[profound (OP)]

It's the wrong shape.For it to work it MUST be a sphere.

Oh dear! the Sun just went out because it's not a sphere.

Oh! false alarm; it's just that Profound is talking bollocks.

There are no torus shaped SUNS anywhere in the universe.Everyone is a sphere.SPHERE.
Ask an astronomer.

NO ITER shaped suns.That should give you a clue why ITER is a dead end.

[profound (OP)]

how are photons going to travel from the plasma through the opaque containment vessel?

They don't need to.
They will reach it, be absorbed and warm it up.
Then you can harvest that heat, boil water make steam and turn a turbine to make electricity.

Perhaps you should
"just admit you are making excuses for a" dead end successful engineering design which should be cancelled and replaced with a spherical containment fusion design. upgraded."

heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.
in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?

[Bored chemist]

Thais what I said.ITER will never produce net energy.

It was never meant to.
Your complaint is like saying it will never grow tomatoes.

[CPT ArkAngel]

I don't think it is possible to build a power fusion reactor producing more energy than what is at the input, for theoretical reasons, at least it is very unlikely. Fusion in the sun is produced from a constant high mass density and forces in all directions.

The H bomb is a fusion and fission bomb. The fusion is started and maintained by fission. The fission efficiency is augmented by the fusion energy. It is a mutual process. But in the end, the amount of energy produced is always lower than the full fission potential. A bomb with extra power over the full fission potential would tend to show that sustained fusion is possible on Earth. Fortunately and unfortunately, it has never been demonstrated.

There are still possibilities in directional fusion if the theory is developped way further, including microfusion. But sustained fusion power source might simply be impossible apart from solar energy.

Nuclear energy is fueled by gravity. In my theory, the strong force is gravity.

Seriously, profound has no valid arguments. Even though his conclusion could be right.

[Bored chemist]

heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.

Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?

Why would I need to?

Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory, the strong force is gravity.

In reality they are different. (Notably, they have different radial distributions and effective ranges)
If theory and reality don't agree, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

[CPT ArkAngel]

My theory works... The strong force is gravity and it is confined in particles because gravity is not produced from a point but from a circle. If you have two concentric circles with a distance of a planck length separating them, using wavelength as circumferences for mass energy and half charges separated by the diameter, you find that the ratio of the electromagnetic energy divided by the gravitational energy is the fine structure constant.

[Bored chemist]

My theory works... The strong force is gravity and it is confined in particles because gravity is not produced from a point but from a circle. If you have two concentric circles with a distance of a planck length separating them, using wavelength as circumferences for mass energy and half charges separated by the diameter, you find that the ratio of the electromagnetic energy divided by the gravitational energy is the fine structure constant.

Not even a theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
never mind whether it works or not
(It probably doesn't)

[CPT ArkAngel]

It is just a small part of my theory. My theory is simple and it integrates gravity and QM.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0

I should rewrite it because the theory evolved from the beginning and there are changes all along. Keep the latest conclusions. It worths a read I promise. Over 120 000 views is a good indication I think. I have a few very important findings to add.

[profound (OP)]

heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.

Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?

Why would I need to?

Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.

You can't have cooling pipes as any fluid flow would disturb the very delicate magnetic fields.

See?

i have an answer for everything.

More bad news for you. Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber.

See? I win again.

[Bored chemist]

heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.

Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?

Why would I need to?

Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.

You can't have cooling pipes as any fluid flow would disturb the very delicate magnetic fields.

See?

i have an answer for everything.

More bad news for you. Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber.

See? I win again.

"i have an answer for everything."
Yes, but it's the wrong answer, isn't it.
Because I can make a solution of something like ferric sulphate in water that has a relative magnetic permeability of exactly 1. That won't affect the magnetic fields.
As has been pointed out, all plasma systems are intrinsically unstable, so there will need a control system.
So any tiny influences from the cooling system will be dealt with by that controller.

"Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber."
That's not bad news for me.
Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons.
How are they going to add and remove power in an exactly spherically symmetric manner?
Because if they don't, you just shot down your own argument.

And, it may have escaped your notice, but others aren't.

"See? I win again."
It's not a contest, and you haven't won any argument.
You have pretended that ITER was meant to produce anything but data- it wasn't.
You have pretended that a reactor has to be spherical- they aren't- not even the sun.
You have pretended that extracting power from a very very hot thing is difficult- when clearly the real problem s stopping it losing energy.

[evan_au]

you find that the ratio of the electromagnetic energy divided by the gravitational energy is the fine structure constant.

The fine structure constant was originally identified as the velocity of an electron in Bohr's atomic model* (exressed as a percentage of c), and has a value of around 1/137. It is usually described in relation to the electrostatic field only, with no reference to gravitation.

Gravitational forces are considerably weaker than electromagnetic forces (by a factor of around 10³⁹).
So I think there is a flaw in your theory.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Physical_interpretations

The following website suggests that if there were a particle with the same charge as an electron, but exhibiting only the Planck mass, then the ratio of gravitational and electromagnetic forces would be around 1/137. However, the lightest known charged particle is the electron, with a mass around 1/2000 of a proton. The Planck Mass is around 10^-19 of the proton mass (sorry - this should read 10⁺¹⁹ proton masses - thanks, BoredChemist).

