Alternative Energy

[Taem]

It seems everyone is so anti-nuclear energy in America, and not without reason, however I've heard very convincing arguments, on this site here as a matter of fact from members here, that nuclear energy can be a safe alternative.

...And then NASA went and created this: Link

The significance of these results is hard to overstate, said Gibson. Research on space-ready fission reactors has been mired by high costs and lengthy time frames from the late 1970s to the early 2000s, which resulted in many canceled projects. "This is the first nuclear-powered operation of a new fission reactor concept in the U.S. in 40 years," Gibson said.

Fission reactors have many practical advantages over RTGs. For instance, RTGs generally produce only a few hundred watts, but the reactor is scalable to 10,000 watts. Four units could provide enough power to establish an extraterrestrial outpost, according to a statement NASA released after the event.

I'd love to see these in every home. You go to the store once a decade-to-twenty years+ and purchase an encased Plutonium pill for your generator. It's too bad humanity cannot be trusted with such things... One can still dream.

[kandrathe]

It seems everyone is so anti-nuclear energy in America, and not without reason, however I've heard very convincing arguments, on this site here as a matter of fact from members here, that nuclear energy can be a safe alternative.

...And then NASA went and created this: Link

The significance of these results is hard to overstate, said Gibson. Research on space-ready fission reactors has been mired by high costs and lengthy time frames from the late 1970s to the early 2000s, which resulted in many canceled projects. "This is the first nuclear-powered operation of a new fission reactor concept in the U.S. in 40 years," Gibson said.

Fission reactors have many practical advantages over RTGs. For instance, RTGs generally produce only a few hundred watts, but the reactor is scalable to 10,000 watts. Four units could provide enough power to establish an extraterrestrial outpost, according to a statement NASA released after the event.

I'd love to see these in every home. You go to the store once a decade-to-twenty years+ and purchase an encased Plutonium pill for your generator. It's too bad humanity cannot be trusted with such things... One can still dream.

I've been looking at the renewed interest in thorium reactors.

Does not create fissile bomb making materials. Dirty bombs maybe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR

[Lissa]

[quote='Taem' pid='215341' dateline='1525367787']
It seems everyone is so anti-nuclear energy in America, and not without reason, however I've heard very convincing arguments, on this site here as a matter of fact from members here, that nuclear energy can be a safe alternative.

...And then NASA went and created this: Link

The significance of these results is hard to overstate, said Gibson. Research on space-ready fission reactors has been mired by high costs and lengthy time frames from the late 1970s to the early 2000s, which resulted in many canceled projects. "This is the first nuclear-powered operation of a new fission reactor concept in the U.S. in 40 years," Gibson said.

Fission reactors have many practical advantages over RTGs. For instance, RTGs generally produce only a few hundred watts, but the reactor is scalable to 10,000 watts. Four units could provide enough power to establish an extraterrestrial outpost, according to a statement NASA released after the event.

I'd love to see these in every home. You go to the store once a decade-to-twenty years+ and purchase an encased Plutonium pill for your generator. It's too bad humanity cannot be trusted with such things... One can still dream.

The whole reason you haven't see the propensity of further nuclear power plants in the US is because the power industry didn't fight back against a lot of the bad information being spewed out after Three Mile Island. There was a lot of misinformation thrown around, but the power industry did nothing to defuse said misinformation.

As to this reactor design by NASA, NASA has been sitting on a nuclear rocket engine since the early 60s called the NERVA (the test model was called Kiwi and I had a professor in college that worked on it, had some interesting stories as well, especially the destruction test, and no, it didn't detonate, but its power output was so high that it shook itself apart). NERVA has so much trust that we could go to Mars and back within a 6 month period with 3 months of that time spent at Mars.

I've been looking at the renewed interest in thorium reactors.

Does not create fissile bomb making materials. Dirty bombs maybe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR

Thorium reactors create fissile material that can be used in bombs. People seem to think that using an LFTR you won't have to deal with neither waste nor fissile material that could be used in bombs, but people that believe this are deluding themselves.

LFTR are breeder reactors, the whole point of a breeder reactor is to make additional fissile material to continue the reaction as you convert fissionable material to fissile material and that you typically make more fissile material than you actually burn. Even still, as you create and burn more fissile material, you also start to get waste fission products that build up. Some of these waste fission products can shutdown the reaction. So periodically, you still have to seperate out the fissile and fissionable material from the waste fission products. While it takes much longer for LFTR, you still have to at some point.

