Part 1 of 2
Text Box: Reviewed 3 December 2007   
Requests for clarifications to eugenesittampalam (at) gmail.com – most welcome!
Text Box: In the macroscopic world of aviation research, man takes about sixty years to get from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility.
He uses classical mechanics.
In the submicroscopic world of fusion research, he also takes about sixty years... 
but with neither a viable machine nor one envisaged even for the next sixty years. 
He uses modern quantum mechanics.
Do these not tell us that, perhaps, something fundamental is distorting our vision of the atomic world 
when viewed through today's quantum mechanics?
Text Box: At wavelengths in the range of millimeters to centimeters, the extraterrestrial electromagnetic radiation background is dominated by an isotropic component, the cosmic background radiation, or CBR. The isotropy suggests the CBR is a sea of radiation that uniformly fills space. This would mean an observer in any other galaxy would see the same intensity of radiation, equally bright in all directions, consistent with the cosmological principle.”
P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993); pp 131-134
Text Box: We worked through the night on this, and by dawn we could see the pattern we were looking for: the dipole anisotropy, showing part of the sky warmer (blueshifted) and the opposite part cooler (redshifted). …Not only is the entire Galaxy rotating, as it should be, but, unexpectedly, it is also moving through space. And it was moving very fast – six hundred kilometers a second, or more than a million miles an hour.
George Smoot & Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, Little, Brown & Co, UK (1993); p 137
Text Box: The motion of the Solar System relative to the frame in which the cosmic background radiation is isotropic is... 370 ± 10 km s–1 to a = 11.2h, d = – 7o; l = 264.7 ± 0.8o, b = 48.2 ± 0.5o. The conventional correction for the solar motion relative to the Local Group is 300 km s–1 to l = 90o, b = 0. ... With this correction, the velocity of the Local Group relative to the CBR is 600 km s–1 toward a = 10.5h, d = – 26o (l = 268o, b = 27o).
P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993); p 152
Text Box: As the computers [at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory] flashed confirmation of the power output, the onlookers erupted in cheers, and not a few tears. Some of them had worked on the [Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor] project for more than 20 years, and the success of the experiment last week proved that the time had not been wasted. Not only had the researchers trounced the 1.7 million-watt record set by a similar European reactor early last year, they had also taken a major step toward exploiting a safe, clean source of power that uses fuels extracted from ordinary water. ... 
Impressive as Tokamak's achievement was, the $1.6 billion machine generated only one-eighth as much power as it consumed [in the four seconds or so that the test lasted]. The next day the reactor managed to generate more than 5 million watts. But even its eventual goal of 10 million will still be only half of the incoming energy... 
When scientists began working on fusion half a century ago, they had no idea the process would be so hard.
Blinded by the Light, Michael D. Lemonick, Time, 20 Dec 1993; p 54
Text Box: Sustainable energy from high-energy nuclear fusion is not a viable proposition in Earth space.
The fundamental reason is a simple one. 
In fact, it's so simple it's going to be unbelievable at first.
(For the full text, please see book sections 6.20 and 6.21.)

Take the basic case of the proton-proton fusion. Two wholesome bodies, the protons, are forcefully brought and squeezed together to form a single union in the deuteron, with the release of a positron and a neutrino from the squeezing (see Nuclear Reactions). 

All elementary particles of matter are directional entities. They are spinning dipoles with also a linear motion. In absolute space, the proton, typically, has a spontaneous movement in the direction of its spin axis with south pole leading (see also Superconductivity). 
In the deuteron, the two such dipoles are side by side and mutually antiparallel; and, naturally, each would tend to move in the direction of its own south. This results in the two contiguous dipoles orbiting each other about their common mass center; see figure below. 

Thus, the deuteron becomes most stable when at rest in absolute space, where its two constituent nuclear grains, 
each moving in the direction of its own south, would orbit one another indefinitely with zero net displacement. 

In a system that is moving in absolute space, however, this nuclear stability gets threatened: The perfect antiparallel alignment of the two dipoles is strained, as each tries to point its own south in the direction of absolute motion, a purely mechanical tendency. And the higher this absolute velocity of the common mass center, the lower the stability of the nucleus drops; with total separation of constituent dipoles occurring at a critical velocity when the two grains would move parallel with south poles leading.

The solar system is moving at approximately 370 km per second, or at 0.12% of the speed of light, in absolute space. 
Hence, neither the occurrence nor the stability typically of the deuteron is what we have been assuming it to be in solar space to date. 

Optimum proton-proton encounters for deuteron formation in the Sun, therefore, are not isotropic due to this absolute motion of the solar frame; and quantitative investigation of any solar products from Earth space becomes non-representative of the total picture classically reckoned from observations. (See also The Sun for more on this anisotropy.)

Further, the deuterons that do form in the Sun would have speeds in all directions in the solar frame. Hence, statistically, half of them will be moving in the general direction as the Sun in absolute space at any given time. These deuterons will thus have a greater speed in absolute space, and would thereby become less stable, compared to the other half moving in the opposite direction.

Thus, neither the nuclear cross section (the probability of occurrence of nuclear reactions) nor the sustainability of nuclear products that do form is isotropic for the solar reactor; the non-sustainability fueling mostly turbulence in the plasma.  

