Speaking of wasting money …

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:09 am

Thanks Brigit ... you brightened my day. :D

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:10 am

But, obviously, the elites really believe their own memes …

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rence.html
COP26 'had carbon footprint TWICE as big as last conference'

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:14 am

Here they are, making the same empty promises they made 50-60 years ago.

That soon, controlled fusion will be the panacea of all our problems …

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ ... hin-reach/
Breakthrough in fusion energy: Is abundant low carbon energy within reach?
The body of the article starts off with a LIE.
Recent news reports suggest that fusion energy is close to a technological breakthrough. The National Ignition Facility in the US is reportedly on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research which is to generate more energy than what is consumed.
LIE. They are not "on the verge" of doing that. As an announcement in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02338-4 ) stated regarding the experiment the NIF recently conducted said "News of the breakthrough has revived hopes that the long-troubled National Ignition Facility (NIF) might yet attain its goal of producing more energy than it consumes in a sustained fusion reaction." It then went on to say "The ultimate test — whether the team can replicate its 8 August success — could come as early as October, say laboratory officials. ... snip ... Because the facility is operating at the scientific edge of what is possible, even slight variations in the manufacture of the target capsule or the tuning of the lasers could cause the system to produce more, or less, energy than the earlier experiment,' says Herrmann. 'We can’t do the exact same target experiment, because we blew the target up,' he says. 'But with time,' he adds, 'the science team should be able to repeat and build on this success — and push the facility even further." Time in this case could still be a matter of decades ... perhaps 30 or more years even ... same as was claimed when the whole controlled fusion program first began the middle of the last century.

And as the nature article says, "Preliminary results from the experiment on 8 August indicate that fusion reactions generated a record-shattering 70% of the power that went into the experiment — nearly achieving ignition." But that statement is nowhere near a statement that leaves them on the "verge" of a fusion economy. A SINGLE experiment that produced 70% of the power (for a tiny, tiny instant in time) of the energy used in the experiment is still a long, long way from enjoying abundant low cost electricity from fusion. First, that 70% figure appears to be only the energy used to drive the laser in the experiments. That overlooks the energy lost in producing that electricity (which is substantial), the losses incurred in storing that electricity in huge capacitors before the laser shot and perhaps other pre-shot loses. Moreover, the energy produced by a successful fusion shot has to be converted back into electricity to be useful and there are huge losses associated with doing that. In short, we are no where near break even at this point in time.

The truth is that the mainstream sold these many fusion programs (like ITER) using a LIE about power/energy produced that ignored all these losses, and they continue to LIE about that to his day in order to keep the taxpayer willing to fund these programs. They do it so they can all live in nice houses, have nice cars, go on nice vacations, send their kids to nice colleges, and build nice nest eggs for the day they retire. And the government oversight of these programs goes along with the lie either because they don't understand the deception (and some of our leaders are that stupid) or, I think in some instances, because they hope the government can become a power monopoly, which will make it easier to control the populace.

Now, a few more quotes from the first article ...
Though most of the private initiatives are not close to commercial operations, some of them believe that they will break key technological barriers in fusion reactions in the next five to ten years.
Like I said, they are making the same deceptive (and perhaps empty) promises they were making decades and decades ago.

Next, after a lengthy discussion about the different methods the mainstream is pursuing, while also dismissing one of the alternatives (LENR), they repeat the LIE …
The aim of the controlled fusion research is to achieve ‘ignition’, which occurs when enough fusion reactions take place for the process to become self-sustaining, with fresh fuel then being added to continue it. Once ignition is achieved, there is net energy yield.
LIE. LIE. LIE. Ignition does NOT equate to a net energy yield. There are energy loses on both sides of the equation … to set up the conditions for fusion in the first place, which consumes energy … and then to convert the energy released by the fusion back into a usable form of energy.

And they continue LYING …
To date, none of the projects have produced a fusion reaction that creates significantly more energy than it consumes.
LIE. NONE of the projects has produced more energy, accounting for all losses, than has been CONSUMED to produce that fusion event, much less enough energy converted back into electricity to repeat the event again. THAT should be the measure of "break even".

And the biggest LIE in the article is the one implicit in the title … that carbon energy is a bad thing … that carbon (CO2) is responsible for the majority of global warming or climate change. It's demonstrably not. The truth is that the left leaning AGWalarmist community and group selling the mainstream fusion programs are BOTH being deceptive for reasons that have nothing to do with the particular bridge that they’re selling.

User avatar
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:43 pm

Thanks BeAChooser.

From the link,
In nuclear fusion, two light atomic nuclei (hydrogen or the hydrogen isotopes deuterium [D] and tritium [T]) unite to form a heavier nucleus (helium). As a result, a piece of their mass is transformed into kinetic energy, which could be used to turn the steam turbines that generate electricity."

"For fusion reactions to take place, the repelling Coulomb forces of the nuclear constituents must be overcome, which occur at temperatures of 150 million°C (m°C). At such temperatures, the fuel is in a plasma state (superheated matter with electrons ripped away from the atoms forming an ionised gas, also known as the fourth state of matter) and needs magnetic confinement. In this stage, parameters of temperature, density, and time can be traded off against each other to achieve confinement and their optimal mix is known as the Lawson criterion."

I think that is the first problem. The sustained hydrogen-hydrogen reaction at such outrageously high temps is where the trouble lies. That is why I consider this a miseducation program, not an educational program. It is not born out by experiment -- not for the last 70 years, at any rate. But they keep repeating the same H-H approach unswervingly and berating any other possible reaction, with the result that in the mind of the public, anything else is impossible. It is a campaign through brute repetition that causes people to instantly reject fusion where it is found by experiment or in nature.

The SAFIRE experiment is simply allowing the plasma to self-organize and reveal its preferred configurations. And as the plasma does so at different energies and with different elements, there are reactions that strongly suggest fusion. There may be some boundaries between chemistry and particle physics that are not explored yet in plasma double layers, as Monty Childs puts it.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:49 am

https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/ma ... sion-power
A Massachusetts company leads as the race for fusion energy heats up

December 2, 2021

The start-up company just closed on a $1.8 billion funding round making it the largest in Massachusetts history. Among the backers were billionaire Bill Gates, George Soros and venture capitalist John Doerr.

Commonwealth Fusion predicts it will have the world’s first net-energy fusion device by 2025 and is already building a factory in Devens to make the machine.

… snip …

Mumgaard predicts that, by 2025, SPARC will produce ten times more energy than it consumes
SPARC is being done in collaboration with MIT. Now ... what do you … the common man or woman … think when they say “net energy fusion device”? You think that means they’ll be able to produce more electricity than was used to create their fusion in a bottle. Right? But SPARC’s own FAQ page (https://www.psfc.mit.edu/sparc/faq ) states that this is “a pulsed experiment and would not convert its fusion energy into electricity” and that “The next step would be to build a net-electricity producing fusion power plant”. And how many members of the public (and investors in SPARC) will dig deeper and find that out? I say next to zero. They will walk away thinking we're just years away from having commercial fusion power plants.

Indeed, the MIT FAQmakes it seem like that next step (net electricity) is a relatively trivial step ... when it is not. Maybe MIT thinks it’s trivial because they underestimate the amount of energy lost in producing the power input to their SPARC reactor (not to mention the losses in converting the output power back to electricity. Notice that MIT’s brochure on SPARC, https://www.psfc.mit.edu/files/psfc/imc ... ochure.pdf, states that “the ratio, Q, of fusion power to input power exceeds 1. Achieving Q > 1 has been a yardstick and a key milestone of fusion experiments since that time. The closest we’ve come so far has been from a pair of billion dollar class experiments, the TFTR tokamak, which reached Q = 0.3 in 1994 and in JET, with Q = 0.7 achieved in 1997.

Now stop right there. That Q = 0.7 is based on the claim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus ) that JET injected 24 MW of power into their reactor and output 16 MW of power. But the undisclosed fact is that JET consumed something on the order of 700 MW to get that 24MW of power (here https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/10 ... s-reactor/ ). Which means there was a HUGE hole that the reactor had to dig itself out of to ever break even electrically. And MIT is being no more honest to the public about that than JET and ITER (who also sold their program on JET's results) has been.

And here’s another MIT news article that lied about the situation in September of last year when they were trying to get funding for SPARC …

Validating the physics behind the new MIT-designed fusion experiment

… snip ….

The analysis done so far shows that the planned fusion energy output of the SPARC tokamak should be able to meet the design specifications with a comfortable margin to spare. It is designed to achieve a Q factor — a key parameter denoting the efficiency of a fusion plasma — of at least 2, essentially meaning that twice as much fusion energy is produced as the amount of energy pumped in to generate the reaction. That would be the first time a fusion plasma of any kind has produced more energy than it consumed.
Just to show you just how dishonest they are being, consider that the plans for SPARC (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/MIT-Co ... 85099.pdf ) specify a fusion power output of 50 to 100 MW of heat and a thermal power injected into the center of the reactor to heat the fuel of 30 MW. Like all the previous experiments, MIT has not disclosed to the public, and perhaps not to its own investors, the electrical power required to create the 30 MW of thermal heating power. When New Energy Times asked Martin Greenwald, a founding member of the SPARC team and the deputy director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, for that value, and asked Brandon Sorbom, chief scientific officer of Commonwealth Fusion Systems, neither of them responded. You should ask yourselves … WHY NOT?

Are we just to take it on faith that SPARC's high temperature superconductors are going to completely solve the energy loss problem when producing the confining magnetic fields. Can we afford to just take their word? After all, MIT and Commonwealth Fusion, in their literature pushing the SPARC idea (for example, http://firefusionpower.org/Mumgaard_CFS_rev1.pdf ), appear to have in essence admitted that ITER type reactors with low temperature superconductors might not work out because of their energy losses. And these people must have realized that long ago? So why didn’t they stop that hugely expensive boondoggle? Given that ... I don’t think we can can trust MIT and Commonwealth Fusion to make good decisions. After all, they say the whole reason we need commercial fusion RIGHT NOW is because they believe man’s CO2 production is the primary cause of global warming and climate change … which is total garbage.

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:42 am

It’s noteworthy that MIT/Commonwealth Fusion Systems' reactor uses He3, a very rare isotope here on earth, in its fusion experiments. It’s so rare that in 2010 the DOE released 14,000 liters from its stockpile at a spot market auction price of $2,000 per liter … $15,000 per gram … or $500,000 per troy ounce … or about $7 million dollars per pound. That’s because there is estimated to only be about 15 tons of He3 on earth and it's hard to refine. But we would need at least 100 tons or more of He3 PER YEAR to meet global energy demand via the Commonwealth Fusion Systems methodology.

So, folks have been talking about going to the moon … which has an estimated 1-5 million tons of He3 … to satisfy the fusion industry's projected demand. But, He3 is thinly distributed. Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong showed that concentrations in lunar soil of about 13 parts per billion by weight. Even assuming a much higher He3 content , it would be necessary to refine millions of tons of lunar soil to get enough to supply Earth’s commercial fusion reactors. In fact, I read (https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... 5/1283056/ ) that you’d need to process about three-quarters of a square mile of lunar surface down to a depth of 9 feet (!) just to get about 200 pounds of He3 … and that would only be enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year (assuming no energy losses). And the processing would require heating the ore to about 1400 degrees … which would require a lot of energy. The source I read said that heating 1 kg of basalt to that temperature would require about 600 KJ, and would yield 0.01 milligrams of He3. It said a 600 Watt power source could produce about 300 grams of He3 per year, so they’d need 200 KW power sources to produce even 100 kg He3 in one year. To get 100 of tons of He3 a year, they'd need to build a 1000 such power sources ... on the moon. It wouldn't be easy.

