ITER the criminal history of todays physics

Quote from Curbina

JedRothwell , you can address your concerns about clarity of the statements directly to StevenBKrivit by contacting him in his page. I sure did, and he has been forthcoming after that.

I talked with him about it, long ago.

I don't want to make a mountain out of molehill. He is entitled to his opinion. He is confused by this, and maybe other people are too. Is anyone here confused by the terms "power" and "energy" in plasma fusion papers? Do you think Krivit has a valid point?

It bothers me a little because I as I see it, he is actually helping the plasma fusion people. He is making groundless accusations against them. He is handing them a stick they can beat us with. I don't like the plasma fusion people, and I don't want to give them any advantages.

Quote from Curbina

He is addressing the issue from the point of view of the general public, and how the language of the marketing to that general public has been crafted to be at best imprecise, and at worst deceptive, and how the positive perception of that language by the general public has been used as a leverage by the pushers of ITER to pressure the non specialists involved in the decision making process of funding it.

Perhaps the public is confused by this. I wouldn't know; I have not taken a poll of the public. But I do not see how we can blame the ITER researchers for this confusion. They are using the terms correctly. There are no other terms for them to use. I have mainly read their technical documents and not much of what they write for the general public, but I just don't see an effort by them to confuse the public or make anyone think ITER will produce useful energy.

As I said in this thread above, they have been evasive about various technical issues such as how they plan to convert plasma into electricity. Also, about what they will do with all that irradiated machinery. They have claimed this produces less radiation than fission. A LANL study found that plasma fusion is not inherently less dangerous than fission. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf) So, there are various technical issues we can use against them, but this "power" issue is not one of them.

Frankly, Krivit's use of the term "zero watts" sounds to me like he is trying to confuse the issue. He is worse than the ITER people. "Zero watts" is a distortion.

Hi Jed,

I have been asked to respond to some of your comments. I will respond once and then I will be done here for the time being. If participants in this list have questions for me about my film, I invite them to contact me directly and I will respond. The nature of your comments about me here are consistent as they have been for much of the 20 years that we have known each other. But you were already established when I was a newcomer to "cold fusion." And when I made contributions to the field, when I received philanthropic support, was invited to contribute to mainstream encyclopedias, was invited to write review papers for journals, gave talks at international conferences, tackled the opponents head-on, and was quoted in the news media, you were always there to snip and snipe. So your behavior here is nothing new or mysterious nor do I ever expect it to change.

For the benefit of others here who are perplexed at your behavior, Jet is silly, at best, to impute that I do not know the difference between power and energy. Jed is taking phrases out context, and doing so dishonestly. Yes, of course, the 700 MW that went into JET had to go somewhere. JET of course produced net power if you account for the lost power used to operate the machine. Jed knows this and most of you on this list also understand that. But my audience is the public. They are not as adept in understanding the laws of conservation of mass/energy as you are. Furthermore, the context of the net power discussion in my articles and film is not about physics measurements or conservation laws. It is in the context of the multi-decade promises by magnetic confinement fusion researchers of a reactor that will finally produce net power.

If Jed has actually watched the film, he would know this. If Jed did watch the film, then he is knowingly and grossly distorting the matter. Nothing new for him. Furthermore on the context of net power: Who in the world would imagine that anybody would or could throw a "blanket" over an entire nuclear fusion reactor and recover that 700 MWe input? Jed and Abd are the only people in the world who seem to think so. So for the public conversation, which is my focus, that lost operating power is irrelevant and inapplicable.

The only recoverable power that plasma physicists ever discuss is first-wall thermal capture and divertor capture. So Jed is just making a lot of noise here, he's not helping anyone, and he's certainly not helping to distinguish between honest science and dishonest science.

