energy as a supposed zero point energy field. Today, many purport to view the zero point energy as a possible source of universal energy. Tesla did not know of this but he did say.......

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for Coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels."





It's possible that he was trying to tap into the Earth's electromagnetic field. It's energy is everywhere but how to harness it? When electrons are converted into a magnetic field, a motor is powered. So how can electromagnetic energy be harnessed without a generator converting it into electrons or is there a more efficient way?

Earth doesn't have an electromagnetic field. It has a magnetic field. Light is not a field.
Light is not converted into electrons. You can't make an electron out of photon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-09-2021 04:04
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
I don't believe Tesla was looking for 'free' energy. He was working on an efficient, nearly lossless way to distribute electricity. He wanted to make electricity freely available anywhere on the planet, without physical wires to the generating plants. The electricity people used, still needed to be generated in the traditional manner. The idea was to use the planet as a storage device, like a capacitor, which anybody could tap into, with a simple device. Which, of course, sort of pissed off investors, as there would be no means of metering and charging the consumers for the electricity they used. Our current system, fuel is burned, electricity generated, but any surplus isn't stored anywhere. Use it or lose it. It's sort of why solar panels on residential roofs, aren't saving people much money, or actually helping out. Power companies still have to pay for that production, even when nobody is using it. They still need to produce electricity a generating plants as well. Solar panels produce only during the day, a surplus during low demand hours, which doesn't get stored anywhere. The electric companies are forced to pay for a product, nobody is buying, every day. The grid system struggles to balance the load, with unpredictable production.
30-09-2021 06:19
keepit
★★★★★
(2256)
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.
30-09-2021 18:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
keepit wrote:itn,Just google "nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.

keepit, why should Into the Night pretend that Google is the inerrant source of TRUTH as you do? Why should any rational adult consider any of your mindless drivel "informative" in any way?
.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2021 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe Tesla was looking for 'free' energy. He was working on an efficient, nearly lossless way to distribute electricity. He wanted to make electricity freely available anywhere on the planet, without physical wires to the generating plants. The electricity people used, still needed to be generated in the traditional manner. The idea was to use the planet as a storage device, like a capacitor, which anybody could tap into, with a simple device. Which, of course, sort of pissed off investors, as there would be no means of metering and charging the consumers for the electricity they used. Our current system, fuel is burned, electricity generated, but any surplus isn't stored anywhere. Use it or lose it. It's sort of why solar panels on residential roofs, aren't saving people much money, or actually helping out. Power companies still have to pay for that production, even when nobody is using it. They still need to produce electricity a generating plants as well. Solar panels produce only during the day, a surplus during low demand hours, which doesn't get stored anywhere. The electric companies are forced to pay for a product, nobody is buying, every day. The grid system struggles to balance the load, with unpredictable production.


Unfortunately, that project turned out to have more losses than Tesla expected. Tesla's other invention, the dynamo, turned out to be the better invention, as you just described here at your typical power plant.

Electrical grids have to deal with different companies producing power, a bunch of different customers applying varying loads, and organizing everything so that every generator is pushing and pulling in sync with everyone else.

When it comes to electrical distribution systems, there is safety in numbers. It is the large number of customers and the variety of suppliers that make the grid as stable as it is. Individual loads come and go, but the average load stays within reason. It is the same with each supplier. If one is forced off line, the others can compensate fairly quickly.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-09-2021 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.


Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-09-2021 21:44
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.


Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.



At some point if people want to discuss technological innovation they should become aware of some of the basics as far as science goes. And without reference material, then it might just be someone's opinion being discussed that has nothing to do with actual science. And then we could consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_k5CSYKhg
30-09-2021 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.


Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.



At some point if people want to discuss technological innovation they should become aware of some of the basics as far as science goes. And without reference material, then it might just be someone's opinion being discussed that has nothing to do with actual science. And then we could consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_k5CSYKhg


The ONLY authoritative reference for any theory of science is the theory itself and it's associated law.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Google is not God.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 30-09-2021 23:25
30-09-2021 23:50
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.


Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.



At some point if people want to discuss technological innovation they should become aware of some of the basics as far as science goes. And without reference material, then it might just be someone's opinion being discussed that has nothing to do with actual science. And then we could consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_k5CSYKhg


The ONLY authoritative reference for any theory of science is the theory itself and it's associated law.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Google is not God.



And the belief that logic is perfect makes it a falsifiable God. Your point is.....?

p.s., What "is" it?
Edited on 30-09-2021 23:51
01-10-2021 18:01
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(615)
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.
Edited on 01-10-2021 18:02
01-10-2021 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Xadoman wrote:
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.


Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 01-10-2021 22:37
02-10-2021 04:27
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.


Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.



With your logic itn, there "is" and "isn't". That is an extremely limiting philosophy. It'n like you need to be in control and that is your mechanism of choice. Either that or you like creating chaos.
02-10-2021 16:57
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.


Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.



Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.



"Perfectly" is a condition which only you can define, right? This would explain why logic is not fallible then, right? That's because it'n an extension of yourself?
Edited on 02-10-2021 17:05
02-10-2021 18:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.


Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.



With your logic itn, there "is" and "isn't". That is an extremely limiting philosophy. It'n like you need to be in control and that is your mechanism of choice. Either that or you like creating chaos.

I didn't create logic, dude.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-10-2021 18:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.


Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.



Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.



"Perfectly" is a condition which only you can define, right? This would explain why logic is not fallible then, right? That's because it'n an extension of yourself?


Apparently I have to say it again: Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-10-2021 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
Xadoman wrote:I think that logic is not perfect.

What does this mean? How is logic imperfect? Is it the wrong shade of blue? Please be clear.

Mathematics, being built on logic, would be "imperfect" in the exact same way so I'm eager to learn what that is.

Xadoman wrote:Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Incorrect. Logic is not to blame if people choose to not use it and instead decide to form their own erroneous conclusions.

Some modern day examples of Zeno's paradoxes are Greenhouse Effect, ocean acidification and global glacier disappearance.

How does logic not work, exactly?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2021 20:39
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
And the belief that logic is perfect


I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.


Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.



Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.



"Perfectly" is a condition which only you can define, right? This would explain why logic is not fallible then, right? That's because it'n an extension of yourself?


Apparently I have to say it again: Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.



Please don't confuse mathematics with logic. It is a system that can change or adapt as we continue to learn more about science. We can apply it in new ways. This is what you define as falsifiable.
With logic, I guess it is like you. It is closed to a new understanding or considering something in a different "light". Yet it is "your" perspective which defines what "perfect" is.
02-10-2021 23:09
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote:I think that logic is not perfect.

What does this mean? How is logic imperfect? Is it the wrong shade of blue? Please be clear.

Mathematics, being built on logic, would be "imperfect" in the exact same way so I'm eager to learn what that is.

Xadoman wrote:Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Incorrect. Logic is not to blame if people choose to not use it and instead decide to form their own erroneous conclusions.

Some modern day examples of Zeno's paradoxes are Greenhouse Effect, ocean acidification and global glacier disappearance.

How does logic not work, exactly?

.


There is logic, and there is democrat-logic... Plenty of examples that don't make any logical sense, except to democrats.

Rising sea levels
Free, to long a list to even get started
Ozone-hole
Abortion. Okay to kill inconvient babies, but oddly not okay to euthanize terminally ill, convicted murders, elderly.
Drought in a desert
Joe Biden
Covid crisis
Vaccine mandates
Nobel Prize
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Nuclear fussion should be available in the next ten years...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Divine Program Make Human God Again Help You Live To Thousands Years Is Open Free For All008-10-2021 10:06
Why is it so cold? In ten more years Americans will be begging for global warming3219-02-2021 21:32
next 4 years5319-01-2021 23:20
The Godlike Lifestyle Formula Will Help You Get Smarter, Richer, More Beauty, Live To 200 Years1014-08-2020 18:35
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact