Fusion device (split from Shouldn't we give up on fusion?)

[ImplicitDemands]

I have a rough-draft schematic of a robotic operation that can help harness the energy released from a fusion event and turn it electricity to do more mechanical work while turning some of that electricity back into energy for the lasers. A lot of it has to do with the properties of the materials. Of course you don't want to cover the entire perimeter of the nuclear pulse or else the device won't turn out any energy to power other devices so I did better than simple photovoltaics although it does still use those that is just one of three ways the energy from fusion is harnessed and put back in to attempt to cause more fusion. Luckily you need less energy after it starts because one fusion event has already heated the plasma. 

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I have a rough-draft schematic of a robotic operation that can help harness the energy released from a fusion event and turn it electricity to do more mechanical work while turning some of that electricity back into energy for the lasers. A lot of it has to do with the properties of the materials. Of course you don't want to cover the entire perimeter of the nuclear pulse or else the device won't turn out any energy to power other devices so I did better than simple photovoltaics although it does still use those that is just one of three ways the energy from fusion is harnessed and put back in to attempt to cause more fusion. Luckily you need less energy after it starts because one fusion event has already heated the plasma. 

Why would robotics have anything to do with this?  Most of the energy is released as neutrons, which would be absorbed in a blanket of material, most likely Li, surrounding the reactor and the heat thereby released would raise steam. I can't see any role for robotics in this. 

[swansont]

Since humans aren’t going to be in the device, one could say it’s all robotics. But it’s also a hand-wave; there’s no science here.

 

[Ghideon]

 

10 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I have a rough-draft schematic of a robotic operation that can help harness the energy released from a fusion event and turn it electricity to do more mechanical work while turning some of that electricity back into energy for the lasers.

You refer to robotics in different places; is this the same idea as in those other threads? 

10 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Malfunctions are common in computer programs. I was originally in software CS before I switched to an electronic and mechanical major and the reason was most computer programs are limited to their hardware, and even the hardware depends upon the engineering makeup so I figured I could try and understand how code becomes a whole mechanical/robotic movement among everything else. I have some ideas on this, a universal blueprint that can be used for any app, robotic command, or input you can think of. 

 

On 4/20/2024 at 8:07 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

Beyond that I have designed a stationary nanorobotic arm with two axes of rotation and now I do know how to control and automate its motion with a digital interface like an iphone. The actual operational specs require trigonometric functions as well maths in order to direct light reflected off the fingertips into the right fiber optic cables for ported to those particular induction motors which open and close the contacts for the LEDs whilst charging a microlaser (keylogging). 

 

Edited July 2 by Ghideon
grammar

[ImplicitDemands]

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:

robotics in different places

The basis for the computer programming language that interprets inputs to perform the necessary automations for controlling a fusion reaction is the same for anything else in the thread title of the second quote, that's what universal means. They aren't trigonometric functions, I found it easier to use one of the related rates differential methods (the one used to find the angle a camera needs to adjust to follow a rocket on takeoff) to align a ray of light with the cartesian coordinates of fiber optic cables using an em induction motor that controls light refraction, and some combinatorics to find the various outcomes of any given initial on/off states. 

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

Why would robotics have anything to do with this?  Most of the energy is released as neutrons, which would be absorbed in a blanket of material, most likely Li, surrounding the reactor and the heat thereby released would raise steam. I can't see any role for robotics in this. 

As for the theoretical absorption potential of a fusion event; other than photovoltaics and the photoionization I keep bringing up (which is more for a complex reintegration of that energy than for higher returns), most of the energy for the second fusion event comes from an exciton-catalyzed buildup that has nothing to do with the energy released from the initial fusion event itself and in fact is essential in creating it as well. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

there’s no science here.

There's thought experiments and not all thought experiments are created equal. When backed by a good memory it is the capacity for vivid picturization that separates the intuitive from the nonintuitive. The less intuitive you are the more you have to fall back on the rest of the process, and that's where a scientist can get stuck. You can't go anywhere in the method if your thought experiments are the equivalent of writer's block. 