Now you could use the sun to provide the required heat, but only 50% of the time. And even assuming 100% lighting, 30% photo voltaic efficiency, and a fully steerable array of solar cells, you’d need a solar cell area of about 700 square meters to mine 100 kg of He3 per year. A system with mirrors to produce heat would only need about 200 square meters, but the engineering to build 1000 steerable, 14 meter diameter mirrors would be a major challenge. In any case, the cost of developing and building the infrastructure for such a mining and refining operation would likely be in the tens of billions of dollars. Then you have to get the helium-3 back to earth, with spacecraft that might only be able to carry a few tons at a time. Another challenge.

So you see, there’s more to creating a viable commercial fusion industry here on earth than what the folks at MIT and Commonwealth are telling folks. We're probably many decades away from being able to do it ... especially given the folks in control of society at the top. Just saying ...

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:28 am

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/22bn-gian ... 51344.html
Is a $22bn giant magnet the ‘holy grail’ of clean energy?

… snip …

ITER means “the way” in Latin. To the nations that back it – members of the European Union, the UK, Switzerland, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US – this $22bn (£16.2bn) experiment is a moonshot solution to cut our suicidal reliance on fossil fuels. If ITER works, it will be the first fusion device in history to produce a net energy gain, producing 10 times more power than it needs to function, all without the dangerous waste of its cousin nuclear fission, which powers contemporary nuclear plants. To its critics, ITER is a spectacular waste of time, money, and political clout, when the planetary clock has nearly run out.
Call me a critic. I quote that paragraph, first, because it shows the dishonest motivation behind the project. Reliance on fossil fuels at this point in time is NOT suicidal. It's necessary. The claim it's suicidal is an outright lie fostered by the hysterical, dishonest, and politically and financially motivated Man Made Climate Change Will Destroy The Human Race community. And second, because the article again lies about the net energy gain … if this monstrously expensive device even works as they claim it will. It will NOT produce 10 times more *power* than it needs to function because there will be significant energy loses at both ends of the process that are not accounted for in that claim.
ITER will not run its first experiments until after 2025, and will not attempt full fusion power until 2035, but even getting to this point has been a monumental undertaking.
Furthermore, with that expected timeline, fusion is still about 30 years away ... long AFTER the date the Global Warming Alarmists have claimed we're doomed. It's 30 years away because ITER is not even a demonstration project. It is only a physics experiment. The ITER folks admit that even after ITER results have been studied, they are going to have to build and test DEMO powerplants, and those will take another decade at least to build. Somewhere on the order of half a dozen countries have announced plans to do that … at a cost of billions of dollars EACH. And they will all be competing for resources that are already being stretched by ITER's construction. And then, if those DEMO machines work as claimed, they’ll still have to build the power plants that will produce commercial power. And that will take at least another decade given the slowness with which such projects proceed. So regardless, we’re in fact no closer to viable commercial fusion than we where 60-70 years ago when the *experts* first claimed we were just 30 years away from it.

Furthermore, all that assumes that the world’s economy doesn’t break down now due to the tampering of UNIPARTY socialists trying to end the use of fossil fuels in the next decade or so. And due to their trying to make the world a communist one. And given the release of a virus, BY THEM, for political reasons. All of which are RIGHT NOW destroying the world’s economies, as well as destroying the supply chains that the economies depend on. Even this article, as pro-fusion as it appears to be, hints that the disruption due to the above factors is having a huge effect on the ability to complete ITER within the current (already long delayed) timeline.

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:35 am

Here’s another mainstream article (and corporate CEO) that I think is outright lying to the public about the fusion timeline:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/other/b ... r-AASL3rH
"When you're trying to contain a plasma, which is a super-heated form of hydrogen, at conditions and temperatures at the centre of the sun ... it's very hard to think of putting it inside a machine and that machine lasting the lifetime of a power plant," explained CEO Chris Mowry.

"General Fusion is driving on a path where we could be putting a shovel in the ground on the first commercial plant before the end of the decade."
And by the way, the Climate Change DOOM sayers motivating these fusion efforts have already made the claim that we have less than a decade left before there will be no preventing the earth's climate doom. So what is the real goal here folks? It's obviously NOT to prevent climate change, like they claim. It's to make certain elitists even wealthier and even more powerful than they already are. It's to establish their complete control over us. Do you really want the folks now in power, who are mismanaging things as badly as they are now, to have TOTAL control over your energy supply? Just saying ...

