Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

In case you were having too good of a day and wanted more rocks in the "we're doomed" bucket...

Stumbled on this lunacy advertised in asinine comments on a Zap Energy LinkedIn announcement:

https://www.quantumkinetics.co/

This reeks of satire (like good god, who would fall for this?) but videos of not-inexpensive hardware and links to the person's books for purchase indicate otherwise. The "inventor" has a full LinkedIn profile with job history and "Quantum Kinetic" updates.

Unfortunately the word "fusor" shows up among the rambling, so here we are.
Attachments
Screenshot 2024-04-23 223437.png
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

Oh wow! The usual. A lot of graphics with no form of in depth data. An Arc sediment generator? Isotope alteration? Gravity? How did that get in there? I am waiting for this device to show up in a blister pack at walmart, then, maybe I'll take notice.

It is nice to think someone is excited about this.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Yeah, this one showed up in my Google Alerts yesterday, too:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/climate ... akthrough/
Funded by oil and gas giant Chevron and the Bill Gates-founded Breakthrough Energy, scientists at US company Zap are among many trying to make this work on Earth.
Also

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-tra ... -1-1632487
Zap said in a press release on Tuesday that its unique approach, known as a sheared-flow-stabilised Z pinch, has now blasted past this milestone – achieving temperatures roughly equivalent to 11 to 37 million degrees Celsius.

“This feat is a key hurdle for fusion systems,” said Zap, claiming that its Z pinch reactor is the “simplest, smallest and lowest cost device to have achieved it.”


PT Barnum would be pleased.

Too bad nobody has a trademark on 'fusor' so that it can't be misappropriated as it was here.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Also, I think we get some idea here why Bill Gates might be so anxious to get fusion energy online:

Microsoft Reportedly Building ‘Stargate' to Transport OpenAI Into the Future

https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-building- ... 1851375210
Stargate....could take up several hundred acres of land, and require up to 5 gigawatts of power.
Good luck with that, Bill.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

Skynet is effectively being assembled by the private sector and will be taken over by the government to keep it from being misapplied.
As for fusion, those who have millions to burn have little knowledge of fusion and are advised by the fusion hopefuls who, no matter what, always say, "Let's do it. It seems like a great idea!"

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Zap is still making the rounds.

This article showed up in my Google Alerts this morning:

https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/ ... ommercial/

... and I find the embedded Zap promo video quite persuasive:

https://youtu.be/7kwDV10b0oc?si=vKmvIvyxIxvm4S8H

🤣
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

What I saw on their demo was a zap flash. (in the pan). More putt putt boat fusion attempts. Let's heat electrons. Seems plasma temps are out and electron temps are in. At least they are operating in the small, but with zero reported fusion at any level. They join Helion in "kit visible", but also no fusion demonstrated. I am sure they are funded well by some source that is looking for a tax break in write-offs while, at the same time, looking like they care about and are investing in future energy.

For many, temperature is the thing. Fusion....Well....Get the right temperature and fusion will follow. I now ask, how long can you generate and hold that magic much sought after temperature? If in bursts, how many bursts per second and at what RMS energy level can the burst deliver? Don't fool us with claims of peak energy per burst of 2+ megajoules. Those of us who know, really know, that you can't do that at a 1mhz PRR.

We are employed and will muddle on, making it up as we go along. (Nice work, if you can get it.)


Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

The stuff of the original post has made it into Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00179-w
https://www.pnnl.gov/publications/reson ... rification

The 2nd author is a researcher at PNNL specializing in environmental biogeochemistry and so does not seem to be qualified to separate fact from fiction on the physics front.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

And it appears somebody wants a trademark for...
Quantum Kinetic Fusor™
I'm no IP expert, but it seems to me like that's not gonna fly because at least a third of the expression has been in the public domain for decades.
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

The article re: Nature, is stunning and smacks of a special case of cold fusion. I note in the references they give papers from many cold fusion workers, among them, Bockris. Brockis was a very professional electrochemist and was rather mistreated at his own university. (A tale all its own)

It seems cold fusion is still out there. A lot of work is still showing up related to it.

As some here might know, I was always fascinated with the concept, but personally never felt it would be a source of energy. However, I found the spectrographic post experiment materials to be fascinating. If there were not so many reputable people doing work in this area, I would have accepted, as so many have, that such work is trivial and going nowhere. The idea of transmutation of elements via electrochemistry in any form goes against all I have learned. Yet I remain open and forever curious.

As I have noted, hot fusion is just about where cold fusion is right now. No place where useful energy is being produced. I know and have done fusion via the acceptable path. No arguments there. We do hot fusion via random events in a maelstrom of plasma by the grace of quantum tunneling. Our work is fully controlled in nature as we control the process via pressure, containment, and energy input. It is just about the worst possible way to do hot fusion. We roll the dice by the billions per second and accept 99.99999% coming up snake eyes. We are happy to parse out a pitiful few fusion wins for our effort. This makes us profligate spenders of money/energy at the table to take what little we get out of the effort.

I had no expectation, being the first to do fusion here, of any great advances or breakthroughs in any effort here at fusor.net. I wanted neutrons and I got them. I did activation with them and resolved to merely be a teacher of sorts in the amateur fusion effort. I knew within 4 years at the effort that my original idea of how the fusor worked was just a wrong headed wish. So, I learned as well here, what fusion was and what it wasn't and how worthless power ready fusion was being pursued. I quickly relegated power fusion to a joke perpetrated on the public by the ever hopeful, yet well meaning scientists pursuing this gold ring. Having evermore knowledgeable eyes, I see many hucksters and "make busy" efforts fouling what is an undeniable, noble goal.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Richard Hull wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 4:07 am I knew within 4 years at the effort that my original idea of how the fusor worked was just a wrong headed wish.
Umm, Richard, what was the 'original idea' that turned out to be so 'wrong headed' ?

--P
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

I originally bought into the common belief that fusion took place at the star. Totally wrong headed. I supported this idea, more or less from 1997-2001. While it wasn't a dogma, it just seemed logical. Wrongo!

Even after abandoning the fusion star fallacy, I still felt that the fusion process in the fusor was somewhat simplistic. ( No!! The construction and operation is simplistic!!)

We live and we learn. I know I did. Study in depth and reviewing the excellent work of U of W showed that fusion took place over the entire volume of the simple fusor and very little occurred at the much hailed star. I figured that velocity space was the key and added in wall absorbed deuterium to the mix The great realization came when I came to accept that we did not a have a pure deuteron plasma environment, but were dealing with at least 4 different modalities of collisional fusion. Then came the concept of quantum tunneling and the realization that you did not necessarily need fusion energies in particle collisions to do fusion.

Fusion in the fusor is a mixed bedlam of particle collisions of high and low probability of doing fusion and the vast majority of collisions were wall collisions which just make the fusor a big heat source. (Thus, the billion to one net loss of electrical energy to the wall!) The simple fusor does fusion based on brute force and represents the worst application of fusion science possible in a directed effort. All of this is presented and explained in many posts, 2001- to present.

The star is just a very pretty and notable aspect of the device that is unavoidable due to its construction. Most all of the fusion is not done in or at the star!

Anyone constantly reading and learning here has come to understand this fully and completely. In the time period 1998-2004 the old boys learned this lesson well. We all learned together by doing and paying heavy attention to fusion theory and the superlative work done in the simple fusor of U of W.

Again, you had to get immersed in the forums and one quickly lost that blush of innocence from knowing just enough to think you know what it is all about. As Frank notes: There is a curve in learning and we fell from that initial peak of knowing it all related to the "star" to fall precipitously into realizing just how little we knew. This began the long climb upward to a less than romantic view of the fusor as we discovered how fusion really takes place and all the issues involved. The bloom was off the lily, so to speak. However, I got my neutrons and that was what I was after. On the way up that long learning curve, I now know a lot about fusion and many issues surrounding it. Whatsmore, a lot of others here who sought knowledge about fusion became savvy in the fusion arena. The result, for me, is that I know "fusion crap" when someone tries to feed it to me. Too bad others are ignorant of many issues regarding fusion. Such ignorance allows a lot of hucksterism and douchebaggery to lure some to believe in all manner of false fusion schemes.

To sum up, the star is pretty but isn't related to the bulk of fusion in our fusor. We figured all this out 20 years ago. Sorry if this blows your concept of how a fusor does fusion. Of course, you can still use the star in a jar expression as some small amount of fusion is done there.

