ITER the criminal history of todays physics

Quote from fabrice DAVID

Yes. My teacher Jean-Pierre Petit published a work on an extraordinary and dangerous phenomenon observed in tokamaks called "disruptions".

A "disruption" is the sudden transformation of magnetic energy stored in the plasma into a relativistic electron beam with an intensity of the order of one kiloampere.

We don't really know what causes these “disruption”, but we know that the beam makes beautiful holes in the coating of the torus. There is a lot of theoretical and experimental work to be done.

Of course, this is a remarkable weapon, which would have pleased William Shatner and Leonard Nymoy very much. You just need to be able to trigger the phenomenon at will, and to provide ports in the wall of the torus to direct the focused beam towards the target. No problem for maintaining focus at long distance: at these huge intensities, the beam is self-focused!

So thermonuclear reactors could both constitute the defense system of a spacecraft, and also their propellants.

It is unlikely that the generation of electricity in this way of the tokamak will be to be profitable in the near future, compared with the sun who is a natural fusion generator located 150 million miles and which radiates 1 kilowatt per square meter on the scrubland of Cadarache. OK, that's true, and Steven Krivits has done a very good work to fight this nuclear propaganda.

But this is not the fusion reactor as a power plant that interests me. Watch a tokamak reactor placed on the Provencal country : it looks like an albatross on the ground, heavy and clumsy. Its giant copper’s wings prevent it from flying. Put it in low orbit and you will see a sailboat in the air: no more thick wall to resist the vacuum (of course), no more cooling device cumbersome and complicated: a blackened shell that radiates freely into space to the rear. No more iron core even heavier: we choose a different geometry, like U mirror type. No more heavy structure of steel and concrete: we will use self-supporting superconducting coils. No more pumping device heavy and complicated (of course, because we will be in the vacuum!) No more pollution problems of the plasma: the leakage magnetic mirrors will be located to the rear, ejecting heavy ions at relativistic speeds. The trick is to open wide the fusion chamber to the rear, to avoid as much as possible that the fusion products have time to interact with the walls. We will only put a reflector neutron liquid lithium in the direction of the cabin, leaving the contrary, fast neutrons and neutrons reflected by the reflector launch into space on the other side and adding their momentum to momentum of the ions. If we add the pressure of the plasma ions, neutrons, the momentum of the light radiated by the plasma and infrared radiators, it should be fairly easily reach several million pounds of thrust, which would put all the planets of solar system a few weeks or months of space travel. After several decades of improvement, it should be possible to build engines giving a much higher thrust, in the order of a thousand tons. (For the record, the four reactors of the new Airbus 380 developing 160 tons of thrust. If we are not able to do at least ten times better with the fusion technology, it's better for us to make rubber band plane toys!)

A sloop of 2000 tons moved by a fusion reactor of 2000 ton of thrust could have accelerated 9.81m/s2, and achieve nearly the speed of light in about a year, while providing the crew with an artificial equivalent of gravity of the earth, except during the downturn, mid-term.

A trip to the planets of Centauri, Barnard's or Sirius would take a decade, but much less for the crew, traveling in contracted time for much of the trip, as Einstein has shown there is just one hundred and ten years.

That does it not bother to sacrifice some money to open the Stargate? That is why we must build the ITER reactor.

Display More

Very eloquent and clever defense of Sakharov’s initial inspiration for developing hot fusion in Tokamak style reactors, fabrice DAVID ! But now even Holmlid entered the “ITER bashing crew” and says that muon catalyzed fusion can also and more safely power spacecrafts, as you can read here:

RE: New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid

Krivit's finds a Physicist to help him make ITER suffer even more:

https://news.newenergytimes.ne…iter-organization-claims/

Quote from Shane D.

Krivit's finds a Physicist to help him make ITER suffer even more:

https://news.newenergytimes.ne…iter-organization-claims/

Is good to read it coming from one apparently inside the project. This is basically a complaint from the technical department to the marketing department to “keep it real”. The only problem is that it reveals that the whole promise of sustainable hot fusion is decades and billions away, if ever.

