Is this Fusion Gold company real or the next scam? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 08:54:55 am
content: What do you think?Mymeter hits the red reading this because as far as I know stable fusion has not been realized yet ?marathonfusion claims they can create a fusion reactor producing vast amounts of energy but hey that is not all folks, by adding mercury they get 5000kgs of gold as byproduct per year.They have published a paper on Arxiv but it is not yet peer reviewedRead all about it and give your opinion:https://www.marathonfusion.com/https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13461

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 10:39:31 am
content: Seems legit to me. It's not really a new idea.Of course, you still need a working, practical reactor, that actually generates practical energy, which doesn't exist yet. But it's getting much closer.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 10:43:57 am
content: Yeah, I had a load of mercury and turned it into gold. This is what I've made so far, and I've still got a bit of mercury left.I was thinking of taking it to the recycling, but I don't know if they accept it.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 10:58:01 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on July 26, 2025, 10:43:57 amYou realize that everything you see, including your gold, was created by large, fusion reactors called stars, either through the fusion cycles or during other events. Natural gold in particular comes from things like super novas.It's not like we don't know how to make gold. It's just never been economically feasible. If it can be made at scale, all that will happen is gold prices will decrease.Just like salt and spices are cheap these days. A thousand years, not so much.

author: booscrawl
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 11:03:32 am
content: Excited for our environment to be contaminated with a year-round drip of various radioactive man-made isotopes of mercury, lead, gold, and other similar atoms.I'm sure the energy generation company whose profitability depends on excess revenue from nuclear alchemy would never sell slightly radioactive gold as "perfectly normal" 197Au or try to cover up a botched disposal of various mixed isotopes.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 11:18:16 am
content: My first thought was "alchemy reinvented", and clicking on the link did not dissapoint me:Quote

