Discovering the Latest Fusion Technique: Tritium Rings and Their Impact

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fusion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a proposed new technique in fusion involving "tritium rings." Participants explore the validity of this concept, its scientific grounding, and related ideas in the context of nuclear and particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a technique involving the creation of tritium rings to facilitate fusion, seeking clarification on its validity and name.
  • Another participant dismisses the concept of "tritium rings" as a fad in junk science, comparing it to other unfounded scientific claims.
  • A participant shares an anecdote about a dubious proposal for a fusion power plant, highlighting skepticism towards unverified scientific claims.
  • Questions arise regarding the definition of "junk science," with inquiries into whether it has any experimental basis or is purely theoretical.
  • Further clarification is provided that "junk science" lacks both theoretical and experimental support, relying instead on unfounded assertions.
  • One participant references a separate idea about the sun being electrically powered rather than fusion-powered, indicating a broader context of alternative scientific claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the "tritium rings" concept, with some viewing it as junk science while others seek to understand its legitimacy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the scientific merit of the proposed technique.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in understanding the claims made about tritium rings, including a lack of clear definitions and the absence of experimental evidence supporting the concept. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the boundaries between legitimate scientific inquiry and unfounded claims.

Pythagorean
Science Advisor
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
327
a fellow physics major was explaining to me that the latest technique in fusion has to do with creating tritium rings and using them to create another ring, using that ring to create yet a third ring.

I'm only second year, so nuclear/particle physics are a bit over my head at this point. I'm curious if this is true and what the name of the process is? (for personal research purposes)
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Pythagorean said:
a fellow physics major was explaining to me that the latest technique in fusion has to do with creating tritium rings and using them to create another ring, using that ring to create yet a third ring.

I'm only second year, so nuclear/particle physics are a bit over my head at this point. I'm curious if this is true and what the name of the process is? (for personal research purposes)

Pythagorean,

"Tritium Rings" are the latest fad in junk science; right alongside "Red Mercury".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
This reminds me of a story that a post doc in my lab told me a couple of weeks ago. This was a few years ago at the Institute for Plasma Research in India, where he did his PhD. Anyway, some guy comes in one day and wants to talk to the director of the institute. He tells him that he has designed a working fusion power plant, knows why all the other machines won't work and will sell him the design and work on the project if he's given several million dollars upfront. He won't explain to him how the machine works or why the other machines do not, etc. So the director asks him to leave.
 
what exactly is meant by the term "junk science?"

I mean, is it actually being experimented with somewhere or is it a theoretical idea that someone's trying to sell?
 
Pythagorean said:
what exactly is meant by the term "junk science?"

I mean, is it actually being experimented with somewhere or is it a theoretical idea that someone's trying to sell?

Pythagorean,

"Junk science" has neither a theoretical nor experimental underpinning.

The junk scientists eschew the scientific method and are more Aristotelian in nature -
they just profess what they've made up out of "whole cloth" and you can't tell them
otherwise.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
I see. This reminds me of a web page I found called "The Electric Sun" arguing how the sun is electric (not fusion) powered.


Thank you for your replies.
 
To put it another way, "junk science" sounds somewhat like science (uses a lot of scientific sounding words that don't necessarily mean anything in the context they are being used), but isn't.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
9K