swansont

“with the building of ITER, we are building a machine that is almost there, in terms of being able to power itself and give off surplus electricity” The point is that ITER won’t produce electricity. It will be unable to do so. That will have to wait until the next device, which isn’t slated to be online for ~30 year…if there are no schedule slips for any reason. We aren’t “almost there.” We’re at least 30 years away, which has been the state of fusion for >50 years. No, you’ve missed the point. The problem is getting fusion to work at this scale. You’re just assuming things will go as planned and on schedule, which hasn’t been the state of affairs for pretty much the whole history of fusion efforts. edit to add: https://www.science.org/content/article/iter-fusion-project-take-least-6-years-longer-planned "The project was officially begun in 2006 with an estimated cost of €5 billion and date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma—in 2016." Now the estimate is first plasma in late 2025, according to the Wikipedia article. And the issue of cost overruns and who will pony up cash for an engineering prototype when that well runs dry is a separate problem.

So you can’t make any claims about how much electricity ITER will produce. It will be zero. Any claims about what ITER will do have to be taken with a grain of salt. Those are goals. Complex experiments rarely work as planned. As we saw in the other thread, producing more heat than you put in is not the same thing as self-sustaining. Why? Because you say so? Do any of the designs predict this? Once ITER has demonstrated what it needs to, you have to fund, finish designing and then build the next one. The EU DEMO, the next step, is scheduled to take decades before it’s up and running. (estimated in the 2050s, assuming everything goes right. IOW, this is not imminent) EU DEMO is being designed to produce 2 GW thermal and 750 MW electrical. So less than half of the thermal output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant

How are they a secret of the Bible? Either they are mentioned - in which case you need to cite the passages - or they are not.

Define “almost there” and provide evidence of this claim, please. Considering that ITER is not designed to generate any electricity. https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines ITER will not capture the energy it produces as electricity

! Moderator Note A proper citation would be chapter and verse ! Moderator Note And this is the preaching you were told to steer clear of. A very genius person shouldn’t need to be told multiple times; I would expect they would understand the rules after on reading.

! Moderator Note If one is to take this as a topic of discussion and not preaching (because you’ve been warned about that), and that this isn’t a topic for science, by your own insistence, we’re left with religious sources…but you haven’t really provided any. The disappointingly vague introduction almost excuses the unserious responses and poor signal/noise. (which will be cleaned up) ! Moderator Note Angels (presumably) exist in religious literature and culture, which is the domain in which this can be discussed. Anyone who can't follow that limitation should not post.

Yes, it seems I had a spurious “kilo” in there. 250 W not 250 kW, but that was notation, not calculation 250 W *3600 sec/hr*10 hr is 9 Megajoules, so the result is correct I was conservative in my numbers, and the being in question wouldn’t be human. That was for context only - a roughly human-sized quadruped (to maximize area) that wasn’t warm-blooded should require less energy than a human. Mammal metabolism scales roughly somewhere between M^0.67 and M^0.75, so the size limit might be somewhat smaller, but still decidedly in the macroscopic realm, and the demand goes down if they aren’t warm-blooded, or if they are, they regulate to a lower temperature. Those are not energy-related objections. My point is simply that energy availability isn’t the restriction here.

1 food calorie is ~4.1 kilojoules. If you need 2000 food calories, then you need 8.2 Megajoules. A fair bit of that for a human is sustaining our warm-bloodedness If your solar insolation is 250 kw/m^2 for 10 hours, that’s 9 Mj/m^2. The energy isn’t the limit.

It’s being studied/considered https://news.miami.edu/stories/2021/12/are-black-holes-and-dark-matter-the-same.html https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-from-the-big-bang-could-be-the-dark-matter-20200923/

! Moderator Note Unsupported guesswork is not a theory. More rigor was requested and none supplied, so this is closed.

That’s what the quoted part said - it’s lower than the unconfined (i.e. free-space) vacuum. Which is not zero.

They have energy, so they would, but likely their contribution would be far smaller than whatever the source of the field was ! Moderator Note This discussion needs far more rigor than is in the OP. Formatting fixed. Also, link removed in accordance with rule 2.7

If you must respond to obvious spammers, for the love of Zeus, don’t quote the spam link. You’re helping them by padding the SEO they seek with a second link, and since we’re going to ban them anyway, you’re just creating extra work for the mods because now we have to go and hide your post, too. So not only aren’t you helping, you’re actively making things worse. We would rather you just report the post, and beyond that, ignore it.

No, that’s not correct. The pressure under water will be the atmospheric pressure plus the pressure from the weight of the water, pgh (p is the density) You add 1 atmosphere with a column of water of about 10.3 meters, or ~33 feet. Water is almost incompressible, so you add another atmosphere for each 33 feet.

…in space

! Moderator Note No, assertions are not evidence. Repeating yourself does not make things true. As you have not presented us with a model or testable scientific predictions, as the rules require, this is closed. Do not re-introduce this topic.

Neutron absorption in Li-7 requires ~2.5 MeV to produce tritium. It’s endothermic. That energy is not available for heating anything. Wait. “Ask the designers” implies that this system is in place somewhere. I though this was your proposal. What reactor is doing this?

If it’s endothermic (Li-7), the Q of the reaction is not available. The energy of neutrons not absorbed is not available. Lithium melts at 180.5 °C What happens if the water line shuts down? Are you going to run the risk of it getting hot enough to generate steam, and then have the lithium melt when a pump fails?

That thermal energy is not captured by the plasma. Neutron absorption by Li-7 is endothermic. AFAIK no fusion reactors have incorporated these components. Why would they, when we’re so far from break-even?

Which field physics does this fall under? Your definitions are related to models, not reality. If it’s truth you seek, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. And you need to provide evidence of an infinite universe.

Yes, and the point is…what? Mass, length and time are separate concepts, and are used differently in physics. Accuracy and precision have nothing to do with units. This remains irrelevant to the discussion.

How do you capture it?

Physics isn’t in the business of telling us about reality. It tells us how nature behaves. If it actually describes reality that’s a happy accident, because how do you test for that? If your experiment is at the highest precision you can achieve, there’s no way to discern an underlying behavior. There’s always a “black box” and we can’t see inside.

It’s descriptive. 3 meters is not the same thing as 3 kg or 3 seconds. Arguing about “truth” is a red herring.

If your resolution was one meter, you could not have a result that’s exactly one meter. That’s an issue of significant digits and precision, though, not units. There used to be. Made of platinum and iridium. It was, by definition, one meter. One problem is that copies are not perfect. ! Moderator Note This is off-topic and would need to be argued (and supported) in its own thread.