To date, the only fusion currently existing, is in our sun, (and presumably in other stars) where two atoms of Hydrogen fuse to create one atom of Helium, releasing energy. Helium is inert so end of chemical reaction. On Earth scientists have successfully fused "heavy" Hydrogen [ordinary hydrogen has one nucleus and one electron} heavy Hydrogen has 3 electrons. Fusion is clean compared with fission, which releases radioactive particles which kill living things.
Energy cannot be destroyed. It can be converted into different types of energy.
1. We have successfully fused hydrogen on earth for many years. There are various approaches to doing so, the only two primarily successful methods have been able to produce using magnets to confine super hot plasma into a containment field to create the fusion. The other has been to use lasers shot at hydrogen atoms to fuse the hydrogen atoms into helium.. In December last, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory announced they had created a "net gain" by shooting lasers of 2.05 megajoules of energy to create 3.15 megajoules of fusion energy, the first time that earth scientists had been able to do so. However that is an absurd delusion because it took more than 300 megajoules of energy to produce the 2.05 megajoules for the lasers. So rather than the announced 1.5 gain, in reality it was a 296.85 net loss.
2.You are correct in how stars fuse hydrogen atoms at its core. The lifespan of a star is not always directly related to its size however. Recent discoveries have found that some small stars have a longer lifespan than some very large stars. As far as I am aware the exact reason for this is not known but in probability they think the gravitational field of some seemingly smaller stars might be varied due to the amount of heavier elements in the outer reaches within the gravitational sphere. This makes sense since stars begin to "die" when the hydrogen in the core has been fused into helium and the hydrogen needed to support the fusion collapses and the mass of the core begins to collapse but because there is still some hydrogen available in the outer core some fusion still occurs but the stars get hotter because the shell is still fusing some energy and at that point my science becomes lost until the resulting death by supernova or merely becoming a dead hulk. You probably know the reasons for that better than I.
3. That is not how our fusion experiments work on earth. Contrarily, we use other forms of energy to blast into a containment field of hydrogen and try to heat the hydrogen to a temperature hot enough to force unnatural fusion. I say unnatural because in a star, the fusion is created by the immense amount of hydrogen within the star creates an effect of hydrogen atoms through natural collusion to form into helium. Hydrogen is by its nature, an element that easily combines with other elements, helium is not. So hydrogen with nothing else to combine with itself (and combine may not be the correct scientific term), combines with itself. On earth we need to create temperatures much hotter than the heat of the sun, in excess of 100 million degrees. To achieve this they need to use three separate heating systems used in tokamarks each capable of generating over 100 million watts of power to the fuel. Or back to our earlier point that it takes 10 times the energy to create the energy of our "successful"net gain in fusion. Now 300 million watts is slightly less than what was produced, however, according to the fine print in the report (not in the press releases) to create the fusion via the laser they increased the tokamarks to generate the laser heat to 3 billion watts which, if my math is correct, and sometimes it is not, that would be 300 mejajoules and they actually had a chain of lasers each beaming into another. The idea now is to create one super laser that will be capable of creating the net gain they surmised, and of course a much larger fusion reaction capable,
4. To get to the fusion we are now using a combination of deuterium and tritium which was only being suggested when I originally wrote the article. Deuterium is highly "radioactive". Tritium does release radioactivity however it has a greatly reduced shelf life of only twelve and a half years. However it is extremely volatile and can corrode all known materials, however energy "experts" say this is not true, but experiments by others outside the energy have done tests to refute that. I guess I have to leave that up to whose testing claims you believe. But tritium has been found in water sources outside of all fission power plants so that indicates to me it does leak through. In the process of creating fission most of the water used as coolant is deuterium but about 1 in 117, I believe hydrogen molecules in the water does become H3, you can fact check me there because I have seen differing figures that are not even comparable.
5. Tritium, other than being a byproduct in the water used to cool fission operations is practically non-existent on earth. It cannot be "extracted" from lithium as purported. Lithium is used in rods as a neutron absorber. When fission occurs irridiation by neutrons in the reactor core the lithium in special rods is converted into tritium. The laser method of which has been successful uses a linear accelerator to create the tritium. Successful application in utilizing this method is very recent though it was proposed in '05. So it was not mentioned in my article. But because the method accelerates energy through linear steps, or increasingly beaming laser energy into succeeding lasers increasing the energy in successive steps. From my understanding there are fissive reactions necessary, but I could be unclear for experiments that have been conducted using this method to not require NRC approval. But the tritium and deuterium are necessary, and while not as radioactive, H3, is not void of all radioactivity
6. Now if you are referring to my closing comment "the more energy used, the less energy available" I am referring to energy sources. The sources used to produce energy do conform to other forms of energy and do also transform the original source into a byproduct, which often can be waste or environmentally altering. From my understanding light is a form of energy and heat is a byproduct. But the source of light (sun, fire, etc.) can be depleted. The fusion within the sun stops when its source (hydrogen) becomes something else (helium), or it is depleted of its energy source. So I stand by my statement "the less energy available" because the more depleted the sources become the less sources for creating energy,. The energy does become lessened because as you say it becomes another form of energy, but sources do become depleted. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that was self-evident in my statement, but you are absolutely correct that on its face it is not correct.
