How does the Tokamak work?

In article , Cyril Meynier
wrote:

le Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:58:31 GMT, Charles Cagle a
pensé, ce qui, en soi, l'a déjà classé dans une petite élite. Pour
être plus précis, il/elle a pensé que :

In reality it doesn't work. Or rather it works quite well as a device
used to extract money from taxpayers so as to keep an army of welfare
queens in white coats employed so that they can send their kids to
college without ever really having provided anything of value for this
nation.

One could say exactly the same about wind power 30 years ago, about
railways in 1820, rocketry in 1950, nuclear (fission) power in 1960,
computers in 1940, and so on.

Absolute nonsense response. Wind power has been used for a thousand
years or more, railways were working in 1820. In 1804, the first
steam locomotive, run on rail, was constructed by Richard Trevithick.
It was used at Pennydarren Iron Works. Then in*1808 Trevithick
constructs a locomotive that can travel about 12 mph. * V-1 and V-2
rockets were killing thousands of Britons in the 1940's, and in
December of 1957, Pennsylvania's Shippingport nuclear reactor became
the first commercial power plant to generate electricity.

So, besides being wrong with respect to the history of certain
technologies you have just dishonestly attempted to conflate working
technologies with a technology that has never worked. No one has ever
built a working nuclear fusion reactor which generates sufficient
energy to even reach breakeven (where the energy put in is equal to the
energy that emerges). It doesn't work now, it hasn't worked in the
past and it isn't going to work in the future using any scheme of
thermonuclear fusion. Even the so-called 'thermonuclear' weapons are
not 'thermonuclear' in the sense that the particles undergo fusion as a
function of their collisional temperature. The basic theories of
nuclear fusion are completely wrong and the most primitive axiom of the
relative motion of quantum particles coupled with Maxwell's equations
prove this without any doubt or error at all.

One of the saddest thing of all in modern science was that Teller's
technical innovations worked to produce a successful fusion weapon but
his ideas about how they work were wrong. This is the world's greatest
example of serenditpitous luck. Fusion weapons work but they don't
work like the designers think they work. They never have. The problem
is that it is nearly impossible to argue with such a level of success.
Who the hell isn't going to believe that your theory is correct if the
weapon you built works? There are historical parallels. The Chinese
had gunpowder for a thousand years and brought its manufacture and
technological usage to a high art but a modern chemist would laugh
aloud at the Chinese gunpowder guildmaster's explanation of how it all
works. We're talking about the fact that physicists have had the
explanation of elementary charged particle interactions wrong. That
doesn't stop them from building really useful technological devices but
that doesn't mean that they actually understand the nature of charge
nor what electrons are. It isn't required to build working technology.
But when you get to the level of building a device that relies upon the
energy yield of nuclear fusion reactions where you want to carefully
control and fine tune the rate of energy output then you have to know
what is going on at the quantum level. Did you know there's a viable
model of how a fusion weapon works which is different from the
explanation believed by the weapon designers themselves? I'm sure it
never occurred to you that such a thing could be possible. And I'm
sure that you would even be unable to listen to the facts about these
matters. There's such comfort in numbers because if you're all wrong,
well, hell, you can still fade away into the anonymity provided by such
a huge crowd of other people who also don't know what the hell they're
talking about.

Charles Cagle

At one time, man couldn't fly with heavier than air craft either. People
said it was foolish, impossible...

But several people around the world tried, and two bike makers from Ohio
eventually succeeded.

How do you know we will never get a fusion reactor to work? Just because we
don't possess the science or technology to do it now doesn't mean that we
won't make a breakthru later on.

As for the rest of your post about modern physics being wrong...have you
published your theories, or found some proof of your theories?

Sean


"Charles Cagle" wrote in message
...
In article , Cyril Meynier
wrote:

le Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:58:31 GMT, Charles Cagle a
pensé, ce qui, en soi, l'a déjà classé dans une petite élite. Pour
être plus précis, il/elle a pensé que :

In reality it doesn't work. Or rather it works quite well as a device
used to extract money from taxpayers so as to keep an army of welfare
queens in white coats employed so that they can send their kids to
college without ever really having provided anything of value for this
nation.

One could say exactly the same about wind power 30 years ago, about
railways in 1820, rocketry in 1950, nuclear (fission) power in 1960,
computers in 1940, and so on.

Absolute nonsense response. Wind power has been used for a thousand
years or more, railways were working in 1820. In 1804, the first
steam locomotive, run on rail, was constructed by Richard Trevithick.
It was used at Pennydarren Iron Works. Then in 1808 Trevithick
constructs a locomotive that can travel about 12 mph. V-1 and V-2
rockets were killing thousands of Britons in the 1940's, and in
December of 1957, Pennsylvania's Shippingport nuclear reactor became
the first commercial power plant to generate electricity.