Edited July 3 by ImplicitDemands

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

. 

There's thought experiments and not all thought experiments are created equal. When backed by a good memory it is the capacity for vivid picturization that separates the intuitive from the nonintuitive. The less intuitive you are the more you have to fall back on the rest of the process, and that's where a scientist can get stuck. You can't go anywhere in the method if your thought experiments are the equivalent of writer's block. 

I lost track of how often I hear such claims. Yet when asked direct questions or mathematical models the poster seldom can answer with anything resembling actual science.

It's too bad most ppl don't recognize that the very job of a physicist is to do calculations in order to validate any physics based theory. That isn't equivalent to writers block. If one cannot mathematically describe a physics theory then it's useless simple as that.

 Try calculating the amount of energy required at a specific focal point to cause fusion under the atmospheric conditions on the Earth's surface.

Do that and maybe you might convince someone.

Edited July 3 by Mordred

[ImplicitDemands]

Spoiler

I am giving a large portion of the full picture freely here. I feel like things aren't moving fast enough if I'm still having to get frustrated with where my life is at to the point of verbally shouting at the world and making Mayor of Kingston type idol threats in private. I feel like the game I'm playing, is I leave all of this online, where I have access to it and someone else does. What I get in return is a bunch of negative reps and a whole lot of nothing else. I may have other material that gets even closer to the complete picture but the complete picture is so multifaceted that you'd need me to work it out into practical use. So in my situation it's safe to assume that because I'm so terrible a person or whatever you feel to not only use manufactured poverty (what kind of group is allowed to function so barbarically?) to get me into a situation where it's manufactured consent because I didn't write a blueprint to take in for a patent, then leave me with nothing AND no claim to take credit for to my own creations and ideas? So take a good look at my username before opening the second set of spoiler tags because you can drag this situation out and if you go that anti-Edison route I'll just take the bulk of what I know to my grave. 

Spoiler

There are two outputs. Your first free-be is the output where the LEDs that create the picture you touch, that's the output interface. There are also two areas where the EM induction motor controls on/off states (for the output) and the angular refractions of LED light reflected off a fingertip, the fiber optic cables need to be ported to the output I mentioned. The other area controls the input states, these nano-motors are still theoretically operated by photoionics however instead of LEDs they rely on that second output. Here's a hint for what that output is, it is controlled by the other output and explains why you need an internet service to perform certain functions that don't come with the device.

 

 

[Mordred]

Somehow I don't see the connection with what you just posted to showing a practical design for a fusion reactor.

 

[ImplicitDemands]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I lost track of how often I hear such claims. Yet when asked direct questions or mathematical models the poster seldom can answer with anything resembling actual science.

It's too bad most ppl don't recognize that the very job of a physicist is to do calculations in order to validate any physics based theory. That isn't equivalent to writers block. If one cannot mathematically describe a physics theory then it's useless simple as that.

Okay so that math is all metrics and thermodynamics. The metrics change from watts, jules, etc etc the list goes on. The energy initial energy released from the first fusion cycle depends on the elements being fused, I was thinking simply using a vat of hydrogen plasma. This tells you the energy levels the lasers need to meet to cause fusion. So those three sources of charge from the fusion need to match that level of energy needed to continue it. So I should be able to approach that all by myself. There's of course a lot more I need to mention but I have the right idea of how to approach these types of calculations. There are all kinds of other facets to the full picture though that require some additional maths. 

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Somehow I don't see the connection with what you just posted to showing a practical design for a fusion reactor.

 

It has to do with the practical design for the operating system that is integrated into the practical design for a fusion reactor as well as having to do with any calculations needed to maintain the reactor's automated systems.

Edited July 3 by ImplicitDemands

[Mordred]

Aren't you forgetting the needed equations for magnetic confinement ? The cross section calculations for different elements used in the fusion process ?  What temperature do you need to reach to fuse deuterium as opposed to helium 3 for example .

Claiming something but unable to supply any related calculations isn't very practical in my opinion.

A star has gravity working in its favor as well as a huge volume of plasma to act as a temperature trap  we don't have that on Earth so must use other means.

With fusion power there is something called the Lawson criteria are you familiar with it ? Its directly related to the power output compared to the power demands and will differ in different reactions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

If you had shown those calculation you bet I would have been more inclined to listen. However random claims amount to zilch zero nothing.

Edited July 3 by Mordred

[Sensei]

On 7/2/2024 at 5:47 AM, ImplicitDemands said:

I have a rough-draft schematic of a robotic operation that can help harness the energy released from a fusion event and turn it electricity to do more mechanical work while turning some of that electricity back into energy for the lasers. A lot of it has to do with the properties of the materials. Of course you don't want to cover the entire perimeter of the nuclear pulse or else the device won't turn out any energy to power other devices so I did better than simple photovoltaics although it does still use those that is just one of three ways the energy from fusion is harnessed and put back in to attempt to cause more fusion. Luckily you need less energy after it starts because one fusion event has already heated the plasma. 

I don't see any description of the device in your post. You need to be more clear/descriptive..

Do you have any idea what kind of nuclear reaction occurs during fusion?  i.e., what fuel is used, what is the power output, what is the energy released, etc.?

 

 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

The basis for the computer programming language that interprets inputs to perform the necessary automations for controlling a fusion reaction is the same for anything else in the thread title of the second quote, that's what universal means. They aren't trigonometric functions, I found it easier to use one of the related rates differential methods (the one used to find the angle a camera needs to adjust to follow a rocket on takeoff) to align a ray of light with the cartesian coordinates of fiber optic cables using an em induction motor that controls light refraction, and some combinatorics to find the various outcomes of any given initial on/off states. 

As for the theoretical absorption potential of a fusion event; other than photovoltaics and the photoionization I keep bringing up (which is more for a complex reintegration of that energy than for higher returns), most of the energy for the second fusion event comes from an exciton-catalyzed buildup that has nothing to do with the energy released from the initial fusion event itself and in fact is essential in creating it as well. 

There's thought experiments and not all thought experiments are created equal. When backed by a good memory it is the capacity for vivid picturization that separates the intuitive from the nonintuitive. The less intuitive you are the more you have to fall back on the rest of the process, and that's where a scientist can get stuck. You can't go anywhere in the method if your thought experiments are the equivalent of writer's block. 

This is word salad. I think you need to see a medical professional. Anyway, I'm out. 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

There's thought experiments and not all thought experiments are created equal.

But here we expect a certain minimum amount of rigor.

[ImplicitDemands]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:53 AM, swansont said:

But here we expect a certain minimum amount of rigor.

First of all. I know I take the risk of sounding like just another newbie here using these conjectures. I know but let's just tell you what's what. I'm not unsure, this isn't subject to change as I have in the past. I have the layout of my understanding of the world. This conjecture hasn't been handled without delicacy even though the words you're about to see would certainly make you believe so. The last part of this conjecture was stumbled upon with MATH and not an intentionally or "intuited" inference like the (x+1)^2 being how Isaac Newton postulated the power rule of integral and differential calc (which is a correct inference but the right answer for any stance on the Copenhagen Interpretation should be decidedly non-intuitive; which it was, keep in mind the last part is about reactionless propulsion without inertial drag as opposed to fusion). 

Oh, I understand having calculations, measurements, and statistical probability of being within plausibility range for the blueprinted specifications and design parameters. First of all, it's been said in this thread, "Oh, I hear such claims all the time". This is not that. If I'm "soapboxing", this is not "soapboxing", there is no ability to use your usual run-of-the-mill lingo with me, sir. No "moved to trash-bin", shouldn't be in speculations, no-blocking, banning from a falsely perceived rule-break. Because I am no run-of-the-mill member. I have what sites like these are scanned for by their administration, I am an autodidact. This isn't a "word-salad" this isn't a "pet theory". At the heart of it all, is renormalizing from higher energy states in the electron and reflection. Energy can be gaining indefinitely because of the simple photoelectric effect and it can be completely put to work immediately, with a fraction of a fraction of this gain escaping a system. 

To even make it to ascertain the resources for experimentation you'd need substantial convincing, all that I've listed in the first sentence of the post. Before any of that I'd have to lay everything I know out there and just doing that is difficult enough. I need someone I could, in-person, dictate all these on-paper visuals into actual schematics. You know, someone I could slowly explain to so I can start working toward substantial information. I don't think you understand how important this is. This isn't just universal computerized automation and  sustained fusion until there's no material left to fuse. This is magnetic compression of the plasma until the proverbial ST fabric indentation grows deeper and narrower at the same rate it takes to stretch the ST curtain mid-vessel to equal or surpass 1G with some enormous number of reflections going on rear-craft to negate said rebounding G-fields in the vessels wake as it rises over the ground. To explain that last part, if you're talking about particle pair production, you have light hitting a particle and light coming back out of it. Well what if when that light hits it turns off a G-field. Light is released, that's reflection. But at the same time light hits that same G-field from a different angle, light that did the same thing to another G-field in a particle moments earlier. They are linked events to the object looking at those dots in the interference pattern. What if you could turn off a G-field, this sphere, that shares the exact same center with another separate G-field that is the artifact of fusion that had occurred in the same place moments earlier? Before we'd continue I'd need assurance that "you" have some authoritative and financial leeway. Of course 

 

Edited July 5 by ImplicitDemands

[ImplicitDemands]

Stating it works prior to calculation defeats the purpose. Duh, yet I say that the calculation should be funded simply upon the basis of novelty. Said purpose that these lasers have new elements to them.

The renormalization of energy states does not reduce the number of electrons available, unlike atoms after fission, fusion, or the misunderstood annihilation. This means, that the more times you can raise an electrons energy freely (from reflection), the more energy you can produce overall. The idea is that reflection is, in fact, infinitesimal subatomic annihilation events. 

My designs can use this singular feature of quantum effects known as the photo electric effect, to do all of this. What is the asymmetric advantage over other people (corps, communities and countries) actually worth, certainly more than writing off anyone that sounds like the fat of the land (other posters here) with their claims. Especially if in the past, OUTSIDE this one thread Swansont, they show some different quality or higher accuracy of intell (non-googleable acumen). How many of these other members were 65% into their BS program while fighting a drawn-out tri-state legal battle? That was written shortly after the full-time semester with a side of said BS legal battle where I had an A in Applied Calc, I have sort of credentials. Regardless of potential, we are already have results.

You'd write off quantum mechanics interpretations because that isn't my field, but if my name was William Sidis many would take outside.of.specialty claims seriously but my IQ wasn't measured with as much publicity as some Korean psychologist in a third world country. You don't know, either, but if as I've intuited your job is to find one gem in all the crap on this forum - start looking at posters more seriously than the typical "nutter" lingo!

Look, I get it Swansont. I know how this jazz about annihilation or whatever sounds like this member who suddenly starting tying his crap into magnetic polarity

But at least I know how I sound right now. Keep in mind this annihilation crap actually began months ago as the result of something I didn't intuit, an arithmetic result, expressed here. Doesn't have to with the aforementioned electron excitation, throwing in there something questionable with something else questionable makes me look ridiculous!

So I'm just reaffirming what you said, my MAIN POINT is that I need someone for dictation. Unless you believe I'm not exceptional. Which would make you question why you're negging the crap out of everything yet secretly looking at some of what I've provided overall. Reaffirming why I need someone I can trust, to relay everything, not in a blurred image. 

Edited July 5 by ImplicitDemands