Nuclear Fusion

I want them to put it in a space ship when it's feasible.

>>139487395
What will it mean? Instant death.
I hope the krauts get this working. I will love them forever for it.

they been had renewable energy sources that they refuse to share with the public
can you not even /x/?
it's just becoming hard for them to keep it to themselves so they're releasing this supposed "brand new tech", meanwhile Tesla was fucking decades ahead of it way back in the black and white days

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?

It will mean that as soon as one of the goy get too close to figuring out it we're going to have to have another very coincidentally timed "accident."

>>139487395

That's a great new, nuclear fusion is clean(no ionization because it's a constructive process) and pretty much infinite except for the refrigeration.
Bad thing OPEP and petrodollar involved countries won't let this to be implemented in industry and society till the last drop of oil is wasted.
Green industry technology can be used by individuals to be self-sufficient in their homes/enterprises while nuclear fusion can surfeit the big industry energetical needs.

In b4 "fusion has been 50 years away for 50 years"

>>139488462
Same happened to AI, look were we are getting now, faggot. Science and engineering will prevail. Put big bux and big brainz on the problem, and it will be solved.

>>139487395
Lockheed already cracked it, as did the US Navy at China Lake.

Their power plants are smaller, though, better suited for powering large vehicles than stationary power generation.

All this experimentation that's going on at MIT, ITER, etc, is about building a design large enough for viability as a power plant, which will likely require it to output somewhere north of 2000MW electric.

Think of it as like the gap it took between the creation of the first diesels and the construction of the first diesel engine large enough and powerful enough to move a large ship on its own. It took a couple decades, at least.

The method of fusion shown in the picture always struck me as the least viable kind of fusion.

I have heard that those cheap polywells and similar designs are actually more viable than some folks let on. Anybody ever heard this?

>>139487395
I'd bet you could power some pretty big magnets with that reactor.

>>139488169
>the tesla is a god who created """""free"""" energy meme

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?

They will get ASS BLASTED.

About fucking time!

This is what I call the real nuclear era.

Fuck yeah progress, I'm ready!

Fuck all the greenfags, there have been nuclear power plants worldwide for half a century and more people have die in a year of various wars than ever form nuclear power "disasters".

>>139487395
>increased fusion efficiency
>implying an Ignition Event has ever occured
Outside a thermonuclear explosion, fusion has never occured on Earth.

>>139489769
>>139487735
Why do you think fusion power would magically kill the entire petrochemical industry?
Do you not understand that oil is more than just something to turn into car fuel?

bamp

>>139491249
It's pretty self evident we are talking about sources of energy.

Not fusion-killed-my-anorak

>>139487395
>oh good, now we can produce even more disposable shit and support and even larger population of welfare-sucking humans. truly a great day for man!
you can't cheat malthus forever

File: IMG_1137.jpg (244KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x1200px

Soon

>>139487614
power-to-weight ratio wise fission reactors are better

>>139493991
Actually you can. The more people, the more progress, the more bains to overcome what now is still a barrier but tomorrow another victory for science and technology.
During Malthus' times the methods of man were so limited that the theoretical maximum of earth was 3 billion people. But in moving towards that number man has overcome that barrier by inventing the internal combustion engine and artificial fertilizer, which spawned the green revolution. With our current methods we can feed 12 billion people easily. But in moving towards that number we will overcome that barrier as well.

It's kinda funny how many people don't realize this. We have this technology already. Of course, at this time, people decide to unveil what they've been working on for decades. None of this is new, but it's a good time to speed up the work on it.

fusion reactors by 2050 t b h.
even with advancements in efficiency, i doubt they could run a reactor for any significant length of time without the reaction chamber melting.

File: 1468819545025.jpg (24KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x333px

>>139496265
REMILITARIZE THE JAPS ALREADY, FATBOY KIM IS ENOUGH OF AN EXCUSE

ITS GONNA TAKE EM SOME TIME TO GET BACK UP TO SPEED

I WANT MY GENDUMS

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?


absolutely nothing since dumb as liberals will force us to buy "green" energy. most likely they will outlaw research and even the study of physics

>>139491249
Yeah, their main usage is for energy. It would become obsolete overnight, forever. The only bad part would be the initial investment, but the return is infinite energy... So, there is that motivation to fuel yourself with 100% clean energy, no risky accidents chances, no need for OPEC to be in a good mood and much more advantages.

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?
>Oil
It's fucking over
>Green
It's probably fucking over.

The amount of energy fusion can produce relative to it's cost is magnitudes beyond anything we have today, and the product is fucking helium, which we're actually slowly running out of. Admittedly, I don't know if that Helium will be radioactive or not, but hey, we're dealing with shit like that already with fission plants.

>>139496993
Power to weight ratio wise a fission reactor has never been put on a rocket so what the fuck is the point of your statement

>>139489941
>ignition event in a reactor
Wow anon I didn't realize the point of fusion energy research was to build pure fusion bombs!

>>139487395
>oil
absolutely nothing, i still have to drive my truck and lubricate parts.
>green
its fucking done before it even took off

>oil
can you put a reactor in a car/airplane?No?then nothing will happen

>>139500604
Neither has a fusion reactor.
The point of my statement is to clarify misconceptions.

I was a congressional researcher for this a few years ago but haven't touched the matter in a while. My thoughts from when I worked on it:

The promise of nuclear fusion is really really really big. The problem is the commercial payoff is too far in the future so the fuck ton of money required to continue researching something that's decades out has to be done via the Feds because shareholders for corporations wouldn't be happy with the amount of investment this would take to make meaningful progress.

With that said, it's not politically popular because 1) the left balks at anything nuclear. The leading American lab we worked with was based in a very liberal area wherein the congressional rep would get too much heat for pushing nuclear. 2) the right really only cares about science funding when it's pork barrel politics that will benefit their districts, and it turns our nuclear physicists don't want to live in Mississippi.

So there isn't an adequate level of research funding that's reasonably required because the left and right can't come together for different reasons to realize the potential for America (and the worlds) energy independence.

It's been a few years so I'm not sure if it's still the case but the Euros were leading the race circa early 2010s. From the science perspective, establishing stable nuclear fusion was extremely difficult to do and had been successfully accomplished only for a extremely short period of time.

>Helium-3
not viable

>>139488262
>the secrets where lost in the chaos of wwIII

File: 7nTVGxY.jpg (981KB, 5616x2092px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 5616x2092px

Renewables will still be a thing even with fusion. It'll probably be a mix of both, fusion providing the base load and renewables covering the peaks. There will be overcapacity in renewables which will be used for synthesizing chemical fuels, because they simply beat batteries in energy densitiy by more than an order of magnitude. But they'll use carbon capture methods to make them climate neutral.

It's still unclear how much fusion will cost. EROEI isn't the only measure that counts. The price of electricity is also determined by investment costs and big powerplants aren't necessarily doing well in this department. This is where renwables shine. Low investments and marginal costs close to zero make them very attractive. And the more they're being used the better they get.

>>139487395
I can't wait until we finally achieve Nuclear Fusion. Then, we can have massive crowds of outraged people marching, chanting that it's unsafe and should be banned because they read on Facebook it's terrible for turtles. Then we have the gas and coal industry lobby it to death.

>>139487395
>explains what an ion is to fill space
>doesn't tell us what's in the new fusion fuel
"""journalists"""

and it means they're fucked

>>139502339
a viable fusion reactor hasn't been made you dunce
that's what they've been trying to do for half a century

>>139504703
is that the latest in Edible Enrichment technology?

how many almonds can it activate?

>>139491249
Muh Tupperware

File: pepethumbsup.png (90KB, 572x505px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 572x505px

>>139504717
underrated post friendo

>>139487395
It would mean the death of russia and the arab countries while huge profit for germany, austria, united states and i dont know which countries have this technology and machines or will have it

Fusion is cool, but LFTR is much more practical for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqt6u5_sHA

>>139487395
> fusion will ever be efficient enough to produce more energy than used

No

File: thorium-waste-comparison.jpg (98KB, 978x656px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 978x656px

>>139505689
>but LFTR is much more practical for now
Did some new development come out or something?
LFTR was stuck in R&D because it only works sporadically, producing energy in pulses. It's not suitable for energy production, at least not yet.