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 11:19:07 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 26, 2025, 08:54:55 amSeems less fraudulent than currect "paper gold" (aka unfulfillable future contracts).A scam, nevertheless.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 12:47:50 pm
content: This thread should be moved to Dodgy Technology board.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 03:30:47 pm
content: This is just pure BS.QuoteYeah, sure.Transmuting another metal to gold has been achieved in a particle accelerator, I think, but for an excessively small number of *atoms* at an extraordinary cost. That's never going to be "economically irresistible".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 03:39:37 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 26, 2025, 03:30:47 pmBut you have to give them credit: what better lure to draw investors in with a machine which produces gold? IMHO the more principal question is: does this nuclear fusion reactor work at a commercially viable scale to deliver energy (heat and electricity)? If it does there is money to be made either way.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 03:59:31 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 26, 2025, 03:30:47 pmIt's achieved in reactors, at scale. That's were plutonium comes from.I think the idea is that there is a process they discovered that potentually gets it for low cost. I doubt it'll ever actually be profitable by the time all said and done, but just deferring some costs is worthwhile. Be even more worth it if there's a process that's gets some rare metals, but you know, they're rare for a reason.None of these ideas are crazy, or even new. Considering a practical reactor design doesn't exist yet, it's all very speculative anyhow.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 04:20:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 26, 2025, 03:39:37 pmIt actually makes no economic sense, even if that were possible.The amount of gold we use yearly for *practical* purposes (industrial) is very low compared to the total extracted. The rest is used for jewelry, luxury items, and as a reserve.So we don't actually need more gold than we can extract, for just direct practical purposes. We have plenty and if we stopped extracting it for virtual reasons (luxury, reserve), then there would never be any shortage for the very long foreseeable future.As to its value for luxury and as a reserve, it would obviously plummet if we could "produce" gold for a very low cost. It would lose all of its perceived value.So, this makes no sense when it comes to gold. They also talk prospectively about other metals, but it's even more dubious that it could be achieved at any usable scale.The fun idea would be to produce elements that do not exist on Earth - or maybe even anywhere else, at least that we know of. Fun, crazy, not all that realistic.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 04:32:03 pm
content: Quote from: Silicon WizardWe do that already. Plutonium existed nowhere before we made it. It's useful, so we make a lot of it, relatively.They're all radioactive, and other than plutonium, mostly useless, so we don't make them other than by accident, or in small quantities for research purposes.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 04:51:17 pm
content: Without reading their paper quick napkin math suggests their paper is just napkin math.First of, of course the whole proposal rests on having a working commercial fusion reactor. We can and do dig gold out of the ground. That's much easier than building a fusion reactor.But the approach is kind of cute. All proposed "scalable" D-T fusion reactors need to perform tritium breeding. This uses the generated neutrons from fusion to produce more tritium from lithium. But you first need to use a spallation process to multiply the neutron flux. Without that each tritium fusion event consumes one tritium and produces one neutron, and you can't break even. What they claim is that if you use mercury as the neutron multiplication material you get gold out "for free"I'm sure there are practical issues they don't address but it doesn't seem physically impossible. It's just the solution to a very specific problem: we have working fusion power plants but they are 50% too expensive to be financially viable. At least until the price of gold collapses. This is not currently a problem we are facing, to put it mildly.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 05:11:39 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 26, 2025, 04:32:03 pmWe also produce Americium (from plutonium) for use in smoke detectors and RTGs to power deep space probes.We also produce technitium and synthetic radio-isotopes of naturally occuring elements for nuclear medicine and industrial applications. And we produce tritium for nuclear weapons and fusion development.He3 is naturally occuring but in very small quantities. For commercial use it is collected from synthetic tritium decay and used in neutron detectors, medical imaging, and ultra-cryogenic applications, mostly in dilution refrigerators.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 05:16:30 pm
content: just keep in mind artificially produced nuclear radio isotopes are the most expensive industrial material on the planet. Next up is antimatter.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 07:43:56 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on July 26, 2025, 05:11:39 pmDidnt know that one.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 08:17:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on July 26, 2025, 05:16:30 pmIt's like using waste heat from computers for environmental heating, or regenerative braking. You wouldn't install computers to heat your space. You wouldn't install batteries and motors in your car just for braking. If you already need computers, or you already have an electric vehicle, then you consider using waste heat or regenerative braking.So it doesn't "cost" $50,000/ounce to make gold, or whatever it works out to. The point is more that when/if fusion becomes practical, there are byproducts you can take advantage of.Like, if we no longer have any use for crude oil as fuel/plastic/whatever, it's stupid to drill for oil just to make Vaseline. But if it's there already, you're stupid not to.The process either works or it doesn't, but I haven't seen any particular reason to believe it doesn't. No one gets excited because nuclear power plants also happened to be used to make Cobolt-60.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 08:24:34 pm
content: I remember that Oak Ridge National Lab transmuted gold into lead, in order to produce small amounts of isotopically pure lead for research purposes. The administration office at my university asked an engineer what the hell he had sent by Registered Mail with a stated value of one million dollars (he was returning a borrowed sample).

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 08:31:35 pm
content: Two things:1. My view of nuclear fusion remains exactly the same as it did 4 decades ago when I was an anti-nuclear activist:We already have the universe's most wonderful fusion reactor at our disposal, at a nice safe 93 million miles distant.Let's use it, and just scrap this totally hubristic, dangerous and ultimately totally superfluous attempt to recreate the Sun here on earth.2. This thread belongs in "dodgy technology".

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 10:21:44 pm
content: Fusion is a commercial reality since a long time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generatorhttps://www.thermofisher.com/search/browse/featured/us/en/80012997Guess we're both on about 15 watchlists now...Oh fusionpower. Sorry no.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2025, 11:59:43 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 26, 2025, 10:58:01 amElements heavier than iron cannot be created by fusion inside stars. Instead, they are formed in extreme events such as neutron star mergers and supernova explosions.On Earth, the required energies can only be artificially achieved in particle accelerators in minuscule quantities (on an order of magnitude of few atoms per experiment). Anyone claiming to produce such elements in industrial quantities ( 3x10^21 atoms in 1 gram of gold) is fraud.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 12:03:48 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 26, 2025, 11:59:43 pmYou mean like plutonium, that we produce tons of a year?We could do this 80 years ago at scale. We don't with other elements because it's not economical.I'm really kind of shocked,actually,how many think this is alchemy. It's not even cutting edge science. It's old news.And you know, this particular thing may not end up being economical, and may not scale due to whatever. But it's not magic. It's not even new in my lifetime, and likely not yours either.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 12:27:25 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 27, 2025, 12:03:48 amYou’re right. I became focused on the astrophysical origins of gold.However, synthesizing gold by neutron irradiation of mercury-198 in fission reactors is economically impractical.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 12:49:59 am
content: The point is to take advantage of side effects and waste, if you can.And if it doesn't work out, oh well.But they've actually written a paper and put it out there. And it can be read (I read it) and reviewed. Other scientists and experimenters can offer criticism and experimental evidence that can support or not.Regardless what you think of the marketing website, this is at least an attempt at good science. In stark contrast to boneheads like Sabine Hossenfelder (that publishes nothing), Eric Weinstein (that publishes copyrighted articles that you're not even allowed to cite, apparently), and Wolfram that won't even pretend to give details because...I don't know why. And Wolfram really surprises and disappoints me, honestly.Given all the super popular NON-science out there at the moment, I find this actually pretty refreshing.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 12:57:49 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 26, 2025, 08:17:28 pmpeak plastic is a long way off.Super polymers might make oil worth much more then it is as fuel in the future IMO. Example :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybenzimidazole

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 02:25:43 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 26, 2025, 11:59:43 pmThere energy required doesn't have to be terribly high, and as was explained above multiple isotopes are produced by transmutation in commercially relevant quantities although only plutonium in very large masses.In this case the reaction is actually reducing Z towards iron (more stable). They would start with mercury (Z=80, mass number 198, a stable isotope with 10% natural abundance) and hit it with a neutron. The neutron would knock a second neutron out of the nucleus. This is called spallation and its a well understood process. This leaves mercury 197 which is an unstable isotope that will undergo electron capture to decay to gold (Z=79).I'm not sure what practical issues they are overlooking -- other than the obvious one of needing a working fusion power plant. I am fairly confident this is never going to work. But the science of isotope transmutation is pretty well understood and it's not magic.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 02:35:54 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 27, 2025, 12:27:25 amNote that they are proposing doing this in *fusion* reactors. Which don't exist. That's the crazy part.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 03:00:48 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on July 27, 2025, 02:35:54 amWelcome to science. You speculate what's possible, and publish. In 100 years...or 5, or 40...other breakthroughs can happen and fusion is viable. Or not.Thank God there was no internet when the first transistor was demonstrated.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 06:59:04 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 27, 2025, 12:49:59 amSay it is possible.I have no knowledge how fusion reactors work. But IIRC it takes huge amounts of energy to start it up, which when it is stable returns numerous times. But in order to collect the gold as byproduct should it not be shut down? Which means the efficiency would drop significantly or do these reactors need to be shutdown anyway for maintenance etc.?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:02:44 am
content: They (fusion reactors) do not exist, so everything you wrote is speculation.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:06:36 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 26, 2025, 08:31:35 pmI agree that it should be stable and safe to a point that it would not be extremely dangerous, but not developing it would mean a stagnation in the progress of human kind.There is a huge increase of energy need in the coming decades when all the countries are developing living standards to what we already have in europe and the us. Also for space exploration and out of earth settlements it would be required.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:26:13 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 27, 2025, 12:03:48 amThere's a very significant difference between that and the proposed gold production though, isn't there? Namely, having a viable large-scale fusion reactor (and all that entails), rather than as the by-product of fission reactors? The energy levels and hence complexity are greatly different, are they not?Quote from: John Coloccia on July 27, 2025, 12:03:48 amI think maybe you're missing the nuance. I think everyone in this thead knows from their high school chemistry and physics classes that these processes are possible, and some have even been recreated in high energy physics labs. Where folks are calling BS, is that such processes could ever be a viable for the *commercial* production of gold, which is what is being described in the opening post.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 09:15:26 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on July 27, 2025, 08:26:13 amSmall nuance, not as main goal the commercial production of gold, but as an additional profit on the side after stable fusion reactors are realized, to lower the operational costs for fusion reactors (or the development thereof). At least that is how I read it.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 09:24:25 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 27, 2025, 09:15:26 amI'll be honest, I didn't read the article itself, shame on me. My excuse is, anytime I see anything predicated on the existence of practical fusion reactors, my thoughts go immediately to "just 10 years away".