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:56 am

Here’s another example where the word “could” is used by gnomists to sell their product to gullible global tax payers …

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/20 ... 13302.html
DAEJEON — A giant metallic donut could yield the secrets of eternal energy.
Inside the vessel, housed in an anonymous concrete room in Daejeon and hooked up to a tangle of pipes and cables, hydrogen is heated to 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million degrees Fahrenheit) to achieve fusion.
It's an artificial sun. And it has been run in tests for a full 30 seconds, a record. No other fusion reactor has ever maintained plasma for that long.
In theory, such a device will be able to produce cheap, nearly pollution-free, stable power.
But then what follows is a moment of honesty ...
In reality, that will not be possible for decades. If ever.

Contrast that to the claim coming out of Communist China (https://24newsrecorder.com/technology/91123), that their ...
"artificial sun" could provide electricity in ten years.”
The non-communist South Koreans are at least a little more realistic ...
“When I started researching nuclear fusion 30 years ago, experts said that we’re going to need 30 years for mankind to successfully generate electricity from nuclear fusion,” said Yoon Si-woo, deputy director general of the Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (Kstar) reactor, the experimental fusion reactor.
“We still say that we’re going to need 30 years."

… snip …

In July 2008, the Kstar reactor succeeded in artificially generating plasma. In 2018, the plasma reached 100 million degrees Celsius for the first time. Last year, with the superconductors, the Kstar reactor maintained the plasma at over 100 million degrees Celsius for 30 seconds.
The project is aiming for 50 seconds this year and 300 seconds by 2026, which according to Yoon is “the milestone for 24-hour operation” needed for generating power.
The goal is to contain the material stably and around the clock by 2050.
But it's all being sold on the basis of a lie ... climate change.

Yet the Climate Change Doomists back in 2018 were saying …

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-e ... tists-say/
The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say
Yet the Climate Change Doomists back in 2019 were saying …

https://environment-review.yale.edu/too ... -no-return
How late is too late for policies to have a reasonable likelihood of achieving the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree goal in 2100? Assuming a moderate mitigation strategy, a 2 degree warming threshold, and accepting a 67% likelihood of remaining below the threshold, the Point of No Return will arrive in the year 2035. If removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is strong, the Point of No Return gets delayed to 2042. With the same assumptions but a 1.5 degree warming threshold, the Point of No Return has already passed.

Yet the Climate Change Doomists back in 2020 were saying …

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate- ... bfb4c1827c
We Have 10 Years Left To Save The World, Says Climate Expert
Yet the Climate Change Doomists back in 2020 were saying …

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ ... t-mean-all
Humanity may have passed the "point of no return" in the climate crisis—even if everyone on the planet stopped emitting all greenhouse gases at this very moment, according to a study published Thursday. 
In other words, if the Korea timeline is right ... it's too late.

In fact, even if the China timeline is right ... it's too late.

It's ALL a big scam, folks. There's your clues.

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:40 am

https://paidforarticles.com/what-is-art ... sun-575956
What is Artificial Sun

The EAST (Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak) nuclear fusion reactor maintained a temperature of 158 million degrees Fahrenheit (70 million degrees Celsius) for 1,056 seconds, according to the Xinhua News Agency. The achievement brings scientists a small yet significant step closer to the creation of a source of near-unlimited clean energy.

