Must. Not. Pick. At. Scab...

> Do we even had a model for Fussion that is energy poasitive? The only Fusion reactors we know to work, work by converting gravitational potential energy into light/heat through fusion this is how stars operate.

> All fusion reactions so far require an external input of energy not only to start them but often to sustain them and even those which are self sustaining for a short period of time grind to a halt once you try to extract energy from the system.

That was your original question. It contains, as everyone is aware, your original statement that stars work by converting gravitational potential energy into light and/or heat through fusion. This claim is patently incorrect. It is false. It is misleading. It is a red herring, and a canard. You seem susceptible to it, for some reason. My only advice is to just set it down, over there, and don't play with it. The only winning move is not to play.

> And does this model including the confinement energy is energy positive or not.

Sigh. There is no "confinement energy." This is a physics-sounding phrase that you seem to have coined. Set "confinement energy" down over there next to your original question. It's poison.

> This requires energy so instead of trying to explain me high school physics...

Sigh, again. How much energy, quantified, in the mathematical language of physics and engineering? How much in comparison to the energy released quantified, in the mathematical language of physics and engineering? While these are technical questions, the answer, given by physicists and fusion researchers since well before ITER, is: "We get way more energy out. Full stop. Solved problem. Tokamaks work, with a lower size limited by magnet technology, but not by first law physics. (Implicitly, people who question this at length are cranks.)"

You simply have no basis to go around demanding "a model." If it hit you in the face, you wouldn't recognize it. You, personally, can't quantify this "require[d] energy." You, personally, therefore have no reason, other than obstinance, to think you have some relation between the amount of energy released from a fusion reaction and the energy necessary to create the conditions for fusion. None. No other reason. Pure mulishness. The question is dumb. You are dumber for having asked it, and I am dumber for having read it. It is contagiously, toxically dumb. Please stop. There is no longer any nice way to say any of this to you.

And the one thing you need more of is high school physics, not less.

> ...do we have a model which allows for the extraction of energy form [sic] a fusion reaction that does not cool it down until it stops[?]

Which fusion reaction? Where? So, you can set a solar panel up to do "extraction of energy" from the Sun. Experimentally, this has not shut down fusion in the Sun. So, yes? We have a model? Further, there's no way to not "extract energy" from a fusion reaction, whether or not that "extraction" shuts it down. You, and I, generally exist at a lower temperature than fusion reactions. Ergo, we are extracting energy via radiation from every fusion reaction in the Universe, via heat transfer.

> If we want to simulate gravity in say space there will be an expense to that in terms of say rotating a drum which means we need to expand some energy to do so.

There's a legitimately beautiful and elegant answer to all this energy nonsense in that thought experiment. The answer leads to even more beautiful math about energy, momentum, ground states, and stability. It would be wasted, here.

I'm going to go have a shower, and maybe a drink. This has been an awful waste of time.