To date, the only fusion currently existing, is in our sun, (and presumably in other stars) where two atoms of Hydrogen fuse to create one atom of Helium, releasing energy. Helium is inert so end of chemical reaction. On Earth scientists have successfully fused "heavy" Hydrogen [ordinary hydrogen has one nucleus and one electron} heavy Hydrogen has 3 electrons. Fusion is clean compared with fission, which releases radioactive particles which kill living things.
Energy cannot be destroyed. It can be converted into different types of energy.
You raise several good points.
1. We have successfully fused hydrogen on earth for many years. There are various approaches to doing so, the only two primarily successful methods have been able to produce using magnets to confine super hot plasma into a containment field to create the fusion. The other has been to use lasers shot at hydrogen atoms to fuse the hydrogen atoms into helium.. In December last, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory announced they had created a "net gain" by shooting lasers of 2.05 megajoules of energy to create 3.15 megajoules of fusion energy, the first time that earth scientists had been able to do so. However that is an absurd delusion because it took more than 300 megajoules of energy to produce the 2.05 megajoules for the lasers. So rather than the announced 1.5 gain, in reality it was a 296.85 net loss.
2.You are correct in how stars fuse hydrogen atoms at its core. The lifespan of a star is not always directly related to its size however. Recent discoveries have found that some small stars have a longer lifespan than some very large stars. As far as I am aware the exact reason for this is not known but in probability they think the gravitational field of some seemingly smaller stars might be varied due to the amount of heavier elements in the outer reaches within the gravitational sphere. This makes sense since stars begin to "die" when the hydrogen in the core has been fused into helium and the hydrogen needed to support the fusion collapses and the mass of the core begins to collapse but because there is still some hydrogen available in the outer core some fusion still occurs but the stars get hotter because the shell is still fusing some energy and at that point my science becomes lost until the resulting death by supernova or merely becoming a dead hulk. You probably know the reasons for that better than I.
3. That is not how our fusion experiments work on earth. Contrarily, we use other forms of energy to blast into a containment field of hydrogen and try to heat the hydrogen to a temperature hot enough to force unnatural fusion. I say unnatural because in a star, the fusion is created by the immense amount of hydrogen within the star creates an effect of hydrogen atoms through natural collusion to form into helium. Hydrogen is by its nature, an element that easily combines with other elements, helium is not. So hydrogen with nothing else to combine with itself (and combine may not be the correct scientific term), combines with itself. On earth we need to create temperatures much hotter than the heat of the sun, in excess of 100 million degrees. To achieve this they need to use three separate heating systems used in tokamarks each capable of generating over 100 million watts of power to the fuel. Or back to our earlier point that it takes 10 times the energy to create the energy of our "successful"net gain in fusion. Now 300 million watts is slightly less than what was produced, however, according to the fine print in the report (not in the press releases) to create the fusion via the laser they increased the tokamarks to generate the laser heat to 3 billion watts which, if my math is correct, and sometimes it is not, that would be 300 mejajoules and they actually had a chain of lasers each beaming into another. The idea now is to create one super laser that will be capable of creating the net gain they surmised, and of course a much larger fusion reaction capable,
4. To get to the fusion we are now using a combination of deuterium and tritium which was only being suggested when I originally wrote the article. Deuterium is highly "radioactive". Tritium does release radioactivity however it has a greatly reduced shelf life of only twelve and a half years. However it is extremely volatile and can corrode all known materials, however energy "experts" say this is not true, but experiments by others outside the energy have done tests to refute that. I guess I have to leave that up to whose testing claims you believe. But tritium has been found in water sources outside of all fission power plants so that indicates to me it does leak through. In the process of creating fission most of the water used as coolant is deuterium but about 1 in 117, I believe hydrogen molecules in the water does become H3, you can fact check me there because I have seen differing figures that are not even comparable.
5. Tritium, other than being a byproduct in the water used to cool fission operations is practically non-existent on earth. It cannot be "extracted" from lithium as purported. Lithium is used in rods as a neutron absorber. When fission occurs irridiation by neutrons in the reactor core the lithium in special rods is converted into tritium. The laser method of which has been successful uses a linear accelerator to create the tritium. Successful application in utilizing this method is very recent though it was proposed in '05. So it was not mentioned in my article. But because the method accelerates energy through linear steps, or increasingly beaming laser energy into succeeding lasers increasing the energy in successive steps. From my understanding there are fissive reactions necessary, but I could be unclear for experiments that have been conducted using this method to not require NRC approval. But the tritium and deuterium are necessary, and while not as radioactive, H3, is not void of all radioactivity
6. Now if you are referring to my closing comment "the more energy used, the less energy available" I am referring to energy sources. The sources used to produce energy do conform to other forms of energy and do also transform the original source into a byproduct, which often can be waste or environmentally altering. From my understanding light is a form of energy and heat is a byproduct. But the source of light (sun, fire, etc.) can be depleted. The fusion within the sun stops when its source (hydrogen) becomes something else (helium), or it is depleted of its energy source. So I stand by my statement "the less energy available" because the more depleted the sources become the less sources for creating energy,. The energy does become lessened because as you say it becomes another form of energy, but sources do become depleted. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that was self-evident in my statement, but you are absolutely correct that on its face it is not correct.