The potential energy involved in creating an electric charge makes such a low mass charged particle unlikely.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-ratio-of-strength-between-electro-magnetic-and-gravitational-force.537569/

* We now know that Bohr's model of the atom had some fatal shortcomings, but it is still useful as a simplified explanation...

[CPT ArkAngel]

The fine structure constant is the ratio of the electromagnetic force or energy divided by the strong force. The fact that there is a simple solution replacing the strong force by gravity is not a coincidence. There is no strong force in the Bohr atom and an atom is not an elementary particle. QM does not give any more answers, it just gives a mathematical description involving probabilities with no explanation of how a spin is produced, entanglement, trajectory and other states...

I can tell you one thing, i am not an idiot... I am working on it since 2010 and it works, almost too well. If I could bet in the long term, like 30 years or so, I would gladly bet everything on it. But I am too old. The thing is you must read my theory and think about it for quite a long time to truly understand how many answers to unanswered questions there are in it. I can explain almost every unknown in Physics (Entanglement, neutrinos mass, Quantum tunneling, proton size, dark matter, dark energy and many more).

[Bored chemist]

The Planck Mass is around 10-19 of the proton mass.

Actually the Planck mass is "huge".
"In physics, the Planck mass, denoted by mP, is the unit of mass in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is approximately 0.02 milligrams (roughly the mass of a flea egg[1])."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

I have weighed out stuff in smaller quantities in the lab (it's fiddly).

[profound (OP)]

heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.

Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?

Why would I need to?

Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.

You can't have cooling pipes as any fluid flow would disturb the very delicate magnetic fields.

See?

i have an answer for everything.

More bad news for you. Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber.

See? I win again.

As has been pointed out, all plasma systems are intrinsically unstable, so there will need a control system.
So any tiny influences from the cooling system will be dealt with by that controller.

"Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber."
That's not bad news for me.
Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons.
How are they going to add and remove power in an exactly spherically symmetric manner?
Because if they don't, you just shot down your own argument.

Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.

The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.

http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html

Don't feel too sad.

[Bored chemist]

Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.

The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.

http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html

Don't feel too sad.

"spherical tokamak" is a contradiction in terms. The word is a contraction of "toroidalʹnaya kamera s magnitnym polem" meaiing ‘toroidal chamber with magnetic field’.

Now, even if you overlook the fact that the word says it's torroidal, there's still the issue of the magnetic field.
The only way to get that spherical is to have a magnetic monople at the centre.

Did you understand the bit where I wrote this
"Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons."

[profound (OP)]

Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.

The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.

http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html

Don't feel too sad.

Now, even if you overlook the fact that the word says it's torroidal, there's still the issue of the magnetic field.
The only way to get that spherical is to have a magnetic monople at the centre.

Did you understand the bit where I wrote this
"Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons."

Wrong again.START proved Peng and Strickler's predictions; the ST had performance an order of magnitude better than conventional designs, and cost much less to build as well. In terms of overall economics, the ST was an enormous step forward.

Moreover, the ST was a new approach, and a low-cost one. It was one of the few areas of mainline fusion research where real contributions could be made on small budgets. This sparked off a series of ST developments around the world. In particular, the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) and Pegasus experiments in the US, Globus-M in Russia, and the UK's follow-on to START, MAST. START itself found new life as part of the Proto-Sphera project in Italy, where experimenters are attempting to eliminate the central column by passing the current through a secondary plasma.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak

http://www.frascati.enea.it/ProtoSphera/Multi-Pinch_Status/index_Multi-Pinch_Status.htm

[Bored chemist]

Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.

The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.

http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html

Don't feel too sad.

Now, even if you overlook the fact that the word says it's torroidal, there's still the issue of the magnetic field.
The only way to get that spherical is to have a magnetic monople at the centre.

Did you understand the bit where I wrote this
"Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons."

Wrong again.START proved Peng and Strickler's predictions; the ST had performance an order of magnitude better than conventional designs, and cost much less to build as well. In terms of overall economics, the ST was an enormous step forward.

Moreover, the ST was a new approach, and a low-cost one. It was one of the few areas of mainline fusion research where real contributions could be made on small budgets. This sparked off a series of ST developments around the world. In particular, the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) and Pegasus experiments in the US, Globus-M in Russia, and the UK's follow-on to START, MAST. START itself found new life as part of the Proto-Sphera project in Italy, where experimenters are attempting to eliminate the central column by passing the current through a secondary plasma.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak

http://www.frascati.enea.it/ProtoSphera/Multi-Pinch_Status/index_Multi-Pinch_Status.htm

Twixt optimist and pessimist,
the difference is droll
the optimist sees the doughnut,
the pessimist sees the hole.


If you look carefully there are hints that the tokomak they label as "spherical" still has a hole in the middle of the plasma. Things like "The spherical tokamak is sometimes referred to as a spherical torus"

It's a torus.
When you have finished trying to argue, it will still be a torus.

Also, if I'm "wrong again" perhaps you can explain how you propose to have a spherically symmetrical magnetic field.

[milan_kecman]

hydrogen + gravitational compression work (E) = xelijum !
There is no H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe + E
But goes H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe-E
It's such a simple theory!   I.T. E.R. Is   the wrong shape,and big mistake.

[Bored chemist]

hydrogen + gravitational compression work (E) = xelijum !
There is no H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe + E
But goes H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe-E
It's such a simple theory!   I.T. E.R. Is   the wrong shape,and big mistake.

Do you realise that none of that made sense?