Remember me
▼ Content

Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r



Page 1 of 212>
Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r17-10-2022 05:37
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
17-10-2022 05:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.
17-10-2022 08:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.




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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-10-2022 12:31
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.


Says the idiot who denies all science, the last ice age and the holocaust. Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time. But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life. Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 17-10-2022 12:38
17-10-2022 19:56
James_
★★★★☆
(1150)
Isn't it just "flipping" qubits (reversing their polarity) using microwaves at temperatures close to 12º kelvin? That's about like a laser being pointed at a cd having a change in its wavelength being read as 1's and 0's and then processed into something meaningful, right?
Where as with analog its how something vibrates that influences how a magnet moves in a sound coil.
17-10-2022 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.


Says the idiot who denies all science,

He has denied no theory of science. YOU on the other hand, have.
Swan wrote:
the last ice age

Not a theory of science. Not science at all. A religion.
Swan wrote:
and the holocaust.

Not a theory of science.
Swan wrote:
Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time.

Mantra 1d.
Swan wrote:
But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life.

Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5.
Swan wrote:
Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.

Kettle fallacy. Insult fallacies.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-10-2022 00:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.


Says the idiot who denies all science,

He has denied no theory of science. YOU on the other hand, have.
Swan wrote:
the last ice age

Not a theory of science. Not science at all. A religion.
Swan wrote:
and the holocaust.

Not a theory of science.
Swan wrote:
Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time.

Mantra 1d.
Swan wrote:
But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life.

Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5.
Swan wrote:
Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.

Kettle fallacy. Insult fallacies.


In other words, you do not understand.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-10-2022 02:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.


Says the idiot who denies all science,

He has denied no theory of science. YOU on the other hand, have.
Swan wrote:
the last ice age

Not a theory of science. Not science at all. A religion.
Swan wrote:
and the holocaust.

Not a theory of science.
Swan wrote:
Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time.

Mantra 1d.
Swan wrote:
But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life.

Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5.
Swan wrote:
Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.

Kettle fallacy. Insult fallacies.


In other words, you do not understand.

Mantra 35b2.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-10-2022 03:46
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...
18-10-2022 03:59
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...


Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-10-2022 04:14
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...


Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area


We were doing digital computers in the 1940s... But, technically, computers have been around much longer. Analog computers are an entirely different thing, dealing with signals, mostly for sound, video, and communication.
18-10-2022 05:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.
18-10-2022 11:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...

There is no such thing as 'quantum computing'.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-10-2022 11:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...


Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area

There is no such thing as 'quantum computers'.
Comparing such nonsense to slide rules and drift calculators is senseless.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-10-2022 11:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...


Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area


We were doing digital computers in the 1940s... But, technically, computers have been around much longer. Analog computers are an entirely different thing, dealing with signals, mostly for sound, video, and communication.

Slide rules were popular right up to the 70's. Drift calculators even longer.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-10-2022 16:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3220)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.


Says the idiot who denies all science,

... except for the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Stefan Boltzmann Law, Planck's Law, Ohm's Law, and ummm, well, you know, the rest of science...
18-10-2022 17:35
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-10-2022 17:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

... and one can review the science behind it, as I mentioned.

I was addressing Harvey's point about commercial fusion coming to fruition, but naturally you know this.
.
18-10-2022 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.



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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-10-2022 22:02
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.


That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-10-2022 03:08
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.


Nuclear fusion was achieved a long time ago. The problem is controlling it, and using it to generate electricity. The longest they managed to produce fusion in a lab, was about 90 seconds. Never read about any attempts to generate electricity, and keeping the plasma under control from whats generated. Maybe a Bessler Wheel would help them achieve this... The magnetic field used to control the plasma, is a huge energy drain. Fusion is really another free-energy, perpetual motion scam.
19-10-2022 03:11
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.


