xxxdutchiexxx

3 hours ago, Janus said:

The problem is that you are using the term "free" in a manner in which it is not typically meant when using the term "free energy".   By your use of "free",  burning wood, coal, natural gas, etc. would all be instances of "free" energy.  This makes it a pretty useless term.  The term "free energy" is used to refer to energy that supposedly come from nowhere, neither from energy input or by expending some fuel resource.  

As already pointed out there are two nuclear energy processes, fission and fusion. 

With fission, you only need to bring enough fissionable material together to extract the energy. However, fissionable materials are rare, and only certain isotopes of various elements are fissionable.  Uranium 235 is fissionable for example, but only makes up a fraction of the naturally occurring Uranium (0.715%), and is always found combined with non-fissionable Uranium.  The Uranium must be mined, refined, and enriched (the ratio of the uranium 235 increased. 3-5% for reactor grade and much greater for weapons grade) to make it suitable to use for nuclear fuel.

Fusion, which is how the Sun gets its energy involve forcing nuclei together until they form a nucleus of a different element.   The problem is that the nuclei naturally repel each other, and it takes quite a bit to force them together close enough.   The Sun does this because of the extreme pressures at its core.   A thermonuclear bomb does it by using a fission bomb to provide the required energy to  trigger an uncontrolled fusion explosion.

Controlled fusion is a lot more difficult.  It is very hard to create the conditions to cause fusion in a manner that we can control.  The goal is to create a situation where the energy generated is more the the energy needed to initiate the process. This is something that we weren't even able to achieve until 2014.  And even then while the energy provided by the lasers to start the fusion was less than the energy produced, the total energy required to operate those lasers was many times more than the energy released.   While a step in the right direction, for practical fusion power generation, we need the energy output to exceed the energy requirements of the equipment maintaining the reaction, which is something we have yet to come close to.

And as far as the availability of the fuel goes, even this experiment required the use of rare isotopes of hydrogen which, combined, only make up 0.02% of naturally occurring hydrogen.

indeed, i have started looking into nuclear fusion machines, it seems the main issue is the heat, we simply do not have any type of material that can withstand those high temps....however, there should be something we can do to fix that issue. why cant we simply expand the machines size? i mean, if we hold the plasma in place by using strong magnetic fields then why can we not simply move the machines walls further away from the plasma?  the further away the wall is=the less heat that reaches it right? so just contain the plasma very far away from the machines chamber walls.

okay, maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of free energy. can anyone tell me what would you call the energy that releases from a atom when you split the force that holds it together? 

say we maintain this chain reaction for long periods of time, say we get out 1 million volts of electricity from every 300 thousand volts of electricity that we put in, what do we call all those extra volts we get out? I dont see why we cant say thats free energy, for instance, imagine i give you a device that can double your money, you put in 20 bucks and you get out 40 bucks...would you not call that "free money" ? you get your 20 back plus another 20, so to me, that sure sounds like free money.....this way of thinking should apply to energy as well, if you get back what you put in and also get out a bit extra then thats "free" in my book. 

and of course we need fuel to power the reaction, but the fuel is very common and can be found almost anywhere, the sun has been burning this fuel for billions of years and is still going strong, so even if we will have to add more fuel eventually thats fine, the fuel is commonly found and the amount of energy we get out in relation to the amount of fuel we put in is amazingly efficient, so if we dont call that free energy, then what do we call it??

I think we have different understandings about what "free energy" means.

when I say free energy i am not talking about getting energy from nothing, I am talking about getting more energy out then what we put in. for instance, imagine you have a device that outputs more energy then what you put in, say you put in 12 volts of electricity and then the device uses those 12 volts to output 24 volts, those extra 12 volts you get out is what I call "free energy". we dont literally get energy form nothing, how ever, you are still getting free energy, see what I mean? you do not have to get energy from nothing in order for it to be considered "free energy"

................and the whole thing about energy being free since we dont pay for it with money is obviously not what im talking about, I cant believe anyone would actually mentioned that  

When we detonate a nuke, it releases way more energy then what it took to detonate it, after the initial energy we apply the particles we split causes a chain reaction, this chain reaction ends up releasing massives amounts of energy. it seems we literally get free energy in a sense, I think that if we could find a way to control and maintain this chain reaction then we could probably harness some of  that extra energy thats being generated by the chain reaction. I must be missing something because to me, nukes clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible to get more energy out then what we put in.