When you do actually seperate the fissile and fissionable material back out, you can then gather material that could be used in weapons. The biggest thing I've heard for why someone wouldn't do that is due to the high amount radiation from the fission products, but the US, GB, France, SU/Russia, and China did exactly this in order to create their arsenals. This is why the various Non-Proliferation Treaties went into effect. Prior to the NPTs, the US use to rerprocess spent fuel and what was known then, but no one is willing to mention because of the NPTs, is that 99.5% of what comes out of a reactor each year is still usable in some way (95% as fuel, around 2% for industry, about 2.5% for medicinal) and only 0.5% of the actual material is waste that has a dangerous period of around 700 years (easily storable). But because of NPTs, we effectively toss 100% of what comes out of a reactor.

I've yet to see a single LFTR proponent be able to truly defend LFTR against standard Fission designs now. LFTR proponents seem to think that while the LFTR designs have been further iterated on to become safer and that standard LWR designs have been stuck in the 60s and 70s designs when in fact they too have been iterated upon (there were designs introduced the 90s that took acts of sabotage to have them meltdown due to the passive safety mechanisms built into the designs).

[kandrathe]

Thorium reactors create fissile material that can be used in bombs. People seem to think that using an LFTR you won't have to deal with neither waste nor fissile material that could be used in bombs, but people that believe this are deluding themselves.

LFTR are breeder reactors, the whole point of a breeder reactor is to make additional fissile material to continue the reaction as you convert fissionable material to fissile material and that you typically make more fissile material than you actually burn. Even still, as you create and burn more fissile material, you also start to get waste fission products that build up. Some of these waste fission products can shutdown the reaction. So periodically, you still have to seperate out the fissile and fissionable material from the waste fission products. While it takes much longer for LFTR, you still have to at some point.

When you do actually seperate the fissile and fissionable material back out, you can then gather material that could be used in weapons. The biggest thing I've heard for why someone wouldn't do that is due to the high amount radiation from the fission products, but the US, GB, France, SU/Russia, and China did exactly this in order to create their arsenals. This is why the various Non-Proliferation Treaties went into effect. Prior to the NPTs, the US use to rerprocess spent fuel and what was known then, but no one is willing to mention because of the NPTs, is that 99.5% of what comes out of a reactor each year is still usable in some way (95% as fuel, around 2% for industry, about 2.5% for medicinal) and only 0.5% of the actual material is waste that has a dangerous period of around 700 years (easily storable). But because of NPTs, we effectively toss 100% of what comes out of a reactor.

I've yet to see a single LFTR proponent be able to truly defend LFTR against standard Fission designs now. LFTR proponents seem to think that while the LFTR designs have been further iterated on to become safer and that standard LWR designs have been stuck in the 60s and 70s designs when in fact they too have been iterated upon (there were designs introduced the 90s that took acts of sabotage to have them meltdown due to the passive safety mechanisms built into the designs).

I think the main reason to consider thorium is due to its relative abundance compared to uranium. It is true current fission LWR designs have gone through all the design heavy lifting, and decades of safe operations.

Otherwise, I think we are on the same page...



http://fissilematerials.org/library/sgs09kang.pdf

I believe thorium fuels are more proliferation resistant compared to uranium-based fuels, due to the lack of plutonium production and in the danger of interim radioactive products. Not that a dedicated "state actor", like Iran or North Korea couldn't purify the u-233 to +99% weapons grade with a reprocessing cycle. The fuel is also not suitable for simple "gun" style bomb designs, but more suited to complex implosion designs.

Upside: If plutonium ever is used as the fissile component of thorium fuel, the plutonium is also thus efficiently consumed. The U-233 produced in thorium process is highly contaminated with U-232. U-232 has a short half-life (68.9 years), and is thusly more dangerous in the short term than U-238 isotopes.

Downside is also an Upside: The decay chain of U-232 in the fuel cell produces very dangerously penetrating gamma rays. Namly, thallium 208, who's decay emits 2.6 MeV gamma rays which are very energetic and highly penetrating. This makes handling "uncooled" fissile U-233 or reprocessed uranium contaminated with U-232 too dangerous. You'd be better off hustling bad actors for enriched uranium or plutonium materials.