It is only these forums that have been a beacon to those hungry to deeply understand the fusion process, not only in the fusor, but in any fusion system.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Frightful that meandering world salad was accepted by NPL. The various claims are absurd and the method while certainly does remove waste makes secondary claims throughout the paper that are utterly false. Bizarre this was published using the insanely irrelevant claims in many parts of the text. I'd say I have no words except I just did. So take some real (through hardly useful) data on a real (through stupidly named device), add as much word salad as possible and make utterly false statements and that is published?
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
User avatar
Rich Gorski
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:34 pm
Real name: Rich Gorski
Location: Illinois

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Rich Gorski »

Just a thought on the fusor as a heat source as Richard described above...we have two particle species heating up the chamber.
1. Electrons accelerated to the chamber wall (X-rays)
and
2. Positive ions accelerated to the negative cathode.
Does this mean the power (Watts) from the main negative PSU is evenly divided between the cathode and the wall of the chamber?

So where are fusion events likely to take place in a typical fusor?
Positive D2 ions should end up with near zero energy as they approach the wall of the chamber so my thought is little or no fusion takes place at the chamber wall. Positive ions likely have maximum energy as they impact the negative cathode electrode. So some fusion (maybe most?) should happen in the D2 that is absorbed into the cathode material. D2 ions that don't impact the cathode have some probability of having a fusion reaction somewhere along their acceleration path between the wall and the negative cathode or as they pass into the interior of the cathode where the star forms.

I would love to see a simulation/analysis where one could plot the fusion events per cubic centimeter over the entire volume of a typical fusor. Where would the peak of this three dimensional plot be? I suspect the peak would occur either at the center of the negative cathode or at the cathode itself. However in terms of total fusion events the central star is not where the majority of fusion events takes place because of it small volume.

Rich G.
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

This thread is getting pretty off topic, but...

The power is generally not divided equally between chamber and cathode. Consider, for example, electrons generated via ion impacts. The long electron mean free path means these impact the chamber at virtually the full cathode potential. The ions that generated them have much lower energies. Just throwing out some hand-wavy numbers, in a typical fusor ions at the cathode have energies on average 1/5 the applied potential (viewtopic.php?p=96483#p96483). Thus, electrons cause 1/(1/5+1) = 5/6 of the dissipation. Adding in thermionic and field emission makes things worse.

Regarding your query on fusion locations, see viewtopic.php?p=96483#p96483.

Regarding simulations, see viewtopic.php?t=14157.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

All neutrals at or near the cathode /shell are doomed to hit it. (more heating and energy loss.) Neutrals will slowly embed in the cathode/shell. The shell of the fusor is a hopeful field emitter of electrons to ionize deuterium gas near the shell. The red to orange hot grid wires are significant electron emitters. Due to the long MFP of electrons under full acceleration most will impact the cathode/shell. (heating it more than any other viable source).

Thus, over time, the shell/Anode will emit deuterium and some deuterons into the hail storm of electrons impacting the shell, creating a more or less deuteron/positive ion at the ideal point for rapid full potential acceleration. Just another source of positive ions? How many? ....To what level of advantage? Just another positive fusion situation thrown into the mix? Truly unknowable without hard data.

I am speaking ONLY of a spherical fusor with a geodesic or multi-wire grid. Diameter may be tuned to a useful MFP for ions.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Glad Rich has caused this thread to get off topic of that crazy Nature paper - his questions and Liam answers provide both very interesting issues and actual facts to this discussion; and frankly, the writer of the original article is borderline nuts (through, maybe purely by accident, he mixed in his craziness a real research paper to give the crazy some valid science*.) Rich's questions/speculation and Liam's post are the first breath of rationality for the thread and is a far more interesting and relevant topic for fusors.

Richard's first discussion on fusors and his follow-up nicely capped the discussion - so, I'm pleased this thread has evolved into something of both interest and use relative to a fusor rather then the tin foil stuff earlier as well.


* If so, then this is, beyond a doubt, an utter disgrace for Nature and an insidious attempt by the author to really create stupidity in science and discredit the field. Frankly, this paper is both shameful and a disgusting perversion of the scientific method. Though, I won't tell you how I feel ;)
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
User avatar
McKane Lee
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:07 pm
Real name: McKane Lee

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by McKane Lee »

Sincerely, I hope this response finds the Fusor.net community well. Sorry in advance for getting off on the wrong foot earlier.

Historically, humans have had their preconceived notions of "Universal Truths" scattered by science (mere observation). It is not so long ago humans thought the Earth was flat and the Earth was also the center of the galaxy. At that time (~1600's), to declare in public otherwise was considered a crime or heresy; which it was a punishable offense by death or home imprisonment by the Catholic Church or Royal Society. (Sorry Galileo Galilei)

With that said, revolutionary ideas and individuals with these new ideas have made significant technological advancements in science and for industry, education, and commercialization usually come out of 'left-field'...