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 09:57:16 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on July 27, 2025, 09:24:25 amI wish and hope it is only 10 years away, unfortunately I think it can be much longer.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 10:06:28 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 27, 2025, 06:59:04 amThere isn't a practical, commercial design yet, so who knows, though there are a couple that have actually returned net energy.There are fission reactors making Cobolt60 that do not need to be shutdown to load/retrieve the product. It just depends on the design.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 11:02:47 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on July 27, 2025, 10:06:28 amHonestly, I think it's meaningless to attempt to extrapolate/speculate what might be possible with a fusion reactor, based on fission reactors. They are chalk and cheese, operating under very different conditions.For starters, a fission reactor might be at a few hundred Celsius when operating. The fusion reactor, over 100 MILLION.https://euro-fusion.org/faq/what-is-the-temperature-generated-in-a-tokamak/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 12:22:47 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 27, 2025, 09:57:16 amFrom what I've gathered I think a fair estimate is that fusion will become viable after 2050. Maybe close to 2100.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 01:19:18 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on July 27, 2025, 11:02:47 amFixed that for you, since you went out of your way to pretend I said "fusion reactors are just like fission reactors". LOL

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 01:53:54 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 27, 2025, 12:22:47 pmI think tokamaks are a mistake. The purpose of tokamak is to make the fusion reaction constant. And we can already see that it requires exotic materials that are just never going to be available in the required quantity, temperature is too high and there is no idea how to generate electricity other than the age old "boil water and make steam" out of it.Compare this tohttps://www.helionenergy.com/trentaI'm fairly convinced this is not a vaporware. It's pulse driven, fusion only happens for a fraction of a second. Energy is extracted with inductors, because Ions going fast generate magnetic field, that make electricity. Temperature is not an issue, just make the duty cycle low enough so the materials survive. Plus, you know, it works already, the current version will make electricity, they say 2028.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 04:30:08 pm
content: high energy pulses have their own unique difficulties.Of course they seemed to have worked and changed the whole world once they made better transistors and figured out the topology. (inverters)What I mean is that there is unique engineering problems due to 'fast strains' that are related to pulsed power, even when compared to constant very high power systems.Engines are also a high peak pulse power system (mechanical, repeated near 'explosion') and they seem to have won out over turbines, but perhaps not for the most likely reason... it was because turbines need great bearings and balance (solvable), have pollution (not really solvable easily) and have fuel economy problems (Unknown how easy this is to solve, possibly I think you can, because they only made a handful of cars to study).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_CarBut to me it seems like the MTBF and general reliability of a turbine might have been way higher and easier to achieve then a piston engine. Its elegant.I think people just considered that the pollution from the ground turbine engine is so bad that its not worth studying anymore, given how much of a performance gap there is with known toxic gasses like NO2 being generated near pedestrians. Also we have the social knowledge that tells us how little some drivers care about emissions, meaning if you ran a turbine without a 'catalytic converter' like you would a car, the results would be very bad.. so even if someone made a filter, some people would choose not to maintain/replace it or even eliminate it for personal gain.But its interesting that for large scale applications, making a giant piston generator is kind of nuts compared to making a giant turbine. Fusion is already in the 'mega giant' stage. Normally large scale systems are always 'continuous' while the portable ones are 'pulsed'. I am not seeing a scaled up V-256 engine to use in a gas powerplant to replace a turbine.. although ships do use gigantic engines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-CIs there ANY successful 'pulsed' power generator that exists for grid-scale use? Be it for steam, electricity, or whatever else might be distributed through some kind of circuit?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:23:35 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 27, 2025, 07:06:36 amBullshit.That's a totally technophiliac statement.As if we don't embrace every possible technology that comes along, no matter how flawed, how misguided, how unnecessary, that somehow our whole species will suffer as a result, or our genome become permanently damaged, or some other shit.Like all those tech-bros who insist that the human race will suffer irrepairable damage if we don't throw ourselves into space, colonize other planets, spread our cancer all over the universe.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:27:41 pm
content: I will say, regarding fusion reactors, that those crazed technophiles who were pushing it like crazy back in the 1990s have sobered up at least a little bit:I remember reading about plans for fusion reactors back then that proposed using cooling systems based onliquid sodium.That's right, fuckingliquid sodium!Now what could possibly go wrong with such a scheme?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:31:57 pm
content: Liquid sodium is now used to cool some fission reactors, since the liquid metal can operate at higher temperatures than water.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:35:00 pm
content: not muchhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/zSWLsgKg_tYit might burn like magnesium if its ignited or explode if there is water nearbyFor some reason I don't think it would be much worse then what happens at a metal worksActually I bet a fire at a magnesium engine works is worse because its die case and it ends up igniting nearby hydraulics. If its truely something like a hydropneumatic system that uses liquid sodium and pressurized gas actuators, then not much should happen at all, unless the janitor left his bucket there, it had a roof leak, etcHaha, I wonder if the janitors at a liquid sodium reactor would mop with buckets of fluorinert

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:49:32 pm
content: I found this little gem a few weeks back. (Alright, The Great Algorithm directed me toward it)If you learn nothing about the hazards of sodium coolant handling from it, you can't fail to be 'impressed' by the stock 70's music. The intro is 'quite the thing'..

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 07:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 27, 2025, 07:23:35 pmTone down a bit the conversation.Yes we need clean energy even if the sun does not shine or wind blows. We in the Netherlands have one of the highest density private solarpanels in the world but nowhere near enough to be self sufficient. In countries with 14 hour sun per day yes. The whole world is using more and more energy every year and the graphs state it is rather exponential than linear growing.Fossil fuels are not sufficient or long term sustainable not too mention climate impact, so yes we need new energy sources or the alternative is to shrink the energy usage. Shut down clouds, internet , AI and stop using aircos etc. No one wants that, so what is your viable alternative?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:01:10 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 27, 2025, 07:50:08 pmNo. Why should I? Are you that easily offended? Your problem, not mine.QuoteGlad you asked.My alternative is to reduce our goddamn population.There are too many humans on the planet using too many resources.It's a completely unsustainable situation, and one that nobody wants to deal with.One possible alternative to actually reducing the population would be to reduce resource consumption instead, but nobody wants to do that.The push for social justice--which I totally agree with--only makes things worse here, because now you have more people demanding a higher level of living standard, like the rich folks have, which means even more resource consumption.Otherwise, we'll just have to wait until the Sixth Great Extinction wipes out our sorry asses as a result of catastrophic global climate change and loss of habitat ...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:13:06 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 27, 2025, 08:01:10 pmNothing like discussing some sunday casual genocide from some woke death cult follower.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:24:36 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on July 27, 2025, 08:13:06 pmNo, mon ami, the death cult is the current leadership of the human race who's racing us headlong towards disaster. Not I.You really think we can continue along this same trajectory and everything will work out fine and dandy?BTW, since the question will naturally arise when people read "population reduction", I honestly do not know how this should be accomplished. It implies all sorts of eugenics and other unethical/inhumane schemes which I am definitely not in favor of.Best thing I can think of at this point would be the now-abandoned Chinese 1-child policy, fairly implemented if such a thing were possible ...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:29:21 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 27, 2025, 08:24:36 pmI suggest you take this to reddit, where there aren't any rules or the mods here to ban you.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:30:48 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 27, 2025, 08:01:10 pmJust decent forum etiquette.It adds nothing to the discussion.QuoteYes and when societies develop they tend to get less kids, so again we need more energy so all countries can develop to the same level as the western world although I doubt if having more stuff even a washing machine as Hans Rosling put it in his TED Talk “The magic washing machine” really makes peoples life better and happier.If you watched the brilliant movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy(1980)" you get that point.But we are getting offtopic perhaps get back to fusion energy.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 08:44:51 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 27, 2025, 08:30:48 pmGood movie, good point.Now back to "fusion".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2025, 09:53:34 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 27, 2025, 07:23:35 pmPFAS anyone? That is unfolding into a real shitshow quickly and all because we want no-stick frying pans. Every living organism on this planet is contaminated with PFAS which accumulates nicely into the food chain.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2025, 01:59:35 am
content: Yes, PFAS. Another genius creation from the techno-masters of our universe.God damn them to hell.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2025, 02:07:02 am
content: They are already getting away from it. I got hex-clad frying pan (ceramic base) and it kicks ass. The knockoffs are good too, I have both kinds.It says they found some gut bacteria to eliminate PFOAThe thing that contains the most is stone sealant and carpet shit