>>139487395
in 20 more years this might actually become something

>>139496993
We could have a fusion reactor "rocket" orbiting the earth so once the ship is in 0g and power to weight doesn't really matter it could be attached to the space ship. Kinda like those rings in star wars (2 and) 3 but much bigger and in a different shape of course.

>>139504901
read further.

>>139506482
Newton's laws, what is producing the thrust frendo?

File: phase-2-plasma-assy-section.gif (44KB, 300x501px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 300x501px

The only practical design I can imagine that produces ELECTRICITY from fusion is the Piston Anvil Liquid Metal Fusion Reactor or PALMR approach. The design doesn't need to have a gigantic tokomak or stellarator design but just a smaller tank full of liquid metal like Sodium or Lead, the temperature would be at about 600 degrees Centigrade and the pressure would be at room atmosphere.

A plasmoid is generated from a small plasma generating instrument, this plasmoid is then collapsed into the center of the liquid metal vortex at the center. There, a large array of steam pistons are used to collapse the liquid metal vortex onto the plasma instability, raising the plasma temperature (which is comprised of Deuterium Nuclei and Tritium Nuclei) will increase to several hundred million degrees. This temperature and pressure is more than enough to initiate fusion, the ensuing energy release in the form of neutrons are captured by the surrounding liquid metal blanket and thus convert the neutrons kinetic energy into thermal, which can be used to generate steam.

>>139496265
Those will be a thing only when we get good batteries

>>139491249
25 procent of oil is used for industry use (chemicals, plastics,...) remaining part is boat fuel, car fuel, airplane fuel, house heating source, and in some cases, electric power plant fuel. If we would manage to cut fuel used for personal cars, trains and reucks, this presents, 50% reduction in oil consumption. Case in point, entire noprth america would be oil self sufficient (even without new sources of oil like tar sands) Russia too, And single arabic state with norway could provide for entire europe. Scaricy of oil would be thing of past.

>>139496993
*nuclear salt water rockets

>>139506085

Maybe in a traditional pressure water reactor, but they have proven to run a U233 critical molten salt reactor for 6 years non-stop in the 70's, this relates to thorium because as you can see in your diagram, the new design would convert the thorium into uranium. And if uranium burns successfully, what's the difference in surrounding the core with a blanket of Thorium?

>>139506819
Correction, 8%.

>>139488646

Brazil that mentality is why youre still poor.

>>139505064
>a viable fusion reactor hasn't been made you dunce
You're the dunce. Everybody who knows anything about fusion knows that a viable fusion reactor has to be far bigger than the current test facilities just to reach break even in energy production. They may use less EROEI than other powerplants but to achieve that they need absolutely MASSIVE facilities, which makes them infeasible for mobile applications.

There is no need to close the petrochemical industry. In fact, if we move onto nuclear energy as the backbone of our electrical production, the petrochemical industry would probably THRIVE even more, because the chemical reactions that were deemed too uneconomical are now economical with the huge amounts of practically free energy nuclear power offers. It would allow us to use nuclear heat itself to power fractional distillation and Oil refinement.

It would allow us to harvest the carbon dioxide from the air itself and form organic compounds again - something very energy intensive with the current coal, gas and oil powered energy sector. Moving onto nuclear simply lets us do a lot more things without having to worry about pollution.

>>139505617
that's what's gonna happen, greenpeace is already in hardcore-REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE mode about it

>>139504703
Magnets and shieet.

>>139506482
Granted a space station rather than a space ship has less demand to accelerate mass, provided it's an a high enough orbit. Yet, the thing has still be brought into orbit in the first place. And if it weighs more for the same power output than a fission reactor then it's a bad idea.

>>139506655
I noticed that while writing, but the discussion was about getting a fusion reactor to a space ship so decided to post anyway.
But couldn't those ion propulsion engines produce much more thrust if they had a nuclear reactor to take their energy from. Also it could be used for a long range space ship for all the electricity as hydrogen (or what ever these thing run on) takes less space that batteries and it could be "refueled" relatively easily

>>139488798
Proof that Lockheed cracked fusion?

>>139499516
Hellium can't be radioctive, but ammounts of it produced via fussion woould be laugable small.
People fail to realise how smal are quantities om material in those reactors. If you would extract from water all deuterium avalible in that watter, you would need araound olympic swiming pool to get all electicity for entire world (i calculated this on some public arcticle data, so this info is NOT completely reliable.)

>>139504717
>Bu-Bu-But it's a sun inside a donut. You can't put a sun inside a donut. The donut would burn.

>>139507788
I actualy read some arcticle where autor ranted that fussion woould made energy too avalible. Seriously, that was their problem. Oh noes, people wont need to think about energy scaricity and wil negalect care for nature!
They sure are ignorant people.

>>139506969
Not a good example. Very inefficient. Delta-v depends a lot on molecule mass. Better to use the generated energy to accelerate light molecules like H2.

File: 1350493829929.jpg (16KB, 295x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 295x300px

Solar is becoming so cheap and efficient, by the time nuclear fusion is a thing it will no longer be necessary.

Similarly, pundits have been predicting "peak oil" for decades, expecting the supply of oil to peak, whereas in reality it appears it will be demand for oil that will peak sometime in the 2020s, and not supply.

As usual, we've been focusing our attention on all the wrong things because of needless sensationalism.

>>139508850
You're really underestimating the importance of thrust.

>>139509038
>>As usual, we've been focusing our attention on all the wrong things because of needless sensationalism.
I like you.

>>139508850
Also, an NSWR has an exhaust velocity in the order of 50km/s

>>139487395
cheaper energy = more niggers

>>139500604
>what is NERVA, Project Rover and Project Pluto
>what are NTRs in general

>>139509038
>falling solar meme

>MIT doing fusion reactor testing
>45 minutes away
Awwww man, I thought I was going to live to see Trump's second term.

>>139488268
>nuclear fusion is clean

except for High energy neutrons and Bremsstrahlung emitting from X-ray up to hard Gamma, all of which are highly ionizing.

We had better hope someone gets pB11 working

>>139487395

>Hey, let's throw He3 into the mix with D, just like theory and several subsequent tests predicted would work 50 years ago, oh look, it works!

fuck MIT.

>>139489420

They aren't. poly-wells especially. it's not about fusing, it's about getting the energy out before it gets wasted in the plasma or as Bremsstrahlung radiation. Polywells are shit at dealing with this.

Dense Plasma Focus, tho, might be a winner. keep an eye on that one. The main dude claims he can overcome those problems and he's not a crank.

>>139488262

This t.b.h. there were rumors for years that this is what kind of happened to the Huemul reactor, Richter and Peron/Argentina, though Huemul likely didn't work.

Ten time as much as before, so 10xalmost nothing

>>139487395
>Helium-3

Well, bad that it isn't available here on Earth. Well, it is and we could even make it... but that would cost more in terms of energy than we get out of it.

Moon mining? Please, come on, won't happen this century.

>>139487395
It means all your racism is over.

It means what you were fighting for is done.

Unlimited free energy is well a utopian post scarcity.

Think the end of pollution, the end of hunger, the end of poverty.

Hopefully it's not vapor ware.

>>139498161
Yep

Concern fags about global apocalypse are just that - fags. Technology knows no bounds

>>139509091
>>139509321
That's purely theoretical. No one ever has even tried to demonstrate the possibility to sustain the runaway fission reaction in a controlled manner AND get the thrust out of it. The thing is, to achieve these favorable numbers it has to operate in a way that's not containable by technical means due to temperature limitations. Yet, in order to harness the thrust you would at least some kind of nozzle to have directional thrust. So you need a technical device no matter what. But it would just melt away.
Just because you can calculate the energy output for the reactants at so and so conditions doesn't mean you can actually make it technically feasible.

>>139510347
Yeah in a post scarcity world, no one will care about muh skin color because everyone is living so damn comfy.

Contrary to /pol/pular belief, not many people today care about politics. Extremist ideologies only take root in shitty economic times.

Bye bye WN

Hard to say. There's a lot of negative stigma associated with nuclear energy among the public.

>>139506819
We still need plastics, and oil's great for that (I believe). Let's say we got rid of oil usage completely, what would we do for plastics?

>>139510874
Exactly. No ones cares. And at the point people need to care they'd gas all of you WN autists.