For example: Samuel Morris was a traditional artist and painter who invented the telegraph. It was a homeless man named Oliver Heaviside that figured out the solution (mathematically) to the long distance telegraph line distortions. It was a James Clerk Maxwell that gave us the Treatise for Electromagnetism and he studied natural and moral philosophy not electronics. Nicholas Tesla, a poor, no-name foreigner that came to America to give us the invention of the Radio (resonant circuit - locking) and the AC motor. And finally, a man you all know well, Philo Farnsworth a farm boy from Utah that invented the Television Tube (Scan-line when he was 10-12 years old on a chalk-board).

The point is, anything is possible when you put your mind to it.

Furthermore, it would be wise to keep an open mind's eye to new inventions and research. After all, the James Webb Space Telescope proved that the Universe was not created 13.7B years ago by a Big Bang moment postulated by Stephen Hawking. The Universe's real age is proving quite difficult to calculate now with the thermal images from JWST.

So, what else do we humans perceive as truth, but is not right? Ponder this gentlemen, Albert Einstein never receive a Nobel Prize for his theory of General Relativity and Special Relativity. Maybe, because it's flawed in some fundamental way... Hint: E=+/-MC^2.

Richard Hall is right and I am, personally, very impressed by him. In fact, it is Quantum Tunneling events that "triggers" the transmutation power of the Quantum Kinetic Fusor™. It is more accurately described as, "Nucleosynthesis".

Again, I hope this post finds everyone well.

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” ― Pablo Picasso
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” ― Pablo Picasso
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Dennis P Brown »

First off, you should have started a new thread and developed your claim about a new fusor rather then mention it here in passing. Would have been more useful in my opinion. Then as for some of your posts, I do have some issues.

I am sorry but Albert most definitely did not deserve a Nobel for special relativity; because 99% of the math/physics and 90% of the idea was done by Lorentz. As for General, that is another matter but not for your 'hint'.

As for your belief that "The point is, anything is possible when you put your mind to it." That is almost certainly guaranteed to lead to failure - as you correctly point out, science has shown that nearly all belief based systems are generally nonsense.

I have never read from any historical source that Oliver Heaviside was ever 'homeless' much less would be described in that manner. That source I'd like a valid reference. Of course Maxwell got a degree that was so named - there was no degree offered in Electro-magnetism because he founded that subject - lol. Not sure at all what you were trying to say but if you were implying he wasn't highly educated in the mathematics (a very mature subject then) and science of his day, you are very mistaken.

No idea where you arrived at the erroneous belief that Webb has "proven" the Universe is not what is commonly accepted for its age. Headlines by people writing articles they do not understand have said as much but those are incorrect. Webb's data has shown that older ideas on galaxy formation are likely wrong - these were models and not direct observation. So, no surprise there. Science evolves with new data but the age of the Universe is extremely well documented by many other observations. More to the point, Webb has no relevancy to those methods nor does it really say anything direct about the Universe's age.

When someone offers something that is too good to be true, and has no proper data or science to back it up (other then 'trust me'), it should be dismissed by any rational person.
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Liam David »

McKane, I acknowledge your more measured response. I am privy to your original post attempt and have mulled the merit of even responding at all.

My original post certainly does not come off as flattering from your perspective. I expected its scope to be limited to frequent forum users--a brief in-group discussion that is quickly pushed into relative obscurity--and hence did not think drama would unfold.

It's not the status nor strictly speaking even the professional/educational credentials of the person making revolutionary claims that support their correspondence with reality. There is, however, a near one-to-one correspondence between the making of outlandish claims and a lack of professional expertise in that field. In the absence of anything more than that, the safe bet is just to ignore lest you fill your head with a thousand fictions and one lucky truth. It's a pragmatic rule. Another is to ignore people who make a habit of spouting cute little quips and quotes from ostensibly smart/creative/unique people in an effort to sound deep and profound. That is the realm of gurus and charlatans.

Sure, a homeless Oliver Heaviside (I'm dubious of that claim) making substantial contributions to the new field of electromagnetism is impressive, but it is the rigor of his mathematical work that convinced others of its reality (and also, no doubt, actual measurements on transmission lines). Rigorous repeatable experiments and the creation of self-consistent mathematical models that join numerous disparate observations into a unified model are what define the works of e.g. Faraday and Maxwell. The fact that Faraday wasn't formally educated and lacked the mathematics needed to fully describe his observations absolutely makes his achievements more impressive, but it is irrelevant for the accuracy of electromagnetism.

