How to make a sustained fusion reaction

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Explain how the "alternative" theory differs from the mainstream theory in its predictions/explanations of phenomena.
2. Outline why the alternative theory is superior to the mainstream one.
3. Explain any flaws in the standard science one that are addressed by the alternative theory.
4. Outline any experimental evidence or tests that do/might enable us to distinguish between the alternative theory and the mainstream one, in orderto determine which is superior.
Click to expand...
- James R

1. mainstream would have you believe that there is no way we can’t make a sustained fusion reaction.

2. I have spent years refining my theory using every resource available.

3. standard science does not recognize my idea as valid, yet offers no absolute proof physically, mathematically, or logically otherwise.

4. there have been no experimental tests to either prove or disprove the validity of my statements. We have only tested individual elements and studied compounds. We have not decided what minerals would do when in contact.

the sum of the whole is always greater than its parts.
 
Last edited:
Before going in to the whys and wherefores, it behooves the OP to actually describe the proposed theory. So far, this thread has not described what it is.

Taking (some unknown amount of) all elements and putting them in a box will give you a box with a small amount of heat and some pressure, formed by chemical reactions producing some byproducts.
There's a ... not insignificant gap between that and "fusion" - let alone sustainable fusion.

So, question zero: what is the theory?
 
Beaconator said:
1. mainstream would have you believe that there is no way we can’t make a sustained fusion reaction.
Click to expand...
It's a technological problem - we usually manage to solve those.
Your idea, however, wouldn't work. Apart from anything else the iron container would melt and then the "reaction"[1] would halt.
2. I have spent years refining my theory using every resource available.
Click to expand...
Apart from science, rationality, logic, etc.
3. standard science does not recognize my idea as valid, yet offers no absolute proof physically, mathematically, or logically otherwise.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to: that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
4. there have been no experimental tests to either prove or disprove the validity of my statements. We have only tested individual elements and studied compounds. We have not decided what minerals would do when in contact.
Click to expand...
In other words you admit that you're just guessing.
the sum of the whole is always greater than its parts.
Click to expand...
Wrong:
the whole is other than the sum of its parts
The whole is less than the sum of its parts
The whole is sometimes less than the sum of its parts

1 Not that there would be one anyway.
 
Beaconator said:
I find it hard to believe there is no iron in our sun….

I’m not aiming to make fission and fusion at the same time thus there is no need for extreme conditions. But you probably could by putting every element in an iron box, and that would be dangerous I’m sure you would agree.
Click to expand...
Any iron in our Sun was already in the Gas and dust cloud that our Solar system formed from. But our Sun cannot generate anymore. By atom count, the Sun is 99.9% hydrogen and helium, with any other elements squeezed into that remaining 0.1%. Iron is way down the list at 0.003% of the atoms.

Of the two, fission is the easiest to cause. In certain isotopes it occurs naturally all the time, and all you need to do in order to maintain a chain reaction is bring enough of it into close proximity. Fusion requires special conditions as you need to force the nuclei close enough together for it to occur, and these nuclei repel each other due to their electric charges.

The only way putting all elements inside an Iron box would be dangerous would be heat generated by chemical reactions (if you keep to elements lighter than Iron. If you add all the heavier elements, some of them are radioactive and dangerous to handle).

There is nothing special about Iron when it comes to the fusion process other than marking out the point between where fusion produces net energy or consumes it.
 
Beaconator said:
2. I have spent years refining my theory using every resource available.

4. there have been no experimental tests to either prove or disprove the validity of my statements.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself. No testing, no theory.
 
sideshowbob said:
You contradict yourself. No testing, no theory.
Click to expand...
There have been other tests that lead me to believe my statements are true like the natural fusion and fission processes being centered around iron but my theory can only be proven or disproven by experiment.
 
Dywyddyr said:
It's a technological problem - we usually manage to solve those.
Your idea, however, wouldn't work. Apart from anything else the iron container would melt and then the "reaction"[1] would halt.

Apart from science, rationality, logic, etc.

It doesn't need to: that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

In other words you admit that you're just guessing.

Wrong:
the whole is other than the sum of its parts
The whole is less than the sum of its parts
The whole is sometimes less than the sum of its parts

1 Not that there would be one anyway.
Click to expand...
So to sum up what your saying usually science dismissed without evidence doesn’t work.

alright full disclosure I believe your right, but I have been withholding one element that would allow the reaction to continue unimpeded. A chromium alloy. Can you name it?

Should solve your technical difficulties.
 
Last edited:
Moderator note: Beaconator has been warned (again) not to post incoherent nonsense to sciforums.
 
James R said:
Moderator note: Beaconator has been warned (again) not to post incoherent nonsense to sciforums.
Click to expand...
What part of elements 0 to iron wrapped in stainless steel is incoherent.

Dydwyddyr posts more nonsense than anyone.

the elements would initially react but not violently because the whole experiment is in a vacuum and surrounded by noble gasses. The noble gasses would curb the reaction and produce light until the stainless steel canister was sealed by a particle beam welder. At which point I will have made an object that can be subjected to further testing.
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
What part of elements 0 to iron wrapped in stainless steel is incoherent.

Dydwyddyr posts more nonsense than anyone.

the elements would initially react but not violently because the whole experiment is in a vacuum and surrounded by noble gasses. The noble gasses would curb the reaction and produce light until the stainless steel canister was sealed by a particle beam welder. At which point I will have made an object that can be subjected to further testing.
Click to expand...
Your post is incoherent. How can the experiment be "in a vacuum", when many of the elements involved are gases (H, He, N2 O2, F2, Ne, Ar......) ?
 
exchemist said:
Your post is incoherent. How can the experiment be "in a vacuum", when many of the elements involved are gases (H, He, N2 O2, F2, Ne, Ar......) ?
Click to expand...
You put it in a box and suck all the air out… I guess you have to put more gas in it so that enough gas stays within the experiment and surrounds the reaction, but we all know there is no such thing as a true vacuum.

more incomprehensible than incoherent.
 
DaveC426913 said:
So ask a meaningful question.

Your OP doesn't even contain a question.

So it's simply a set of statements that, together, are non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Is the best way to make a sustained fusion reaction to place all the elements on the periodic table in the same vicinity?
 
DaveC426913 said:
As in post 2, still no.
Click to expand...
Then subject it to extreme conditions?

the answer is no and you have not read all posts I’m still waiting on a response from Janus and how stainless steel (a chromium iron alloy) might allow the reaction inside to produce net energy on the outside.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top