Nuclear fusion was achieved a long time ago. The problem is controlling it, and using it to generate electricity. The longest they managed to produce fusion in a lab, was about 90 seconds. Never read about any attempts to generate electricity, and keeping the plasma under control from whats generated. Maybe a Bessler Wheel would help them achieve this... The magnetic field used to control the plasma, is a huge energy drain. Fusion is really another free-energy, perpetual motion scam.


Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-10-2022 06:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction

Incorrect.

There is no fuel issue with fusion. The reason fusion is so desperately sought is that fuel for fusion reactors is cheap and plentiful in the earth's crust. It would cost exceedingly little to provide abundant energy to many cities.

There are nonetheless many problems with fusion, and they come in both political and technical flavors, with the biggest problem I see being the containment of the plasma: it cannot be allowed to come in contact with anything. Also, the primary heat exchangers will need to be able to withstand the continued thermal radiation of tens of millions of degrees. Is that possible to accomlish? Will there be enough money to rebuild the reactor after the first meltdown accident? How about after the second? The plasma cannot be allowed to touch anything!
19-10-2022 13:04
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
I have posted this link before but here it is again:

https://fusor.net/board/viewforum.php?f=14&sid=380890e44289a7eabeff5dbea120814e


Those guys have fusors ticking in their basements but the trouble is that all of them consume more energy than they put out.

What I found a little bit of peculiar is that many of those guys there belive that CO2 levels are important

A quote from there:

The increase burning of carbon is going to be a disaster in the near future and current levels are bad enough (412 ppm and climbing)


So in overall those guys are there quite fluent in nuclear physics , build their own fusors in the basement but at the end of the day they still fell for climate change scam.
Edited on 19-10-2022 13:20
19-10-2022 13:35
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
A couple of quotes from the fusor.net to put things into perspective regarding fusion :

You hit the nail on the head; I like to point out that our Sun, with its staggering mass and huge core temp still only produces about 500 watts per cubic meter - and that cubic meter is many millions of degree C and about 10^28 atoms/m^3. A fusor is lucky to have 10^20 atoms and if I calculated correctly, about 10^5 C "equivalent temperature" on average; a lot less than the Sun in all respects. As for energy, well, that has been discussed endlessly here but it is many orders of magnitude under a watt. Still, that cubic meter of solar core doesn't even get to what your oven can do.


Again, thank goodness main sequence stars are so terrible at doing fusion! It allows them to burn for billions of years. It is great, and a Godsend that energy based, controlled fusion seems impossible to do on earth. If it were easy, the universe would have had a very short lifespan.
19-10-2022 13:53
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction

Incorrect.

There is no fuel issue with fusion. The reason fusion is so desperately sought is that fuel for fusion reactors is cheap and plentiful in the earth's crust. It would cost exceedingly little to provide abundant energy to many cities.

There are nonetheless many problems with fusion, and they come in both political and technical flavors, with the biggest problem I see being the containment of the plasma: it cannot be allowed to come in contact with anything. Also, the primary heat exchangers will need to be able to withstand the continued thermal radiation of tens of millions of degrees. Is that possible to accomlish? Will there be enough money to rebuild the reactor after the first meltdown accident? How about after the second? The plasma cannot be allowed to touch anything!


Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer. None of your babbles can change this


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-10-2022 14:19
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer.


Unfortunately true.

A black pilling video about fusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder
19-10-2022 17:27
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Xadoman wrote:
Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer.


Unfortunately true.

A black pilling video about fusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder


Hossenfelder is a stuck-up kraut who personally called me stupid, yet could in no way prove her point or disprove my point about there being no way to know whether other universes would be in higher or lower dimensions since we have only one universe as a reference point. She is also about to freeze her ass off this winter because Merkel made Germany fully dependent on Russian oil and gas. So, find some blankets Sabine, you dumb asses should have listened to Trump


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-10-2022 00:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.


That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-10-2022 01:44
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.


That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.


Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-10-2022 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.