People who believe that they've upended current scientific understanding tend to forget something else important: most people who challenge the status quo hypotheses/theories and are later "proven" (I use that word very loosely here) correct are the very people who best understand the status quo hypotheses/theories. Einstein, Bohr, Planck, the list goes on... They understood Newtonian/Galilean/classical physics extremely well. The "left field" is not one of societal standing, but rather of the uniqueness and voracity of the claims. It seems that this idea isn't lost on you, given your Picasso quote, but I challenge your claim of understanding.

The saying "anything is possible when you put your mind to it" is rather non-rigorous when juxtaposed with the very vigorous pursuit of developing accurate models of reality. Most of us are very open to new ideas, new theories included, provided that their burden of proof is satisfactorily met. Ideas that purport to upend physics have a steep uphill battle in the face of cumulative years/decades/centuries of demonstrably solid scientific knowledge. The best scientific theories are those that are later absorbed rather than outright replaced. Relativity and quantum mechanics extend Newtonian physics and the latter remains just as relevant and valid today, provided you restrict its use to a well-understood regimes.

I risk addressing every sentence you wrote with a paragraph, but I suppose I'm already here.

No, JWST hasn't "proven" that the universe isn't 13.8 billion years old. Yes, current models of cosmic structure formation and black hole growth, among others, have difficulty explaining observations. An older universe could explain these observations, but is simultaneously discredited by others. The conclusion that the universe must be older, based on the results of these models, logically follows if and only if the models are accurate. They seem to be pretty good, but that accurate they are not. Also, a personal pet peeve: the Big Bang theory does not include the postulate that the universe was "created." It has nothing to do with the singularity in GR at t=0. It describes only the evolution of the universe after some small finite time and up until today. The use of the phrase "big bang" to describe t=0 in common parlance is an unfortunate misnomer. There are a great many hypotheses for t=0 or t<0, inasmuch as that can be defined, but no theories. Here and elsewhere I use the scientific, not colloquial, definition of a theory.

Einstein's lack of a Nobel Prize for relativity has nothing to due with your purported flaw. It's an interplay between various factors, among which are opinions and vested interests within the Nobel committee. The sign choice E = +mc^2 is a convention in the definition of energy. It's also, as I understand it, a geometric result when extended to GR and the notion of vector norms on manifolds. Even ignoring that as definitions can be extended, negative mass-energy has never been observed. Observation of such matter would practically be a ticket to a Nobel Prize.

Quantum tunneling is a well-understood phenomenon. Tunneling itself isn't even intrinsically quantum per. se., but rather a consequence of wave propagation. The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation. Tunneling occurs between dispersion branches in plasmas as an entirely classical phenomenon. Claiming that low-energy particles can tunnel through the coulomb barrier at a substantial rate is akin to saying that the half-life of bismuth-209 (measured at 2e19 years) is just a few seconds as the processes are inextricably mathematically linked. The difference is literally one of entropy. There would have to be extensive, well-documented, repeatable experiments with reasonable alternative explanations and possible errors thoroughly explored to upend such extremely well-supported models. That is something that not you, nor anyone in cold fusion, nor anyone claiming any number of fantastical things, has provided. I wish cold fusion had been discovered. Maybe there is an undiscovered mechanism through which some sort of cold fusion can happen on useful timescales (looking at you, iron stars). But I cannot believe that which is unsupported.

I end paraphrasing Feynman, and likely many others before him: The easiest person to fool is yourself.

Edit: I concur with Denis who makes good points and published his response as I was drafting mine.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

.
Umm....

We might be getting trolled here, guys.

The name 'McKane Lee' was the 'actual name' of somebody who created an account as "Tony Stark." Where have I seen that name before....🤔🤪.

Yesterday, I summarily deleted that account and instructed Mr. Stark/Lee to start over if he really wanted to participate in the forums.

Today, I was notified that a new post required approval (as all new members' posts do)

[edit]
I see now that Frank was in the Admin panel around 1:30 this afternoon and approved the new post with the ostensibly correct login ID.

In any event, I thought you might like to know about 'Tony.'
[/edit]

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
McKane Lee
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:07 pm
Real name: McKane Lee

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by McKane Lee »

Thanks for your comment and thoughts Dennis Brown. I'll try my best to respond properly.

1.) It's wiser to keep the thread all in one location for historical context for future viewers who will also inquire about the Quantum Kinetic Fusor™.

