ITER the criminal history of todays physics

  • http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Side-of-ITER-20200615.pdf


    Written by former LENR investigative journalist Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, who was one of the first to expose Rossi. He then turned his attention towards the hot fusion industry. Here recounts how he came to discover ITER misrepresented their claim of Pin vs Pout, and his efforts to persuade them to publicly correct the "false science claim".


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Side-of-ITER-20200615.pdf


    We have to thank Krivit for debunking the ITER establishment as he tells us how they fooled everybody from politics, press to public by asking for money just to have a five minutes working lab!!


    All they plan to do is to run d+T fusion hot for 5 minutes to show the world that they can reach break even. Originally they did promise COP 10.


    Why do we all allow our politicians to spend > 20'000'000'000 for an at the end radio active building wherein just 5 minutes of true research will be done??


    The argument of a former ITER project boss was simple: Lets spend them 1'000'000'000 and afterwards nobody will stop us to avoid loosing face.


    ITER is just a self service club of interested building and engineering companies. ITER at the and will not answer any new or old question of physics.

  • I read this Krivit post yesterday and almost posted it here. My former next door neighbor who is a physicist working on ITER and I always argued about ITER. He was shocked I could actually understand physics and engineering details, of course not at his level since it is not my job. His comment was always "if they just gave us x% of the US military budget, we would have it by now" x was like 30%. His career involved flying back and forth between Princeton and San Diego. I am not dissing him, I still consider him a friend. That is his career. We talked honestly about this being his goal in life, to get this working. He is older than me (I am 56) so one needs to retire.

  • The argument of a former ITER project boss was simple: Lets spend them 1'000'000'000 and afterwards nobody will stop us to avoid loosing face.


    From Krivit's article:


    "I [Krivit] later looked at a third-party quote of Holtkamp from a former ITER engineer published in a New Yorker article written by Raffi Khatchadourian. Based on my direct experience with Holtkamp, I am convinced that what the engineer told Khatchadourian was accurate:

    [Holktamp] once said, "If you spend as much money as you can, after the first billion, no one is going to stop us." So he spent and spent and spent, one former ITER engineer told me."


    I suppose it's like this: We've already put over a billion dollars into this. We can't stop now, or else it will be an admittance of failure, that our billion dollars of tax payer money produced nothing of practical value to society!


    Another disturbing quote from Krivit's article was this:


    "Calder said that, even though a lot of politicians don't like continuing support of CERN, they have no choice. He said the uproar from scientists would make it nearly impossible for elected officials to stop funding CERN. It appears the same factors apply here and now to the ITER project."


    This reminds me the prescient farewell address of president Dwight D Eisenhower in early 1961:


    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

  • ITER is just a self service club of interested building and engineering companies.

    The Green Party in Germany .. opposes the allocation of German DM(eu:)) to fusion.

    Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, Member of the Bundestag pointed out

    "

    5.3 billion euros will be spent on nuclear research, with a lion's share for fusion.

    For everything else - networks, storage, energy efficiency, energy saving and energy turnaround -

    there is only a total of 5.9 billion euros.


    They have aked for independent assessment of ITER but its difficult to get independent.

    ITER is a money train for lots of nuclear and plasma physicists in research

    With the decline of uranium reactors ITER is the biggest game in town ..

    So it is hard to get independent opinion .

    but the Greens commissioned Michael Dittmar.. Swiss nuclear researcher to do one....


    https://ensser.org/wp-content/…r-project-2019-part-1.pdf


    Dittmarr concludes with two interpretations of the ITER situation.

    Either

    (1) The hard work of the nuclear fusion scientists from all around the planet, funded during
    the last 20 years with at least some 20 billion Euros, has experimentally proven beyond doubt
    that the Tokamak technology will not be the way to liberate fusion energy

    for the productionof electric energy;

    or
    (2) The claimed scientific understanding of nuclear fusion and its realisation for electric
    energy production using Tokamaks during the past decades was totally flawed and we finally
    have learned that it will always take 50 years before electric energy can be produced from the
    nuclear fusion processes on our planet


    There is no third criminality option ... but there is always ..

    ever-present human self-interest

    The Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (PACA) region contributed 0.467 billion eu

    and got back 1.4 billion in service and contracts... that was in 2014


    Sauvan: " there's clearly an information deficit on what ITER is really about."

    https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/1894


    "

    .

  • The argument of a former ITER project boss was simple: Lets spend them 1'000'000'000 and afterwards nobody will stop us to avoid loosing face.