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?
Probably very little, since they'll never let it become mainstream

>>139506797
its a thread about fusion you tard... no need for batteries broski... IT WOULD HAVE A LIMITLESS REACTOR

>>139510347
Post scarcity is still waaaay of.
We can be realy glad if we get first fusion reactor on grid in 15 years.
All other scarcities (land, food, minerals,) still remain.

>>139509038
>Solar.... clean.... KEK

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

>>139510625
Why wasn't this your main object to my mentioning the design rather than issues of inefficiency and specific impulse? I agree that it might not be possible to build one, but if it was they'd be kind of unbeatable in performance.

"normal" nuclear thermal rockets are pretty great in any case. Actually I think a good reason for building colonies and industrial infrastructure on Mars is that you could mine/refine fissionable material there and lift off with nuclear rockets with no fucks given since there's no atmosphere to worry about. Not even a future one since Mars can not be terraformed.
This would turn Mars into a portal of sorts to the rest of the solar system.

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?
World War.

>>139511479
main objection*

>>139511163
China doesn't give a shit about lobbyism.

File: 1491979107701.jpg (268KB, 1429x1073px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1429x1073px

>>139487395
Reminder that fusion will never be net positive as even the sun itself is powered externally with fusion being a side effect.

http://electric-cosmos.org/Electronic%20Sun.pdf

>>139511163
see >>139511481
This is the only way for it to rise. The global superpower is backed up by the petrodollar. Any change in energy that significant will cause a world war to happen. World War is pretty much inevitable at this point. We're just seeing how its going to happen.

>>139510347
Moronic naivete. Why does every utopian idea result in tens of millions of deaths?

>>139511091
Despite how unlikely it is, reprocesing celulose is probably only way. It's abundandt, is renevable. Problem is, celulose is tricky as fuck to break down into monomeres. Once you do this, space is the limit. But, with endles supply of energy, everything is possible. Bamboo celulose harvesting might be a thing in the future. Realy don't know, man.

>>139511479
>Why wasn't this your main object to my mentioning the design rather than issues of inefficiency and specific impulse?
Probably because you entered a discussion between fusion vs fission in space ship applications where I argued against fusion and for fission due to p/w. Then you gave an example of a fission design, albeit very non-conventional. Very irritating altogether.

>"normal" nuclear thermal rockets are pretty great in any case.
I agree but we'd need more reliable way to get them into space first.

We really need another energy revolution, that's the only reason why it looks like we are not.making as much progress as decades before. Coal launched the first industrial revolution, oil created the modern world and now we are cucked until we found a way to produce a shitload more of energy

Fusion isn't a power source, it's a weapon.

Not a bigass nuke, an economic weapon to be used against oil producing nations.

File: HTRE-3.jpg (164KB, 772x954px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 772x954px

>>139512168
>I agree but we'd need more reliable way to get them into space first.
I wonder if a indirect air cycle nuclear jet engine (dual purpose rocket/jet perhaps) could work.

>>139511618
What do you mean by powered externally? You've got gravity providing the squish to cause the fusion but that still ends up being net positive until you start fusing into iron. Ever watch a fusion bomb going off? A small nuke starts it going and then the payback is 10x or more.

>>139511165
And that anon posted a machine that would run on batteries. There is no way a reactor would fit in a robot that is less than 10 meter high in the not super distant future. And it isn't really that smart to build a robot higher than that as the foot area of a robot scales in the square foot of the scaling of the displacement (weight)

>>139513044
You really have to read up on the electric sun theory.

>wat is Arie Degeus
NASA in 1961 http://www.space.com/13702-nuclear-g...fographic.html, and murdered inventor Aries DeGeus patented the second generation of the nuclear battery in 2004 which utilized ionized plasma as patented at the IWPO:


Nuclear Transmutational Processes
WO0231833
EC: G21B3/00 IPC: G21B3/00; G21B3/00; (IPC1-7): G21B1/00
2002-04-18
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...=WO0231833&F=0

start digging on mono atomic hydrogen anons

>>139506797
5 minute batteries are enough

File: 1479783320207.jpg (2MB, 2550x2970px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2550x2970px

>>139487395
The colossal petroleum industry will use all of their lobbyists and money to block fusion energy industry advancement, just like they have for green energy.

Money > Everything

We must riot if we want change.

>>139488646
>Same happened to AI
No it god damn didn't. Estimates for the arrival for true AI have been dropping for years. It was like 2056 in 2009, in 2013 it was 2040, and last I checked it was 2036.

>>139512909
Combined cycle engine usually have complexity issues.
Current rockets aren't in any way inefficient. They're just expensive which is mainly a result of low volume production. I see space tourism as the eventual bootstrap industry to overcome that chicken-egg problem.

peakoil.com/alternative-energy/plasma-battery-inventors-disappearing-regularly

>>139489769
>believing for one second that energy kikes will let a virtual free energy device destroy their multi trillion $ energy shekel market

>>139515761
>Current rockets aren't in any way inefficient.
In what regard? They're the most cost-efficient thing there is right now (of course), but specific impulse and weight isn't all that great. Where they shine is providing a whole lot of absolute thrust.

>>139506969
How the fuck would you cool it in space? A radiator the size of mars?

>>139516328
That's the beauty of the concept. You throw (explode) the nuclear fuel out along with the reaction mass, so the vast majority of the heat is dumped out with the exhaust.

>>139487614
What the fuck does a spaceship do that needs a power plant that big?
Does it have the mother of all fucking subwoofers in the back

Fusion is vapourware.

>>139516041
an unusually good article from that shithole of a doomer site. I knew about Stan, but not the other inventors. I've been interested in plasma fusion power for years. I'm convinced its possible. If you have heard of Eric Lerner : he's getting fusion results but his device is so difficult to use as a energy source that its taking 40 years to develop. The kikes won't kill him until its finished and he's showing it to tech companies trying to get it mass produced.
In the last few years I've thought there's easier ways to get fusion power, similar to Eric's method. So I've got to investigate these fusion pioneers' inventions. It makes sense to me that plasma fusion devices have been created and are being surpressed by energy kikes. They should be relatively easy for electric plasma physicists \ engineers to make.

>>139516213
>In what regard?
In thrust/weight terms first and foremost. But also cost wise. The bulk of their cost is in development and manual labor for manufacturing them, which is why high volume production would be so very beneficial here.
>but specific impulse and weight isn't all that great. Where they shine is providing a whole lot of absolute thrust.
Specific impulse and thrust are often a tradeoff. Ion engines are at the other end of the spectrum. And they have their applications, too. But to leave the gravity well of earth you need also lots of thrust.

>>139487395
Article says nothing about what this means for the big picture. They could need a hundred times these kind of improvements for all i know.

>>139509654
You'll be fine.
The only danger would be inside MIT, it's not even a fraction as dangerous as fission, just fancy.

>>139517913
correct. Tokamaks and the plasma physics they create and research are designed to never be viable as power generators. The whole thing is kikery trying to suck up the worlds brains and make sure they never make anything that can compete with kikes prefered power sources : mineral hydrocarbons. There's bullets on stand by for any MGTOW inventor who resists the pull of the tokakike.

>>139508122
None because it's /x/ tier stupid nonsense.

>>139521784
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34797252
>"small nuclear reactors" ?

WWIII is about suppressing technology on a grand scale. Always follow money

>>139488262
essentially this.
the jew overlords will not allow anything to interfere with their shekel flow

>>139487395
>What will the rise of nuclear fusion mean for the oil and green industries?
Nothing to oil. As almost no oil is used for fuel for electrical generation.

The 'green' industry will also continue to be protected by political activism as is the case now.

>>139506085
>LFTR was stuck in R&D because it only works sporadically, producing energy in pulses.
Have you confused the very first nuclear reactors that had build ups of neutron absorbing by products, with the LFTR that was designed initially to be a aircraft engine? (a power source that can't cycle up and down in an uncontrolled manner)

here is a link to pdf file with hundreds energy studies and inventions.
https://dropfile.to/VZz9QDr
psswd:dPbAumA

>>139517491
same me. do your research how ((they)) killed mono atomic hydrogen welding. Numbers were altered in chemistry books. Ether theory is real. they call it ((vacuum fluctuations))

>>139508122
>>139521784

Skunkworks claims it will be operative in 10 years. That's a pretty bold claim but those guys are pretty fucking smart.

>>139487395
Man continues to pour money into technologies that can kill billions, but doesn't have a penny to spare for churches.

Sad!