{Note to FBI: in no way is Bolty responsible for the following }

So... suicidal maniac dirty bomb, well, yes maybe. For reference, fuel core is emitting 38 rem (or 380 mSv) /hr at 1 meter.

The rational building of a yielding nuclear bomb, not so much... Literally, any nasty lethal bio-chem in a conventional bomb would be as lethal, harder to detect, and easier to handle with latex gloves and a filter mask. It's in the same line as why Ebola is too lethal to be dangerous. You get it and die before you can spread it. Same here. If you got a pound of hot U-232, you'd be dead before, or soon after you finished making something with it. Exposure to 350 mSv was the criterion for relocating people after the Chernobyl accident, according to the World Nuclear Association.

[Lissa]

Thorium reactors create fissile material that can be used in bombs. People seem to think that using an LFTR you won't have to deal with neither waste nor fissile material that could be used in bombs, but people that believe this are deluding themselves.

LFTR are breeder reactors, the whole point of a breeder reactor is to make additional fissile material to continue the reaction as you convert fissionable material to fissile material and that you typically make more fissile material than you actually burn. Even still, as you create and burn more fissile material, you also start to get waste fission products that build up. Some of these waste fission products can shutdown the reaction. So periodically, you still have to seperate out the fissile and fissionable material from the waste fission products. While it takes much longer for LFTR, you still have to at some point.

When you do actually seperate the fissile and fissionable material back out, you can then gather material that could be used in weapons. The biggest thing I've heard for why someone wouldn't do that is due to the high amount radiation from the fission products, but the US, GB, France, SU/Russia, and China did exactly this in order to create their arsenals. This is why the various Non-Proliferation Treaties went into effect. Prior to the NPTs, the US use to rerprocess spent fuel and what was known then, but no one is willing to mention because of the NPTs, is that 99.5% of what comes out of a reactor each year is still usable in some way (95% as fuel, around 2% for industry, about 2.5% for medicinal) and only 0.5% of the actual material is waste that has a dangerous period of around 700 years (easily storable). But because of NPTs, we effectively toss 100% of what comes out of a reactor.

I've yet to see a single LFTR proponent be able to truly defend LFTR against standard Fission designs now. LFTR proponents seem to think that while the LFTR designs have been further iterated on to become safer and that standard LWR designs have been stuck in the 60s and 70s designs when in fact they too have been iterated upon (there were designs introduced the 90s that took acts of sabotage to have them meltdown due to the passive safety mechanisms built into the designs).

I think the main reason to consider thorium is due to its relative abundance compared to uranium. It is true current fission LWR designs have gone through all the design heavy lifting, and decades of safe operations.

Otherwise, I think we are on the same page...



http://fissilematerials.org/library/sgs09kang.pdf

I believe thorium fuels are more proliferation resistant compared to uranium-based fuels, due to the lack of plutonium production and in the danger of interim radioactive products. Not that a dedicated "state actor", like Iran or North Korea couldn't purify the u-233 to +99% weapons grade with a reprocessing cycle. The fuel is also not suitable for simple "gun" style bomb designs, but more suited to complex implosion designs.

Incorrect. Any fissile nucleus can be used in a nuclear weapon. U233 will work just as well as U235 (used in Little Boy) or Pu239 (used in Fatman) or Pu241. The difference is the amount of material needed for the "pit". In the case of U233, it creates more neutrons per fission than U235 or Pu239, thus you need even less U233 to create an adequate "pit".

Also, what people don't understand is the difference between a reactor and a weapon is critical density. A reactor and a weapon both contain at least a critical mass, but without a proper moderator (water in the case of LWR) or a specific density (implosion devices) neither will actually start a chain reaction. The other difference that comes with the critical density for a weapon is you end up in a super critical chain reaction (every neutron creates multiple neutrons from fission) unlike a reactor where you're dealing with a critical reaction (where one neutron creates only one neutron to slightly over one neutron to continue the process - I'm highly oversimplifying for brevity).

Also, seperating Uranium from Thorium is easy to do, so getting all that U233 from the Th232 is a simple chemical reaction. You don't need to a cetrifuge or the like (or in the case of the US and other highly advanced civilizations, lasers that can seperate U235 from U238 to near 95% enrichment in a single pass and get to almost 100% after just 3 or 4 passes).