    ITER is just a self service club of interested building and engineering companies. ITER at the and will not answer any new or old question of physics.


    Almost unbelievable...

    My grandmother always told me: "... Ehrlichkeit währt am längsten ..." or in English: "Honesty is the best policy"


    So I guess they will try to keep on going with this scheme forever or until decision makers are retired or dead.

    Anyway a big loss in resources and trust! Sad!


    They are probably already looking for a scapegoat?

  • I think Krivit overstates his case somewhat. It has always been clear to me that ITER was defining input and output carefully to make it look good. This is an experiment, after all, not a practical device. What the people at ITER are saying is somewhat similar to comparing input electrolysis power to output heat in a cold fusion device. The cold fusion number is interesting but it has no technological or practical significance because:


    We don't count the power going into the measurement instruments. I think this is similar to the ITER situation.

    We don't count the energy needed to form the Pd-D in the week before the device turns on. Again, this resembles ITER, on a different time scale.

    Power levels are far too low for anything like a thermoelectric device.

    The temperatures are so low Carnot efficiency is close to zero.

    An actual, practical device would need to be far better and different in countless ways. The same goes for ITER.


    I think there are bigger problems with ITER. The biggest one is that there is no method of generating electricity from the output, and no way to sustain the reaction for long periods without destroying the reactor. The radiation is so intense it would destroy any kind of boiler. The neutron absorbing blanket would not work. That is what I have heard.


    On the subject of plasma fusion versus conventional fission, see:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf


  • The green party is not yet fully integrated into the German/European self service mafia (also called service club mafia) and as long as some key figures are technical folks that are able to think and not to just to deal this will stay so.


    In fact you need no deep technical understanding to make a decision about ITER. > 20'000'000'000 money spoiled for 5 minutes energy production during the live time of these 20'000'000'000, This is still without any power to electricity conversion unit that will certainly drain/spoil a large part of the energy because direct conversions to electricity can be excluded due to the fact that most energy goes into neutrons. ITER is thus also lying about the energy out- coupling unit as it is nonsense they could use plasma to transfer heat as neutrons are not plasma!


    Of course ITER will make it into Guinness book with a new world record for the most expensive kwh produced ever...


    Technically ITER is the most dumb approach to do fusions. Already, during WWII, the Germans did research a much cleverer design that end of war has been "stolen" by the USA and was used to build the Lithium aka Hydrogen bomb. Any fusion process using more brain -- pinch field/compression with Lithium will be much more successful and completely harmless regarding the radiation.

    Of course LENR would be the best of all methods as it can be tuned to produce no harmful radiation!

  • Krivit's angle is that he has the scoop that no one else has..

    but many knowledgeable nuclear experts doubt the claims of ITER

    without going so far a to paint it as a scam


    eg Daniel Jassby ..Princeton ..

    https://thebulletin.org/2017/0…-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/


    the former director of CERN has an ambivalent attitude


    "The cost of wind and solar power has decreased faster than anyone could have dreamt. Meanwhile ITER

    has gone way over budget, partly because of the way that the project was set up and because it’s the first

    of a kind, but probably also because fusion reactors will be intrinsically more expensive that we thought a decade ago.


    ". I think we need to finish ITER and establish once and for all whether fusion really is a viable option '


    http://scgp.stonybrook.edu/archives/24923


    Achieving fusion Q ~10 for 10 minutes with ITER will happen long after 2050 IMHO..

    but apparently it has already been achieved by Mizuno




  • Bold push for new super-collider

    The CERN Council — the body that oversees the European particle-physics lab — has given a strong, if preliminary, endorsement for the building of a 100-kilometre successor to the Large Hadron Collider. CERN hopes to raise €21 billion (US$24 billion) to build its new circular machine, starting around 2038. It would collide electrons with positrons to produce myriad Higgs bosons and dissect their finer properties. The tunnel could later be reused for an even more powerful proton–proton collider that could, in principle, discover entirely new particles. The machine won over competitors, including a linear electron–positron collider and one that would accelerate muons instead.

    Nature | 5 min read

    Source: 2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics

  • The CERN Council — the body that oversees the European particle-physics lab — has given a strong, if preliminary, endorsement for the building of a 100-kilometre successor to the Large Hadron Collider. CERN hopes to raise €21 billion (US$24 billion) to build its new circular machine, starting around 2038.


    CERN uses the same business model as ITER to cheat the public and the governments. Also both do found their logic on an obviously wrong stone age physics model.