So, besides being wrong with respect to the history of certain
technologies you have just dishonestly attempted to conflate working
technologies with a technology that has never worked. No one has ever
built a working nuclear fusion reactor which generates sufficient
energy to even reach breakeven (where the energy put in is equal to the
energy that emerges). It doesn't work now, it hasn't worked in the
past and it isn't going to work in the future using any scheme of
thermonuclear fusion. Even the so-called 'thermonuclear' weapons are
not 'thermonuclear' in the sense that the particles undergo fusion as a
function of their collisional temperature. The basic theories of
nuclear fusion are completely wrong and the most primitive axiom of the
relative motion of quantum particles coupled with Maxwell's equations
prove this without any doubt or error at all.

One of the saddest thing of all in modern science was that Teller's
technical innovations worked to produce a successful fusion weapon but
his ideas about how they work were wrong. This is the world's greatest
example of serenditpitous luck. Fusion weapons work but they don't
work like the designers think they work. They never have. The problem
is that it is nearly impossible to argue with such a level of success.
Who the hell isn't going to believe that your theory is correct if the
weapon you built works? There are historical parallels. The Chinese
had gunpowder for a thousand years and brought its manufacture and
technological usage to a high art but a modern chemist would laugh
aloud at the Chinese gunpowder guildmaster's explanation of how it all
works. We're talking about the fact that physicists have had the
explanation of elementary charged particle interactions wrong. That
doesn't stop them from building really useful technological devices but
that doesn't mean that they actually understand the nature of charge
nor what electrons are. It isn't required to build working technology.
But when you get to the level of building a device that relies upon the
energy yield of nuclear fusion reactions where you want to carefully
control and fine tune the rate of energy output then you have to know
what is going on at the quantum level. Did you know there's a viable
model of how a fusion weapon works which is different from the
explanation believed by the weapon designers themselves? I'm sure it
never occurred to you that such a thing could be possible. And I'm
sure that you would even be unable to listen to the facts about these
matters. There's such comfort in numbers because if you're all wrong,
well, hell, you can still fade away into the anonymity provided by such
a huge crowd of other people who also don't know what the hell they're
talking about.

Charles Cagle

In article , Sean Massey
wrote:

At one time, man couldn't fly with heavier than air craft either. People
said it was foolish, impossible...

Those people were misinformed.


But several people around the world tried, and two bike makers from Ohio
eventually succeeded.

Building an airplane from scratch is quite a feat but building a
working nuclear fusion reactor is an enterprise of a much greater
magnitude.


How do you know we will never get a fusion reactor to work? Just because we
don't possess the science or technology to do it now doesn't mean that we
won't make a breakthru later on.

Well, I've never said that 'we will never get a fusion reactor to work'
but only that a fusion reactor based upon the present modeling of the
interaction of elementary charged particles will not and cannot be made
to work. The basic model is wrong. It isn't a problem of not enough
money but rather a problem with the concepts of the interactive
dynamics of elementary charged particles. Fusion fuel nuclei never
undergo fusion as a function of the two particles undergoing a
energetic collision which allows them to get close enough for the
so-called nuclear strong force to overpower the Coulombic repulsive
force. This is an intellectual fiction which has not a single data
point in any experiment in the world to substantiate it. First, there
is no nuclear strong force but rather one can directly deduce from
Maxwell's equations and from the most basic principle of the relativity
of motion between quantum particles that elementary same charged
particles will become very strongly attractively interactive if they
are overlapping in momentum space. 'Overlapping in momentum space'
means that they have a common de Broglie wavelength [calculated from a
center of momentum frame] that is equal to or greater than the
interparticle distance. This is just a technical means to specify that
the particles are at or are nearly at rest with respect to each other.
In a confined gas of n particles there are, at any given instant,
((n^2)-n)/2 pairwise relationships. A tiny fraction of those pairs are
overlapping in momentum space. A tiny fraction of those which are
overlapping in momentum space are also within a mean free path of one
another and are ionized. These are the only pairs which are candidates
for nuclear fusion. Increasing the temperature of a confined fusion
fuel gas will not significantly alter the ratio between pairs of fusion
fuel nuclei which are overlapping in momentum space with respect to
those pairs which are not. Increasing the temperature will produce an
increase in the number of fusion reactions per fixed unit of time but
this is only because there is an increase in the number of collisions
and therefore trajectories which each nucleus experiences per unit of
time. For every new trajectory which a nucleus has it becomes a member
of a new combinatorial or arrangement set of pairwise relationships.
When n is a sufficiently large number then each nucleus will have at
least one pairwise partner with which it will overlap in momentum
space. As n increases then each of the nuclei will have at least two
pairwise partners with which it is overlapping in momentum space.
This process can be expected to go on as n increases until n particles
are occupying tau number of momentum spaces each of which contains k
number of particles so that k*tau=n.