Nuclear fusion was achieved a long time ago. The problem is controlling it, and using it to generate electricity. The longest they managed to produce fusion in a lab, was about 90 seconds. Never read about any attempts to generate electricity, and keeping the plasma under control from whats generated. Maybe a Bessler Wheel would help them achieve this... The magnetic field used to control the plasma, is a huge energy drain. Fusion is really another free-energy, perpetual motion scam.

No. It is not a perpetual motion scam.

It takes 4 hydrogen atoms smashed together to produce ONE helium atom. The reason is that a helium atom also has two neutrons in addition to it's two protons. In the process, two of the protons are converted into neutrons by high speed collisions with electrons.

The combined mass of a four hydrogen atoms is 4.0313u.
The mass of a helium atom is 4.00268u.
(one u is 1.67 * 10^-24 grams)

Thus, fusion results in a LOSS of total mass of 0.02862u.

Therefore, if you use 4 grams of hydrogen, and fuse them into helium, you see a loss of total mass of 2.8 * 10^-3 grams.

Using Einstein's equation, E=mc^2, you get E=(2.8*10^-3) * c^2
where 'c ' is the speed of light in a vacuum (currently estimated at 299 792 458 m / s).

E is therefore approx 2.6 * 10^11 joules. That's enough to keep an incandescent 60w light bulb burning for 100 years (assuming the bulb itself survives that long!).

This is why controlled fusion is worth trying to achieve. The hydrogen can easily be obtained from ordinary water, using only a fraction of the energy available.

There are a few problems:

1st, the reactor vessel itself. Fusion of hydrogen into helium occurs at only very high temperatures...enough to melt any material. So no material can touch the area where fusion is taking place.

2nd, the radiant energy from the reaction. If any material were to absorb this in any significant amount, it would melt. The 'first wall' or inner lining of the reactor vessel is therefore made very reflective. It's emissivity is very low. It's not zero (no material is perfect!), but it is low enough to contain a small fusion reaction and withstand it.

Incidentally, this small imperfection in reflectivity actually helps. It becomes the hot surface that can be used to boil water. This is one way of extracting energy from the reactor.

Unfortunately, light from that reflected wall just doesn't go away. Eventually, it will ALL be absorbed. There is a usable window of time here, however, if you use a pulse instead of continuous fusion.

Fusion is a plasma. That means you can guide this plasma using magnetic fields. It also means that if you can get it to flow in a torus, you can extract energy from the counter-magnetic field created by flowing electrons in the plasma. This technique is being explored by some researchers. Perhaps a combination of some sort would work best.

3rd is the fuel supply system. The fuel is easy enough to obtain, the problem is getting it into the reaction chamber to keep the fusion party going. Such an input port is going to be subject to the same kind of tremendous energy in the reactor, and it won't be as reflective as the inner wall. It's literally a hole in the reactor. This creates a big problem.

Current attempts use a reactor that is already fueled, than sealed. Once the hydrogen is exhausted, fusion must stop. To keep fusion going, you have to have a way to introduce new fuel into the reaction chamber without compromising the reactor vessel material itself.

4th is the exhaust system. Fusion create helium from hydrogen. That helium must be removed at some point or the total mass in the reactor will just simply increase until a catastrophic failure (explosion).

It is quite conceivable that the energy made available by fusion can power the electrolysis process, the magnets, the control systems (including guide magnets), and of course whatever impetus method is used to get fusion to occur.

There a LOT of problems. Right now, the effort is concentrating on figuring out what kind of reactor vessel materials to use, how to efficiently generate the impetus needed to start fusion, and how to use less energy than you get out of it during a single pulse.

These can eventually be dealt with, but it IS a very tricky set of problems to try to solve. Researchers have been stymied by one thing or another trying to solve these problems. There is still a long way to go.

Because of these issues, fusion power will almost certainly be limited to fixed power plants, and will be useless for mobile power plants (such as in a car). A side benefit, though, is that it could become very cheap to generate hydrogen for use in a hydrogen car. Unfortunately, the problems of using hydrogen in cars is well known and there really is no way to get around them. The biggest obstacle is the ideal gas law.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-10-2022 01:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction

Incorrect.