    The only thing CERN sees and measures are proton resonances. There is no Higgs particle as the found energy exactly matches the 4D proton resonance.


    CERN is also supported by a self decorating circle of physicists that promote their own fellows "nonsensical models" with a nobel medal. These folks simply are disgusting!

  • From the ITER Home page https://www.iter.org/



    Fusion, the nuclear reaction that powers the Sun and the stars, is a potential source of safe, non-carbon emitting and virtually limitless energy. Harnessing fusion's power is the goal of ITER, which has been designed as the key experimental step between today's fusion research machines and tomorrow's fusion power plants.


    It's always good to start a story with the biggest possible lie. Or - may be we are still on fairy tale ground.

    Once upon a time, after 1'000'000'000'000'000'000 $ spent we finally can confirm that what?? the fusion in the SUN is safe! Except that you will need some sun cream or a more hard core protection unit...


    Or black skin cancer is a safe end.

  • More ITER hype.. via Krivit


    "The excitement is palpable,....

    Q= 10 by 2035... ..The hype is palpable..?


    "

    Progress to make fusion a reality has been immense.

    The ‘triple product’ of density, temperature and confinement time

    grew exponentially between the 1950s and early 2000s, by a factor of 1,000,000 (one million).

    With yet another small increase in triple product, by a factor of 2 or higher, the reactor will produce net energy.


    The large international ITER tokamak, under construction in France,

    is designed to start operations in 2025,

    and it will produce net power by 2035.

    Specifically, it will produce 500 MW of fusion power,

    amounting to 10x the power injected in the plasma to keep it hot."


    https://www.powerengineeringin…s-enter-race-for-the-sun/


    I read a 2011 roadmap which showed ITER with Q>10 starting ..2020...????

  • The large international ITER tokamak, under construction in France,

    is designed to start operations in 2025,

    and it will produce net power by 2035.

    Specifically, it will produce 500 MW of fusion power,

    amounting to 10x the power injected in the plasma to keep it hot."


    This original claim has been exactly fine tuned & worded to cheat politics and the people. Krivit already did debunk it! The 50MW that go into the plasma need an awful amount of energy to be produced. So 50MW is not the input energy it is just the tiny part that can be used for plasma heating. Some other energy is used to cool the coils.


    A far more serious point is the modelling of the energy generation - plasma interaction - that did show radial instabilities that cannot be handled with the current design.


    It is easy to guess - that, when they fire ITER - it will become one big https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Luginb%C3%BChl event. They will only need 5 minutes to entirely blow up 30'000'000'000$ !

  • The 50MW that go into the plasma need an awful amount of energy to be produced. So 50MW is not the input energy it is just the tiny part that can be used for plasma heating. Some other energy is used to cool the coils.


    I get that, but as I said, it seems a little unfair. This is a large scale physics experiment. To account for all of the energy misses the point of the physics. Take a cold fusion experiments with 5 W of electrochemical input and 6 W of heat output. That's 1 W excess. Suppose it takes 50 W for the power supply, and 200 W for the computers. Would you say there is no excess heat because total input starting at the mains plug is 250 W? That is not a fair evaluation. It is also technically inaccurate because even when you look at it that way, there is still 1 W of excess heat. If you could put the whole experiment into a large, super-precise calorimeter, you would see 250 W input, 251 W output. If you could put the entire ITER machine into a giant calorimeter, it would show excess as well. As a percent of input it would be lower than they claim when they only account for the 50 MW that makes it into the reactor, but there would still be overall excess.

  • I get that, but as I said, it seems a little unfair. This is a large scale physics experiment. To account for all of the energy misses the point of the physics.


    This argument is OK. It doesn't matter anyway as they will definitely blow up the whole facility if they run a hot D/T fusion experiment for five minutes.


    ITER simply is outraging nonsense but fancy techniques and a lot of $$$ for friends and parties. Wendelstein - the current best plasma (fusion-) machine - could run a non active plasma for 20 seconds. An active one will blow up/damage the containment ceramics in less than a second due to radial instabilities produced by the fusion energy output.


    If you could put the entire ITER machine into a giant calorimeter, it would show excess as well. As a percent of input it would be lower than they claim when they only account for the 50 MW that makes it into the reactor, but there would still be overall excess.


    Of course there will be excess energy. Also when I eat an apple... But we do not need just excess energy we need energy production without the fall out of 1000ds of Hiroshima bombs.


    I do not know which idiot invented the term clean fusion energy ...