Keep in mind that while Jed ignorantly suggests that I have made groundless accusations about the representatives of the magnetic fusion community, in response to my work and my letters, they have made corrections and removed false claims all over the XXXXX world. http://news.newenergytimes.net…se-misleading-iter-claims

There are enough smart people on this list who can understand Jed's vindictiveness, see through his nonsense, and recognize his troll-like behavior. But if anyone wants to see some of Jed's history, they can look here

https://news.newenergytimes.ne…gainst-new-lenr-textbook/ and pay particular attention to the article “The Serpent’s Tooth and Its Egg (Or: How the Stupid Are So Often Malicious)"

Warm regards,

Steven

Quote from StevenBKrivit

tackled the opponents head-on, and was quoted in the news media, you were always there to snip and snipe. So your behavior here is nothing new or mysterious nor do I ever expect it to change

No true. I feature one of your books on the front page of LENR-CANR.org, and the other four in the books page. (https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=506) You can't ask for better promotion than that. You, Ed Storms and Mike McKubre are among the few I have given a prominent place on the site. I have also uploaded every document you asked me to, and I have frequently pointed out when you were right, such as in your judgement of Rossi.

It seems you will not take "yes" for an answer, or you don't recognize complements and support when they are offered.

Quote from StevenBKrivit

For the benefit of others here who are perplexed at your behavior, Jet is silly, at best, to impute that I do not know the difference between power and energy.

I said nothing like that. It is obvious you know the difference. Who doesn't? That's middle school physics. What you say is that the ITER people are deliberately mixing them up, or obscuring them. I don't see them doing that, but perhaps other people do. You also say that tokamaks produce "zero watts." That's just plain wrong. You are redefining power to mean something it does not, which is what you accuse the plasma fusion scientists of doing.

I don't need to see the video. I read your books. And uploaded positive reviews of them, as did Ed Storms. Again, you won't take "yes" for an answer. You -- and Russ George -- need to learn how to tell friends from enemies.

Quote from StevenBKrivit

The only recoverable power that plasma physicists ever discuss is first-wall thermal capture and divertor capture.

I am not familiar with the term "recoverable" power, but power is power, whether you can use it or not. Waste heat is not usable but it is energy. None of the excess power from cold fusion can be used for anything. Which I guess means it is not recoverable. But it is power, and it would be unfair to say cold fusion produces zero watts because power is too low, or the temperatures are too low, or input power is too high. It is a physics experiment, not a generator. So is ITER.

Quote from StevenBKrivit

Keep in mind that while Jed ignorantly suggests that I have made groundless accusations about the representatives of the magnetic fusion community, in response to my work and my letters, they have made corrections and removed false claims all over the fucking world. http://news.newenergytimes.net…se-misleading-iter-claims

You both seem confused. Quoting your report:

"On Thursday, the EUROfusion organization went further in its corrections than the ITER organization. Until Thursday, both organizations claimed on their Web sites that ITER would be the first fusion device to produce a net surplus of energy. EUROfusion removed that statement yesterday, as well. Instead, the EUROfusion organization’s JET page now says that the DEMO reactor, which is planned to succeed ITER, is expected to produce a net surplus of energy."

All fusion reactors always produce a net surplus of energy. Every fusion experiment in history has produced a net surplus. All successful cold fusion experiments do, as well. It has sometimes been a negligible surplus compared to input power, and it has never been of any practical use, but it has always been a net surplus. Fusion reactions are never endothermic.

I cannot imagine what either of you are talking about saying this or that experiment was "the first" to produce "a net surplus." Given this weird statement, perhaps I should agree with you that someone at ITER is trying to confuse the issue. Perhaps this was just inadvertent confusion from someone who writes press releases instead of scientific papers. It does not seem like an effort to bamboozle the readers. I don't know what to make of it, but I don't pay attention to PR announcements from ITER. The only thing I have read are their scientific papers, and I don't see any confusion in them. Perhaps I have not looked carefully enough.

Perhaps the term "net surplus" means the output power level exceeds the input power level. Say, input is 1.0 MW, total output 2.1 MW, net surplus 1.1 MW. It that what it means? I do not see why this makes any difference. It seems irrelevant to both plasma fusion and cold fusion. Input power is easily measured, and can be subtracted. Even if input is 1.0 MW and total output is 1.001 MW, that is still excess. It is still measurable. The scientific significance of it is probably the same as 2.1 MW. The conclusions regarding theory and future technology are the same. If the experiment works, the ratios can be improved later on. I do not understand why anyone talks about the ratios in cold fusion. They have no scientific significance. The input power does not cause the output. It is not an amplification effect. Anyone can think of ways to change the ratio.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Jed you once more miss Carnot...