There is no fuel issue with fusion. The reason fusion is so desperately sought is that fuel for fusion reactors is cheap and plentiful in the earth's crust. It would cost exceedingly little to provide abundant energy to many cities.

There are nonetheless many problems with fusion, and they come in both political and technical flavors, with the biggest problem I see being the containment of the plasma: it cannot be allowed to come in contact with anything. Also, the primary heat exchangers will need to be able to withstand the continued thermal radiation of tens of millions of degrees. Is that possible to accomlish? Will there be enough money to rebuild the reactor after the first meltdown accident? How about after the second? The plasma cannot be allowed to touch anything!


Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer. None of your babbles can change this

I have already listed the problems with fusion reactors. It is not that they consume more energy than they put out.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-10-2022 01:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer.


Unfortunately true.

A black pilling video about fusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder


Hossenfelder is a stuck-up kraut who personally called me stupid, yet could in no way prove her point or disprove my point about there being no way to know whether other universes would be in higher or lower dimensions since we have only one universe as a reference point. She is also about to freeze her ass off this winter because Merkel made Germany fully dependent on Russian oil and gas. So, find some blankets Sabine, you dumb asses should have listened to Trump

Don't give Hossenfelder all the credit. I personally call you stupid as well.

There is only one universe. If there wasn't, it isn't the universe. It isn't universal.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-10-2022 01:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.


That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.


Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you

Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-10-2022 05:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect
It is fusion.
Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you
Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.

Here's some block fusion.

20-10-2022 09:57
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
1st, the reactor vessel itself. Fusion of hydrogen into helium occurs at only very high temperatures...enough to melt any material. So no material can touch the area where fusion is taking place.


I am going to quote a phrase from fusor.net:

In solids, quintillions of particles all colliding with each other, make a "feelable" temperature to our skin. In a vacuum, (low pressure), level gas of deuterium in a fusor, all of the gas particles moving about at a relative temperature of 100 million kelvin degrees would feel incredibly cold.


Fusion temperatures are conversions of the energy of the deuterons, neutrons, electrons, and neutral molecules in motion, (kinetic energy), to an equivalent temperature of a particle in motion in a sea of molecules in a solid substance at that temperature. In the fusors or any fusion device, you are in a "near space" vacuum of flying deuterons, electrons, fusion debris - (neutrons Tritons, 3He, protons) and neutrals and not in a solid, so, you can't relate this to a "feelable", "touchable", temperature that our senses are commonly linked to. The normal method of talking among fellow physicists would be to discuss the energies as "electron volts" (ev). The relation of electron volts to kelvins is to multiply the (ev) kinetic energy of the particle by about 11,000. A 1kev particle is said to represent an 11 million kelvins particle. (11 million kelvin degree particle)

The general public would have issues understanding this concept. The fusion physicist absolutely relies on this to befuddle and confound, the public, yet impress enough to obtain continued funding. Don't be a "general public" type! If you are still confused, read up on the physics and Boltzmann's work on thermodynamics.
20-10-2022 13:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.


Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.


That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.


Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you

Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.


Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost.

LOL


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-10-2022 16:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?



Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."
20-10-2022 18:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?



Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."


Matter can never be destroyed; it can only fluctuate into energy and vice versa. LOL you said so yourself but are too dumb to understand


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-10-2022 18:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?



Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."


Matter can never be destroyed; it can only fluctuate into energy and vice versa.

Too funny. Matter can certainly be destroyed by converting it to thermal energy.

How do you imagine energy can somehow "fluctuate" into becoming matter?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 20195020-11-2022 23:20
Artemis 1 on the way to the moon, idiots will disagree016-11-2022 18:58
Quantum internet alliance to build unhackable quantum internet7930-10-2022 02:08
What Is Quantum Entanglement? A Physicist Explains QE for really dumb people2428-10-2022 19:48
Mastercard Develops Quantum-Safe Payment Cards4527-10-2022 22:56
▲ 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