draw bridge  
Science Home
  fan belt  
             

 

False Energy Assumptions for Nuclear Fusion
 

velocity
 

Einstein's equation, E=mc², is incorrect.

There was no reason for Einstein to create the equation besides paralleling the kinetic energy equation, KE=½mv².

Elsewhere, I show, through simple and unquestionable mathematics, that this equation, which defines energy, is wrong. Therefore, Einstein paralleled a false definition of energy.

This error creates a false expectation of a lot of energy in fusion, as mass is supposedly converted into energy. It doesn't happen. Wherever you look for a fusion reaction, it's not happening.

Two test of fusion were totally successful in everything but getting significant energy. One was the JET test with tokamak design (magnetic containment), and the other was the laser method, which was totally successful, except almost no energy was yielded

Physicists totally expected to succeed with a nuclear fusion project using lasers, but the results did not produce a significant amount of energy, and the project is being cut back due to failure, as indicated in this National Geographic article: Fusion Energy Quest Faces Boundaries of Budget, Science, July 26, 2013.

As the article indicates, physicists based their energy assumptions on Einstein's equation, E=mc². A scientific origin for the equation does not exist. It came off the top of Einstein's head. Einstein paralleled the equation for kinetic energy, KE=½mv².

Elsewhere, I show that velocity should not be squared. Real kinetic energy is simply momentum, mv. Momentum transforms into other forms of energy with conservation, while ½mv² does not.

In other words, Einstein paralleled an erroneous equation. To parallel the correct equation, he should have said, E=mc. There is a huge difference in the end result when the velocity of light is squared compared to nonsquared.

What this means is physicists expect a lot more energy from fusion (or disintegration of matter) than is really possible.

So-called hydrogen bombs show a similar result. Wikipedia says that "most" of the energy comes from fission. Why not more fusion in the end-all weapon? It is not likely that any fusion occurs in so-called hydrogen bombs, because getting the conditions right for fusion is so demanding that the chaos of an explosion is not a credible method of achieving it. Why would most of the energy in a hydrogen bomb come from fission instead of fusion? Why bother with a small amount of fusion, when it is supposed to be the superior source of energy? The obvious reason is because there is no significant energy from fusion.

All of this evidence indicates that the assumption of fusion in the center of stars is total imagination. The heat of stars would be a result of fission reactions, not fusion.
 

Science Home Page
Science Errors
Sociology of Corruption
Home Page
Science Errors
Sociology of Corruption