The equation is clear: Electricity in versus electricity out. Else you can use this brain dead fusion machine (ITER) just for a short heating phase

Do you think I don't know that?

Carnot efficiency is not relevant to a physics experiment. The Carnot efficiency of most cold fusion experiments is terrible. They are far too cool and the power level is too low. They are hundreds of times too inefficient to be self-sustaining, never mind to produce useful energy. That has absolutely no relevance to the scientific significance of the experiments. The same is true of ITER. If the researchers can make it work, and learn how to control it, they can probably then go on to achieve any reasonable Carnot efficiency. That's only a matter of engineering -- as scientists are wont to say.

I still do not know what "net surplus" means, but all discussions of power levels, Carnot efficiency, absolute power, and useful power are absurd in the context of a physics experiment. Whether it is plasma fusion or cold fusion, these things have no meaning and should not be considered in evaluating the results. Many critics of cold fusion have demanded things like "enough heat to boil a cup of tea" or "a COP high enough to be practical." Such demands are idiotic. The first nuclear reaction detected by the Curies produced 12 mW, but no one doubted it was real, and everyone saw instantly that it could not be a chemical reaction, because the energy far exceeded the limits of chemistry. The first sustained fission reactor, the Chicago Pile 1, produced about 1 W. No one said, "that's not enough to be significant." Everyone understood it would probably soon lead to the development of a fission bomb that would produce a 10 or 20 kiloton explosion. The scale of a physics experiment, the ratios, and the efficiency have nothing remotely to do with the scientific significance of the experiment.

Also, by the way, this is not a COP. That's a misuse of the term. It is a ratio. It could easily be changed, but it makes no difference whatever, so why go to the trouble to change it?

Quote from Curbina

For the sake of the argument ongoing on this thread, this screenshot was taken directly from the http://www.iter.org, so it’s their words.

Is there something wrong with those words? Is this a misrepresentation? I quibble with the term "amplification." It is not an amplifier any any technical sense. The input is not directly converted to output. There is no fixed ratio between input and output. As in cold fusion, they could improve the ratio, but there would be no point. As far as I know, it would not improve the precision, accuracy, or any other aspect of the experiment.

I see that term "net energy" here. As I said, it is not clear to me what it means. Assuming it means what I speculate about above -- output minus input being greater than input -- then it is a trivial matter. I don't see why they mention it, but I see no harm. It is a little annoying, as are the discussions of the cold fusion ratios. It is like discussing the size of the machine: "the largest and most powerful fusion device." That's nothing to brag about. The experimental results would be just as significant if the gadget fit on a desktop, like a cold fusion experiment. It would be a lot cheaper too!

Decades ago they built large, heavy, dangerous machines to test materials under extreme pressure. These were expensive gadgets, and they had to be put behind heavy plate glass windows in case the sample exploded. Nowadays, researchers achieve far higher pressure by putting tiny samples into a diamond anvil, where all of the mechanical pressure you need can be supplied by hand, turning a screw. It is much smaller, simpler, and way cheaper. The scientific significance of the experiments is not reduced because the gadget is simple, small, and low powered (hand powered). Those parameters are irrelevant. "Net energy" and various ratios are irrelevant to the scientific purpose of ITER.

Quote from Curbina

The wording was changed some time afterwards most likely because of Krivit’s efforts to point out the misleading language.

How is this misleading? And how did they improve it? I have not been following the story closely, and I do not see what document the text in this image is linked to in Krivit's site.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Do you also account just for the sparc as the input energy of a Otto motor ??

Sure. What else would it be? The fact that the spark plug energy is supplied by the motor itself means the motor is self-sustaining, but it is still input energy. A fuel pump also counts as input power to the motor, in my opinion.

Friction in the transmission or differential are not energy input to the motor. They are overhead. Transmission and distribution (T&D) losses from an electric generator to your house are not input energy. They are also overhead losses. None of the energy from T&D losses goes back into the generator, unlike the spark plug.

In an electrochemical cold fusion experiment, electrolysis is input power to the experiment. Where the experiment is installed in a flow calorimeter, I would not include the power to the pumps as input power or overhead. That energy is used to measure the reaction, not to generate the reaction or sustain it. It does not count.