… snip …

Increasing energy access is closely linked to improving health, economic growth, and social stability. Yet close to a billion people still don’t have electricity and many more only have intermittent power, so there is an urgent humanitarian need for more energy.
I can agree with THIS rational for seeking fusion. But the article goes on ...
At the same time, the window for limiting climate change is slamming shut, and electricity and heat production remain the dominant sources of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
This is garbage and by their own statements a lie. The window has already closed since there is no possible way they can get commercial fusion on line in under 20 to 30 years, at minimum. Not when they go on and say …
To meet one of the goals of the Paris climate agreement — limiting warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius this century — the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half or more by 2030, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are NOT going to be cut in half by 2030 … not a chance ... not when China, the second largest economy in the world with a large portion of that billion people they say are without electricity, is planning to build 43 NEW coal fired, CO2 producing, power plants (https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wp-con ... el-CO2.pdf ). Not when consumption of petroleum in China continues growing at the same linear rate it has since 2000 and is not expected to peak until 2035-2040 (https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-c ... future.pdf ). Not when China’s CO2 emissions increased 4 percent in the second half of 2020 over what it increased in the same pre-pandemic period a year before (https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite- ... coal-spree ). Not when 58% of the China's total energy comes from coal and it accounts for 28% of global CO2 emissions (the world's largest share by country). No, if the elitists in control of us truly believe what the climate studies they tout are saying, then it’s already too late to save the earth. So why are they doing this? Why are they trying to extract even more billions of dollars from the world’s taxpayers? Perhaps because their goal is for the government to control (like the Egyptian pharaohs did) the thing most necessary to the people. For the Egyptians it was water. For us it’s energy. With that control, they can then assure their continued rule over us, regardless of what else they do to us. Just saying …

Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by jackokie » Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:13 am

@BeAChooser While we're waiting for fusion to get figured out Liquid Fluoride [Metal] Reactors can provide beau coup electricity, and they can be modularized down to neighborhood size. Some folks favor using Thorium, and others say stick with Uranium. LFMRs are claimed to have the potential to consume the considerable nuclear waste we've accumulated, with the LFMR waste requiring safe storage for only a few hundred years.

Global Warming / Climate Change is no more credible than the standard model. Check out the article linked below:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/17/ ... heric-co2/
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:56 am

jackokie wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:13 am
Global Warming / Climate Change is no more credible than ...
It's definitely a scam being used to make the world socialist/communist, as well as line the pockets of those pushing it.

And the same ones pushing it are the same ones pushing the Covid-19 vaccines scam.

Add to that the nonsense going on in the astrophysics world and it's safe to say mainstream science is DEAD.

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:41 am

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-dark/
How does the sun shine? Here's why we are still a little in the dark

By Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Oh goody … an article by a B-minus astrophysicist who brings (https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/ph ... =615#p6300 ) a slew of personal agendas … feminism, queerness (her word), race and racism, social justice, sexual assault, diversity, socialism … to her work. Well, let’s see what she has to say about why the sun shines ...
Now, for many of us, it won’t be news that there are unsolved mysteries associated with the sun. In my last column, I wrote about the coronal heating problem, the fact that one of the outermost layers of the sun is significantly hotter than its surface. We would expect the opposite: that as we go further from the sun’s primary energy source in its central core, the outer regions of the sun would be increasingly cooler. (One of my hopes for 2022 is that this problem will be solved, or at least one of my students will decide to tackle it themselves.)

But the sun doesn’t only have grand one-off mysteries. My correspondent has a point: the basic workings of how the sun burns are complicated and imperfectly understood.

… snip …

There is, to put it simply, an awful lot going on. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why there is the odd inconsistency in scientific papers about solar physics.

The question of exactly how much energy is released in these chain reactions, for instance, and how frequently they occur involves calculations in nuclear theory and combining that information with (extremely safe) nuclear experiments on Earth. We are always refining the numbers.

So, to the person who asked me why there are inconsistencies in the literature on solar fusion: the truth is, we are still working out the details.
Ah … so astrophysicists are still working out the “details” while the mainstream fusion community is literally spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on projects that PRETEND to know how the sun works. And while the mainstream fusion community makes plans to spend TRILLIONS of dollars based on their inconsistent understanding.

The gnomes seem to have a life of their own now, and that's bound to be costly.
Just saying ...

Posts: 833
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by jacmac » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pm

What do you say about how the sun works ?
Specifically why is the corona hotter than the photosphere ?

Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:03 pm

jacmac wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pm
What do you say about how the sun works ?
Specifically why is the corona hotter than the photosphere ?
So you're here to defend the mainstream's *science*?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests