We now think Gravity is a wave. Ok A wave of what??? What really is happening in the center of Jupiter that is not happening in the center of Saturn? Atoms are not being forced to fuse together... Ok... When atoms are packed together like that, what happens to the electrons? In theory, if close enough, they will repel. Off on another tangent, hypothesize about a galaxy. What is a galaxy? It is one or more black holes moving and spinning and jettisoning matter that eventually becomes stars and planets... That is why galaxies "swirl." Ok. But what is the escape velocity of a black hole? Faster than light??? When we send a probe to check out a black hole, we will have a better understanding. All of the forces at play in the center of Jupiter cannot be accurately assessed here....
Are you saying that fusion is happening on Jupiter? Any links I can read about that? I seem to remember having read that Jupiter would need about 70 times more mass than it currently has to fuse atoms.
Jupiter throws off 3 times the heat it gets from the Sun. It is the only planet in our solar system that is "hot." I do not know that is fusion, but I fail to see a better explanation.... I think it is small quantity fusion that is way insufficient to "light" the mass....
Appreciate the response. I would guess the heat is more likely to be from "tidal friction" deep inside. Looks like I need to do some research.
I think galaxies swirl for the same reason that solar systems do. In fact, not all galaxies have black holes at their center, and those galaxies swirl, too. It would be surprising if a cloud the size of a galaxy or solar system were in such perfect stasis that contraction wouldn't speed the rotation much like skaters bringing arms to their sides. In general, black holes attract matter. I don't know of a galaxy that wasn't formed by there being an attraction of mass that existed in a region and then gradually condensed into a galaxy. That attraction might have been helped by a preexisting black hole, but it could also simply come from the sum of the gravity of the material in the region. As for fusion energy, I think everyone agrees that there is fusion going on in stars, caused by the immense pressure of gravity. However, I don't see that as meaning that such pressure is ONLY possible in that specific environment or that engineers are categorically incapable of creating that kind of pressure.
@WillReadmore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton Gravitons, of course Like Light & Photons No Gravitons, No Gravity Waves No Photons, No Light Waves Duh - Uh ! Moi BLAME Jupiter sucks!
Pressure, heat, huge magnetic field, and atomic "packing" where electrons from atoms cease to be atom specific.... You ascribe pressure to gravity. Gravity is just pressure.... or is it MORE...... I say we cannot answer that here on earth, but there are many who will eagerly waste billion of dollars trying....
The potential payoff is huge. So, I do see this as something that will continue to be worked on. I'm not sure what you mean by ascribing pressure to gravity. All I said is that gravity does cause huge pressure in our Sun. It also causes large pressure in the cores of all planets, stars, reasonable sized moons, and even some asteroids. It is what causes these bodies to be spheroidal. But, pressure can be caused in other ways. The pressure cooker on a stovetop doesn't develop pressure by means of gravity, obviously.
Gravity of a fusion sphere in space bends light... A lab test on earth does not bend light. You cannot simulate that. You can simulate pressure temp etc., We've done that and have no functional result.... We have spent a lot on fusion with ... Endless requests for even more spending without any meaningful results.
I just don't get what you mean with this post as a response to fusion created in the various laboratories across the world today. It sounds very much like you are saying something is impossible when it is, in fact, being done. Well, if by "meaningful results" you mean a working fusion reactor that is supplying power to our major grids, I'd agree that hasn't been accomplished. But, I don't agree with that as a valid measure of when there must be surrender on fusion energy.
Fusion reactor = star Any reason to believe anything else can do that, especially on Earth? No We have spent over $100 billion researching fusion. We have an H bomb and a few "we got it" for 1/1000th of a second.... Y'all need to explain why you've failed and why anyone should believe you will succeed if $100 billion more is expensed....
[/QUOTE] False. If you use an equal sign it has to work in both directions. But, NOT all fusion reactors are stars. I've pointed this out several times now. This isn't hypothetical.
False. If you use an equal sign it has to work in both directions. But, NOT all fusion reactors are stars. I've pointed this out several times now. This isn't hypothetical.[/QUOTE] A 1/1000th of a second "fusion" is not a reactor...
A 1/1000th of a second "fusion" is not a reactor...[/QUOTE] Of course it is. What ELSE could you possibly call it? Your statement was one of existence, not lifetime. How long does it have to exist before YOU admit fusion caused by mankind and having nothing at all to do with stars exists? Shall we use the lifetimes of the elements in the periodic table? Or, do THOSE not exist according to you?
Of course it is. What ELSE could you possibly call it? Your statement was one of existence, not lifetime. How long does it have to exist before YOU admit fusion caused by mankind and having nothing at all to do with stars exists? Shall we use the lifetimes of the elements in the periodic table? Or, do THOSE not exist according to you?[/QUOTE] If that is the sum total of your argument to push for more taxpayer spending.... Sorry, not supporting it. What about thermite? We all learned about thermite after 911. It has to be possible to engineer a turbine to spin using thermite as the heat source. What is thermite? Essentially, it is rusted metal - reusable... Have rail car tracks with carts that hold small amounts of thermite in the most heat resistant trays known. Move the cart under a turbine engineered to have a large space of air to "cool" the burning thermite. Thermite ignites at 600F. Use a laser. Cart in. Hockey puck of thermite powers station for two days. Move in next cart. Fire the laser and start it up again.
My understanding is that thermite requires aluminum. Aluminum requires large amounts of electric energy in the process of extraction, drawing the energy equation of this solution into questionable economic waters.
Recycle...?? There are different versions of thermite, but the concept is to burn the oxygen in rust. Essentially, you just re-rust the same aluminum etc over and over....
As you will note from my post, I'm fine with anyone attempting to pursue this direction. There are huge numbers of exothermic reactions in chemistry, and maybe there some that could scale up to being a point source or scale in some way for single family use.
Fusion power has been 30 years away for the last 75 years, and, in 30 years, fusion power will be 30 years away. Fusion reactors are one of those "plant a tree under whose shade you will never sit" things. It may prove to be a great boon for our kid's kids, or maybe their kids, but fusion power is something that none of us will cook chicken tendies with in our lifetimes.
That's a great argument for never planting another tree. Unfortunately, never planting another tree is a stupid argument.
That's absolutely not the argument I was making. One of the most noble acts humans can do are those selfless acts which will only provide a benefit to future generations. The stupid thing to do would be to count on fusion reactors to be the answer to our energy problems in our lifetimes, and make stupid decisions based upon such a stupid notion. For example- Stupid politicians passing stupid laws which they stupidly assume will be "feasible" because of their magical green unicorn farts power fantasies.