Electrolysis power is not directly linked to output in any sense. It is used to create and then sustain the Nuclear Active Environment (as Storms calls it). The input power does not convert to output, and it is not amplified. It does not directly modulate or control output. It can be turned off for a while and output will continue. The flame in a steam engine boiler can also be turned off for a while, but it is the direct source of energy, which is quite unlike electrolysis power.

Quote from Alan Smith

Oh yes it does. It needs to be accounted for since moving fluid creates heat. But, all things being equal it is accounted for in control experiments.

Good point. Okay, the power used to run the A/D converter probably does not count. I doubt any of that reaches the cell. I guess the power going into a thermistor should also be counted as input.

The ITER organisation uses a large amount of toilet paper.. en Provence

it is 'full of souffle "

which adds significantly to the cost of research

Quote from Curbina

I agree that the issue of “power” and “energy” among us, that are permanently studying and updating our knowledge in the topic, is not confusing at all. I think Krivit is also not confused at all by it.

I agree that he is not confused by it. Which is why I cannot understand why he thinks the ITER people are using the terms incorrectly, or in a deceptive fashion. He understands, so why does he say the ITER people do not understand?

Krivit seems to be saying that some members of the public think that "power" means electric power, so ITER is bamboozling them. ITER can't help it if members of the public do not understand middle-school science. Krivit also seems to be saying that excess power only counts when it exceeds the level of input power; i.e. total output has to exceed 2 times input or it doesn't count. I think that is what he means. That is an arbitrary standard. It has no scientific basis. It would not improve the quality of the data or make the experiments more believable. I cannot see any reason for it. 1.2 times input is just as persuasive as 2.0, or 5.0, or 1.001 (with the kinds of instruments they use at ITER).

A ratio of 2.1 would not be appreciably closer to a practical device than 1.001 would be. I think you have to have something like 30 times input to make a practical source of energy. No one claims ITER is remotely practical. For many reasons, mainly: the ratio is much too low; there is no practical way to convert the output into electricity; the reactor is too big and expensive; and the whole machine quickly transforms into a pile of radioactive hazardous material.

Depressing article about ITER:

https://www.scientificamerican…ble-new-documents-reveal/

World’s Largest Fusion Project Is in Big Trouble, New Documents Reveal

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is already billions of dollars over budget and decades behind schedule. Not even its leaders can say how much more money and time it will take to complete

By Charles Seife on June 15, 2023

It could be a new world record, although no one involved wants to talk about it. In the south of France, a collaboration among 35 countries has been birthing one of the largest and most ambitious scientific experiments ever conceived: the giant fusion power machine known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). But the only record ITER seems certain to set doesn’t involve “burning” plasma at temperatures 10 times higher than that of the sun’s core, keeping this “artificial star” ablaze and generating net energy for seconds at a time or any of fusion energy’s other spectacular and myriad prerequisites. Instead ITER is on the verge of a record-setting disaster as accumulated schedule slips and budget overruns threaten to make it the most delayed—and most cost-inflated—science project in history. . . .

Quote from JedRothwell

Depressing article about ITER:

https://www.scientificamerican…ble-new-documents-reveal/

World’s Largest Fusion Project Is in Big Trouble, New Documents Reveal

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is already billions of dollars over budget and decades behind schedule. Not even its leaders can say how much more money and time it will take to complete

By Charles Seife on June 15, 2023

It could be a new world record, although no one involved wants to talk about it. In the south of France, a collaboration among 35 countries has been birthing one of the largest and most ambitious scientific experiments ever conceived: the giant fusion power machine known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). But the only record ITER seems certain to set doesn’t involve “burning” plasma at temperatures 10 times higher than that of the sun’s core, keeping this “artificial star” ablaze and generating net energy for seconds at a time or any of fusion energy’s other spectacular and myriad prerequisites. Instead ITER is on the verge of a record-setting disaster as accumulated schedule slips and budget overruns threaten to make it the most delayed—and most cost-inflated—science project in history. . . .

Display More

I copied this post in this thread because I wanted to comment further on this.

I have had no faith at all in the ITER project for years and that was simply for the flawed science behind it, but what this article poins out simply is outrageous, as not even the science is being the problem but the technical capacity to build the machine.

This is the monstruosity of pursuing goals based in “consensus science” with complicity of politicians without regards for all the opposing voices.