Page 1 of 1

Re: Thought Experiment Regarding Breakeven

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:07 am
by Rex Allers
Simey

I'm going to break the flow for a second.

Looks like you joined the forum back in 2012 but never posted until now. Is that right?

I guess you are grandfathered in but rules for the forum changed in last few years requiring real names. I used to be rexa but changed to full name after the forum changes. So I'm curious if your real name is Simey Binker. Could be but seems rather unusual. If not, could you edit your profile to update your user id.

It is new ground since you are a long-time member but have never posted before. I'm thinking it might be a nice gesture, as a new poster, to follow new member rules and make a post in "please introduce yourself". Wasn't a rule when you joined but since you have been inactive all those years it might be nice to act like a new member and share something about yourself.

Re: Thought Experiment Regarding Breakeven

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:34 am
by Richard Hull
The hunt for the virtual cathode is laudable, but no one has come close. Same as Thermal magnetic confinement not even close in a useful, controlled, over unity effort. Nature just doesn't like fusion unless you want to do a star or blow something up. If you want to blow something up, you have to set off a fission bomb to heat the Tritium up enough to make the fusion boost the reaction to create an H bomb. So fission always comes first in the H bomb. No Fission..... No fusion.

Fission allows us to "bull head" the Lawson criteria. Like flying at a coal face with a speeding car to get the 1/4 ton of coal left on the floor after we haul the accordion shaped wreck out of the coal mine. Bull heading works, but it is still a putt-putt boat fusion process that will always be discontinuous that savages material science at both ends.

Richard Hull