2.) I couldn't agree more with you regarding Lorentz and Einstein. Einstein basically stole everyone's ideas and then "twisted" them into his "own" false understanding of the Universe (Destroying the Maxwell & Faraday electrostatic and magnetic fields lines associated with electricity). Sadly, the real story of Einstein is far more sinister than most people know... I sincerely pity people who "praise" Einstein. It's the immediate sign on their forehead, "They Know Nothing".

3.) I encourage you to read Paul J. Nahin's book, "Oliver Heaviside: The Life, Work, and Times of an Electrical Genius of the Victorian Age". Though, not 'technically' homeless in the sense of not having a roof over his head. Oliver Heaviside came from the slums of England and often signed his letters to the academic Royal Society as "W.O.R.M." After reading Nahin's book on Heaviside, you might understand why I classify him as, "Homeless". It comes down to interpretation of the word, "Homeless". I classify it as living in poverty ($90 pounds annual salary). Which, Oliver Heaviside freely chose independently of his own smarts. He was a genius that rather swim (do gymnastics and ride his bike alone) in the grime of the slums as a WORM than be a socially elite fraud... Seems, a bit like a Jesus Christ character in a way...

4.) As for the JWST comment, according to the cosmological "standard model" our Universe is 'theorized' to be 13.7B years old. Stephen Hawking and the predecessors used these numbers in their theoretical calculations. However, as stated in my first comment, discovery comes from science (observation), which is merely observation using our latest instruments. When technology improves, so does our understanding of the Universe. The "standard model" of cosmology is not holding up anymore due to JWST's discoveries. Based on observation from the red-shift and thermal observation from JWST, the galaxies are either a hell of a lot older than 13.7B years old or they form way way faster than previous calculated. The jury is still out on this. However, it's merely a "philosophical point". We don't know everything and we need to trust our instruments not our "theories". “We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be.” –Carl Sagan

I personally have my own theories based on undisclosed discoveries in the lab and newly written patents. But, I'll private for now...

5.) If there is specific data you want to see regarding the Quantum Kinetic Fusor™ and the Quantum Kinetic Well® technology, please feel free to let me know. You should know, that Quantum Kinetics Corporation has been partnering with the industries best labs and instruments to curate data points.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Our industry partners are just as shocked, when they see the values as you are. So, naturally, they run the values again and get the same numbers.

Trust your instruments.
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” ― Pablo Picasso
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Joe Gayo »

Mr. Lee,

One question: What is the coolest instrument you have ever built to measure something related to your Quantum Kinetic ____ (TM)/(R) technology?

Thanks, Joe
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Richard Hull »

Go get 'em Joe!

In the end it is all about instrumentation and those who know how to use and apply them. Long a sore point with me here over the years. Mostly in the context of claimants of fusion to whom proper instrumentation and its use and interpretation is a bridge too far. In 1997 I had fully used PMT systems, built them and done gamma ray spectroscopy since 1994. I also had already designed, built and used many GM counters.

Naturally, getting into fusion in 1997, I felt the acquisition of a neutron counter was a snap and to be read just as a GM counter. Silly, silly, naive me!
Neutron work, instrumentation related to same and useful interpretation and construction of neutron systems has been a long journey even up to now!

When one claims fusion based on a true build and experiment, one must walk the walk and talk the talk suffering critical review and be willing show and demonstrate his work and all of the instrumentation from which his data is obtained.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Perhaps the craziest fusion-adjacent scam yet

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Certainly need to read the book on Heaviside - He is underappreciated and was both an incredible genius (all self taught) that reformulated the massive mess of equations Maxwell had created and created the incredibly simple set of four equations we incorrectly call "Maxwell Equations". He was the first person to recognize that a finite speed of light had important implications in the study of electricity and especially effects on potentials. He was the first to developed the "1-(v/c)" correction that is essential for addressing that issue.

If you really have secured money/investors then I am both impressed and get that that this demonstrates you can convince people of your approch. Yet a number of startups have achieved this impressive goal and as we learn from their 'data', they are failures. Maybe that does not apply to you and you have a novel idea based on existing sound physics. Time will tell.

Yet we all have doubts and for good reason. Net energy fusion has never been achieved after billions of dollars and massive groups of allegedly talented scientist* and an array of sharp and talented engineers. So, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding,

Not having the faintest idea of your setup & process, I cannot ask any questions beyond the obvious: relevant data on energy in (current & voltage) along with a net neutron flux measurement using a calibrated system (words on the calibration methodology are essential.)

*And finally, some actually talented physicist, at least for the German Stellarator effort. That is the likely reason they are finally making real progress for once in fusion research.
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
Locked

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”