JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Krivit nailed ITER with charges of perpetrating active fraud to the public. > In the face of the facts they have made a few changes (not enough) which is > an embarrassment to the vocal supporters of this fraud - who immediately > tried to slime Krivit. >
Is there any indication they made the changes in response to Krivit? I read his comments and the ITER webpage. I would not call that fraud. It was mild confusion. It was a non-technical explanation for the general public that should have been a little more rigorous. I have written non-technical explanations for the public so I sympathize with the authors. Krivit is confused about some of the technical issues. See: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iteritation/ Many people are confused by the differences between power and energy. Terms such as "net energy" and "breakeven" are poorly defined and they mean different things in different contexts. For example, according to Krivit, the ITER website now says: "ITER will not capture the power it produces as electricity, but as the first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy it will prepare the way for the machine that can." Net energy is defined as "When the total energy created during the fusion plasma pulse surpasses the amount of energy required to power the machines systems (heating)." That is one way to define net energy. I would define it as the energy added to the plasma itself. By that definition, all fusion reactions with atoms lighter than iron always produce net energy. - Jed