The persistent and so-called solar neutrino problem, detecting only about 30% of neutrinos from the theorized proton-proton fusion in the Sun (see The Neutrino), is but a confirmation of this fact. 
(Moreover, it is nuclear fission that primarily fuels the solar furnace; fusion does rule the roost but at a much higher order of mass centers – at rest – in the universe; these are the Cosmic Cores discussed above.)

In the tokamak fusion test reactor, for example, the nuclear cross section similarly suffers. Exacerbating matters even further is the fact that the process lacks the all-important rhythm for fusion to occur in a sustainable manner with cyclic fuel injection and product exhaustion. Not surprisingly, what we see instead is the fueling more of turbulence and less of fusion, leading to premature depletion of prime fuel with only sporadic or chance fusion in the chaotic plasma (see "A simple and low-cost test of the theory" below). 

In other words, the peak “success” rate of around 30% fusion we keep hearing here, too, after decades of high-cost experiments, is nothing short of a reconfirmation of these insights.
If ignored, neither will the emerging new field of ICF be spared this deplorable fate.

The illustrations below should clarify the basics further.

A Note on Sustainability
Hydroelectric power, for example, is the most widely used form of energy. It is sustainable, with regular and sufficient rainfall and with the cost to run the power station not in excess of the sales income. 
Similarly, the nuclear fission reactor is sustainable with continued supply of the fissile material and with total cost not in excess of income.
The nuclear fusion reactor, on the other hand, would entail not only the continued supply of fusion material but also the powering and controlling of, in the MFE, the burning plasma (at over a hundred million oC) continuously and rhythmically in a nonmaterial containment. Fuel for fusion, relative to fission, is abundant and cheap; but due to a flaw in our understanding of the basic fusion mechanism, net energy output from the station for sustainability of venture becomes only wishful thinking in our neck of the cosmic woods.
Text Box: Then [Fermi] delivered his verdict in a quiet, even voice. "There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics", he said. "One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process that you are calculating. ..."
A meeting with Enrico Fermi, Freeman Dyson (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton), Nature 427, 297 (22 Jan 2004)
Text Box: Heavy water
The high-energy cosmic-ray and solar-wind protons beat down on every square inch of the earth. 
In this incessant pelting, the eventual transmutation of hydrogen (1H) in the sea water molecules to deuterium (2H) is not hard 
to fathom. (The heavy water thus formed would generally tend to sink to the quieter depths and, over the eons, accumulate at the sea bottom, reducing also probability of dissociation by further cosmic and solar bombardment.)
Nevertheless, due to reasons seen above, the deuterium does not form so abundantly nor survive for long in the earth frame.
This is the fundamental reason why our seas today are not teeming with heavy water. Instead, what we see is a state of statistical constancy with only a tiny fractional amount of heavy water (2H:1H = 1:6700) at any one time.
Within the highly shielded confines of the tokamak, for example, this statistical constancy is nonexistent; 
and coupled with the violent speed changes, dissociation takes place in net and at an increased clip.
Text Box: "The exception tests the rule." Or, put it another way. "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
Richard Feynman (Nobel 1965), The Meaning of It All, Addison-Wesley (1998); p 16
Text Box: A simple and low-cost test of the high-energy fusion theory
The primary fuel today in many high-energy fusion experimental labs is deuterium. In the tokamak, for instance, the working plasma is usually composed of 50/50 deuterium/tritium, the fuel mix required for practical fusion power production; and refueled by injection of high-velocity frozen D-T pellets. The plasma temperature for commercial fusion is now reckoned at 100 million degrees Celsius. 
(A record 510 million was achieved in the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor which operated at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory between 1982 and 1997; please see their website for more.)

In such facilities, it may be well worthwhile to perform the following qualitative test.

1. Fire up the nuclear boiler and bring it to only about 30 million degrees Celsius (well below fusion temperature).
2. Shut down the boiler, but not completely.
3. Maintain the plasma at minimal temperature (for it to remain fluid) and extract a sample of the fuel material from the boiler.
4. Cool the sample down and determine the fractional weight content of deuterium and tritium in the sample.
5. Repeat the above four steps at least twice but without adding any fresh fuel to the plasma.

It is hereby predicted that, classically inexplicable though it be, a progressive decline in the content of D and of T will be observed.

The reason:
In the plasma, the fuel material is in the form of ions – nuclei (deuterons and tritons) and electrons.
Classically, since the binding energy of the deuteron will be sufficiently greater than its kinetic energy in the (low-temperature) plasma, the deuteron should not dissociate. In a like manner, the half-life of the radioactive triton, too, should not be affected, that is, according to prevailing theory. The samples retrieved for analysis, therefore, should remain prime and not show signs of premature depletion.
However, as explained above, the latter will be seen to be the case, since, contrary to current understanding – 
environment does influence life; half-life not excepting.
          Go to Part 2 of 2
THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS ILLUSTRATIONS
A Synopsis The Cosmos The Spin
ADDENDA The Cosmological Redshift The Neutrino
Two-Slit Tests The Galaxy Nuclear Reactions
NASA Tests Gravity The Sun
KamLAND Test Anti-Gravity The Pulsar
UCLA Test Relativity Superconductivity
Q and A Mass-Energy Fusion Energy
 Eugene Sittampalam
 3 December 2007