AlainCo don't be sad. I think a much better approach exists for Hot Fusion, that could be developped at a fraction of the research cost of ITER. The fact that is not being actively pursued speaks volumes, and I speculate that the reasons behind this disparity of favoring a much complex approach instead of a much simpler and relatively easier to engineer one, comes from the general idea that an easy and non multi billion expensive approach to hot fusion is within the reach of many, and that's a deterrent factor for the hegemonic powers to don't pursue this other approach.

Attached I am enclosing a 1998 Scientific American Paper that touted this approach, and a 2006 paper that basically confirms that all expectances of the 1998 paper are met or even exceeded. And we are 14 years later still wondering why billions are spent on ITER instead of Z pinch ICF approach.

Quote from StevenBKrivit

Thank you Wyttenbach and LENR fans for reading my ITER investigation. I regret that I am unable to participate in the online discussion here. However, I would like to extend an invitation to you. I am working on a new project regarding ITER. For those of you who have been following my ITER investigation, particularly in the last few months, are there any questions you have that my investigation has not yet answered? I will do my best to ensure they are answered in the forthcoming project. You can contact me through my contact page at NET.

Thank you, Steven

P.S. In the end, only honest science will succeed. LENR will eventually be recognized and such and come through.

Dear BG;/dj8~ , Thanks for your comment, many here have read your publications for years.

Perhaps I would ask you to read a preprint from Leif Holmlid currently under open review available here:

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-97208/v1

I think Holmlid’s approach to nuclear energy reactions needs to be more widely known to highlight the lunacy of ITER.

Hi Steven. I have just upgraded your membership to 'verified, and, thanks for popping in.

Newly published documentary of Steven Krivit about ITER, nothing new for us LENRists but I think this will be a good reference material. Krivit is very good at going to sources and exposing facts.

Quote from JedRothwell

I agree he is good at going to sources, but I think he is terribly confused about the way scientists describe these results. When the scientists say "fusion power" they mean the power produced by the reaction. Krivit keeps saying they should refer to the net useful power of the reactor. Since the reactors produce no useful power at all -- not one watt! -- net useful power is zero. Everyone knows this. The same thing applies to cold fusion. So, I cannot understand why Krivit thinks this is confusion, or why he thinks the researchers are being deceptive.

This goes for the other points he critiques in this video and in his papers, such as the role of input power needed to sustain the reaction, and the method of accounting for it. He is comparing apples to oranges. He is confusing things which other people do not confuse, as far as I know. The intended meaning of the plasma fusion papers and press releases is 100% clear to me. What the researchers say is clear, but what Krivit says is sometimes mixed up. He has often said the reactions produce no excess energy because output is lower than the input sustaining power. That's wrong. Net output is positive, with excess, since it includes input power. It all converts to heat. That's entropy for ya'.

Perhaps it is disappointing that plasma fusion has never produced useful energy. Perhaps it is a little deceptive that the plasma fusion plans for converting plasma energy to useful electricity are vague at best, and probably unworkable at worst. But I do not think the plasma fusion researchers are trying to bamboozle the public or the Congress by misrepresenting the power (or energy) from their experiments with useful energy in the form of electricity.

Along similar lines, conventional fossil fuel plant operators and fission plant operators often refer to "MWe" (megawatt electric) and "MWt" (or MWth -- megawatt thermal). MWe range from 30% to 60% of MWt, depending on Carnot efficiency. That is not a bit confusing. Both measures are useful.

Display More

I disagree that Krivit is being confused about how physicists present the information.

He is clearly focused on the misleading language that has been repeatedly and consistently used to promote and gain support for the multi million mega projects of Fusion, and that is aimed towards non specialists, politicians and the public in general, which ends being misled. I think this is the clear purpose of this documentary, to highlight that misleading speech and set the record straight. And I think it succeeds at it.