Fusion Reactor

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #1814

    Andy
    Participant

    Applying my concept for motion, I don’t think science fully understands fundamentally what’s going on inside a fusion reactor. They understand it’s the same process that fuels stars, and they know the math well enough to build something, but it’s also the same process that creates all matter in the universe, not just what’s fueling stars.

    As I suggest, matter accelerates and contracts inward along a scalar dimension. The contraction process is a loss in mass energy and a gain in kinetic energy with inward acceleration. Matter is continually condensing to a smaller state at a higher kinetic energy. Matter becomes very defined and harder to merge with other particles the longer they exist over time. We’ll call low mass energy negative, and high mass energy positive. Low mass meaning a contractive state of energy, and high mass meaning an expansive state of energy. We’re moving in the negative direction.

    Positive energy is expansive. In a high mass state particles are less defined. They’re larger and slower and fuse together easily, because they are less defined as a particle. The particles we see in the universe began outward at a very high mass low energy state and are moving inward to a very low mass high energy state. The process is continuous, so particles are still being created now somewhere outward along the scalar dimension well beyond our range of detection.

    When we move outward from this point of our existence, we gain mass energy, or positive energy. In a particle accelerator or fusion reactor, we are forcing an extreme gain in mass energy expanding the particles making the fusion process easier to achieve. Matter though, is entirely a forward process. Meaning we cannot achieve a previous mass state. We can slow down the inward acceleration to very near 0, but we cannot prevent it. In doing so we must gain motion in the opposite direction outward relative to other particles. And that’s where Lorentz contraction comes into play.

    All the particles in a fusion reactor are moving in the same direction. The relative motion perpendicular to their direction of motion between particles comes closer to 0. 0 being the point at which inward acceleration flips to outward deceleration. It’s a complete change in the direction of motion from inward to outward. Put a wall in their path, like in a particle collider, and they’ll burn up when they hit it. In a fusion reactor we want to force them closer together while they’re in motion, so we force them through a choke point. They gracefully merge together perpendicular to their forward motion, because they’re in a relative high mass state parallel to each other. We’re distorting the inherent mass energy perpendicular to their direction of motion.

    It takes a lot of energy to increase their outward motion along a path, but fusion is actually a very low kinetic energy high mass process, not a high energy process as we perceive. It looks like it from our relative perspective, but those particles are merging at a relative velocity between them of very near 0. I think the more graceful we can make that merger the easier it will be to generate the excess energy needed to boil water and spin a turbine. I think the choke point needs to be extended to reduce any motion that is perpendicular to their forward motion. A slow and steady constriction of their entire path of travel until fusion is achieved. Maybe they are doing that? I don’t know exactly how these machines work, but I understand in principle what they’re trying to do. I’m guessing they’re forcing the plasma stream through a magnetic constrictor point and that ends up disrupting the flow. I don’t know.

    Anyway. That’s what I think is going on inside one of these fusion reactors. A reduction in perpendicular motion relative to their forward motion seems key to me. The larger the circumference the better. Who knows though? The thought just crossed my mind, and I’m putting that out there for better or worse. Might be nothing.

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now
X