So, increasing the temperature cannot significantly alter the ratio of
pairs which are overlapping in momentum space with respect to those
pairs which are not but it can increase the total number of same
momentum space partners for any given nuclei for a given fixed
increment of time. Consequently, you will get more fusion reactions as
the temperature and density of a confined fusion fuel gas rises but it
is not because any of the particles are surmounting the so-called
Coulombic barrier as a function of temperature and hence velocity. The
only pathway to a successful design of a nuclear fusion reactor is one
which can significantly decrease (or invert) the ratio between the two
basic types of pairwise relationships.



As for the rest of your post about modern physics being wrong...have you
published your theories, or found some proof of your theories?

Sean

The universe is replete with data which is consistent with my modeling.
One only need open their eyes.

CC




"Charles Cagle" wrote in message
...
In article , Cyril Meynier
wrote:

le Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:58:31 GMT, Charles Cagle a
pensé, ce qui, en soi, l'a déjà classé dans une petite élite. Pour
être plus précis, il/elle a pensé que :

In reality it doesn't work. Or rather it works quite well as a device
used to extract money from taxpayers so as to keep an army of welfare
queens in white coats employed so that they can send their kids to
college without ever really having provided anything of value for this
nation.

One could say exactly the same about wind power 30 years ago, about
railways in 1820, rocketry in 1950, nuclear (fission) power in 1960,
computers in 1940, and so on.

Absolute nonsense response. Wind power has been used for a thousand
years or more, railways were working in 1820. In 1804, the first
steam locomotive, run on rail, was constructed by Richard Trevithick.
It was used at Pennydarren Iron Works. Then in 1808 Trevithick
constructs a locomotive that can travel about 12 mph. V-1 and V-2
rockets were killing thousands of Britons in the 1940's, and in
December of 1957, Pennsylvania's Shippingport nuclear reactor became
the first commercial power plant to generate electricity.

So, besides being wrong with respect to the history of certain
technologies you have just dishonestly attempted to conflate working
technologies with a technology that has never worked. No one has ever
built a working nuclear fusion reactor which generates sufficient
energy to even reach breakeven (where the energy put in is equal to the
energy that emerges). It doesn't work now, it hasn't worked in the
past and it isn't going to work in the future using any scheme of
thermonuclear fusion. Even the so-called 'thermonuclear' weapons are
not 'thermonuclear' in the sense that the particles undergo fusion as a
function of their collisional temperature. The basic theories of
nuclear fusion are completely wrong and the most primitive axiom of the
relative motion of quantum particles coupled with Maxwell's equations
prove this without any doubt or error at all.

One of the saddest thing of all in modern science was that Teller's
technical innovations worked to produce a successful fusion weapon but
his ideas about how they work were wrong. This is the world's greatest
example of serenditpitous luck. Fusion weapons work but they don't
work like the designers think they work. They never have. The problem
is that it is nearly impossible to argue with such a level of success.
Who the hell isn't going to believe that your theory is correct if the
weapon you built works? There are historical parallels. The Chinese
had gunpowder for a thousand years and brought its manufacture and
technological usage to a high art but a modern chemist would laugh
aloud at the Chinese gunpowder guildmaster's explanation of how it all
works. We're talking about the fact that physicists have had the
explanation of elementary charged particle interactions wrong. That
doesn't stop them from building really useful technological devices but
that doesn't mean that they actually understand the nature of charge
nor what electrons are. It isn't required to build working technology.
But when you get to the level of building a device that relies upon the
energy yield of nuclear fusion reactions where you want to carefully
control and fine tune the rate of energy output then you have to know
what is going on at the quantum level. Did you know there's a viable
model of how a fusion weapon works which is different from the
explanation believed by the weapon designers themselves? I'm sure it
never occurred to you that such a thing could be possible. And I'm
sure that you would even be unable to listen to the facts about these
matters. There's such comfort in numbers because if you're all wrong,
well, hell, you can still fade away into the anonymity provided by such
a huge crowd of other people who also don't know what the hell they're
talking about.

Charles Cagle