Upside: If plutonium ever is used as the fissile component of thorium fuel, the plutonium is also thus efficiently consumed. The U-233 produced in thorium process is highly contaminated with U-232. U-232 has a short half-life (68.9 years), and is thusly more dangerous in the short term than U-238 isotopes.

Downside is also an Upside: The decay chain of U-232 in the fuel cell produces very dangerously penetrating gamma rays. Namly, thallium 208, who's decay emits 2.6 MeV gamma rays which are very energetic and highly penetrating. This makes handling "uncooled" fissile U-233 or reprocessed uranium contaminated with U-232 too dangerous. You'd be better off hustling bad actors for enriched uranium or plutonium materials.

Someone who wants it bad enough will still reprocess it. The other aspect that is not mentioned is that to create U232 from a (n,2n) reaction is rare. You're not going to build up a big enough concentration that even with a 70 year half life for the initial alpha decay of U232 down to Th228, it's going to be a while before you get down to Tl208.

{Note to FBI: in no way is Bolty responsible for the following }

So... suicidal maniac dirty bomb, well, yes maybe. For reference, fuel core is emitting 38 rem (or 380 mSv) /hr at 1 meter.

The rational building of a yielding nuclear bomb, not so much... Literally, any nasty lethal bio-chem in a conventional bomb would be as lethal, harder to detect, and easier to handle with latex gloves and a filter mask. It's in the same line as why Ebola is too lethal to be dangerous. You get it and die before you can spread it. Same here. If you got a pound of hot U-232, you'd be dead before, or soon after you finished making something with it. Exposure to 350 mSv was the criterion for relocating people after the Chernobyl accident, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Again, if someone wants it bad enough, they'll do it.

Getting a pound of U232 would necessitate a large reactor, most people are talking about 50 MW (at most) for LFTR. To give you an idea of relative size of a 50 MW reactor core, the TRIGA, a research reactor design used in a lot of places, had a cylindrical core that was about 6 feet in diameter and 2 feet in height with fuel rods that were also cylindrical and were 3 inches in diameter and 2 feet in length (about 90 fuel rods in total) and produced 2 MW of heat (with standard efficiency of 40%, that means that would be 0.8MW of electricity for that small amount of 20% enriched fuel). So, the LFTR "core" isn't going to be much bigger of liquid salt and thorium mixture.

Also, on the Ebola, the problem is that it doesn't incubate like the common cold. When you get the cold, when you finally get the symptoms, you've already had the virus running in your system for half a week or more. In the case of Ebola, the symptoms show up within a few hours of you contracting it, thus making it difficult to transport.

[Taem]

So, I finally saw something in person that made me question things about the power company. Maybe some intelligent Lurkers here can provide answers? Here are some examples of what I saw;



And this: Video Link

Anyway, guy has two diamagnets set to repel two others and some sort of conductor that generated energy from the friction as the turning mechanism the magnets were attached to spun. There was enough power being generated to run his laptop, possibly more, idk. What struck me as interesting was that I assumed the energy being created would be DC, not AC; perhaps he used a converter? Anyway, the point here is it seems a system like this could be tweaked to produce enough electricity to run a home, or at least power up batteries than run a home when the solar panels aren't enough. And furthermore, it dawned on me with all the leaps and bounds made with solar, that generating electricity from friction should be further examined with our new technology to see if better materials might exist which could create even better results. So why isn't this being used yet? What am I missing here?

---

Also, looking on YouTube for videos of what I saw, I glimpsed this video which I found very interesting.



I really can't speak much for the validity of that last video other than, it's supposedly been created more than once by different inventors in the past... whom were all subsequently murdered after making a car that runs on water. Oh, and their patents were destroyed and declared frauds. So, I am curious if this actually works, but am completely unfamiliar with Water Splitting, however here is an interesting article on some facts backing up the theory of Water Splitting: Wiki Link . Do you think this is possible, to run a car with Water Splitting gasses? I heard you need to use distilled water to make this work properly.

[Taem]

I had a very interesting talk with someone regarding this machine. First, their main concern was that I understood it was NOT a perpetual motion machine, to which I understood; after a limited number of rotations, the kinetic energy put fourth into the spinning device would succumb to Earth's gravity and become inert, this is known. What I found intriguing is that this is where my adviser had already given up on the theory of this device, citing studies stating the energy to start the spin again is equal to the energy gained. I pointed out that he was most assuredly incorrect, that if I had manually spun the device, I'd get maybe 8 rotations out of it illuminating the LED for maybe 15-seconds, but due to the quality of the bearings and of course the magnets, the rotations can continue over 100x yielding much more electricity than my singular push, and MORE than enough to power another device to "push" the spinner again AND have leftover power... a positive yield on electricity. Need I mention adding stronger magnets and performing this test within a vacuum? Now you're talking about thousands of spins before the spin stops producing electricity to your initial starting spin; you are not defying the laws of physics... you're singular push still yields the same amount of force before the kinetic energy dissipates and the spin stops, but this can be greatly enhanced by allowing the device to spin more freely generating more electricity for longer. Here, my friends, is a simple device capable of producing more electricity than the initial push, thus generating a positive yield. Think about it for a second, and the simplicity of it! Anyway, maybe when I have some extra cash lying around, I'll purchase the components and tools and try it out but for now, it'll have to go in the back-burner of ideas while I tackle important real world problems in the now, such as finish installing my $3k+ flooring myself and painting the bedrooms before the flooring reaches those rooms, lol.

EDIT: So the first step would be to make it aerodynamic, give it very good bearings, then very powerful magnets. A vacuum chamber won't add much time, but with the magnets attached, a vacuum chamber might add more up to one-fourth more time (based on the non-VC spin) of spin. So, how much electricity could you generate? The next step would be to get a good engine/converter for turning that spin into electricity. I honestly don't feel this would be enough to power your house, but with enough of these in your attic, you could passively regenerate your home battery when the solar panels were in darkness, or even get less solar panels due to the power being generated. Anyway, it's a very interesting concept to me.

[LavCat]

Better yet, divert some of the resulting electricity to power a mechanical finger to spin the thing every time it is close to slowing down.

[kandrathe]

Better yet, divert some of the resulting electricity to power a mechanical finger to spin the thing every time it is close to slowing down.

I am always skeptical of perpetual energy devices, but realistically in my understanding of quantum reality, it is certainly possible to be converting mass and/or tapping into existing energetic waves. It just has to come from some transformation (conservation of energy).

[Taem]

Better yet, divert some of the resulting electricity to power a mechanical finger to spin the thing every time it is close to slowing down.

I am always skeptical of perpetual energy devices, but realistically in my understanding of quantum reality, it is certainly possible to be converting mass and/or tapping into existing energetic waves. It just has to come from some transformation (conservation of energy).

Here's a fun little video based around what we're discussing. Admittedly, I haven't done even the remotest investigation to verify the claims in this clip, however I have seen similar exposes on Discovery Channel when I was younger made by journalists bent on exposing the "truth", as opposed to reviving sensationalist reports, so I am inclined to believe there is at least some truth to these clips, especially after witnessing the energy device I personally saw.

In regards to "perpetual motion", I wanted to mention, kandrathe, that I did say earlier it was *not* a perpetual energy device; it simply generates electricity based on number of rotations, and when you get good lubricated bearings and high powered magnets, turns out you can get quite a heafty amount of turns going, and absolutely none of this contradicts modern science. Anyway, enjoy the clip:

[Taem]

I am always skeptical of perpetual energy devices, but realistically in my understanding of quantum reality, it is certainly possible to be converting mass and/or tapping into existing energetic waves. It just has to come from some transformation (conservation of energy).

Here's a fun little thought experiment that just came up for me; the rotations of planets making their infinite turns in space, or of course their circular prograde (or retrograde) rotations around the sun, despite debris in space which should in theory slow down a planets rotation - they do not - seem to prove perpetual motion and hence perpetual energy. How can it be that the orbital moon produces both heat and tidal movement energy on our planet while keeping it's rotation; this alone seems to disprove the law of conservation of energy in regards to perpetual motion. Now before we get into orbital decay, I think it's relevant to point out the obvious, exploiting this "feature" of nature for energy purposes. A large object in space generates its own gravity, this is known, and can elicit it's own satellites which in turn can have their own gravity field (such as our moon) which can have an effect on their host planet. This effect, such as tidal energy, can be harvested freely, hence your supposed impossible perpetual motion device. Now how to replicate that on Earth?

[LavCat]

Tidal forces are already used for power generation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

[Lissa]

I am always skeptical of perpetual energy devices, but realistically in my understanding of quantum reality, it is certainly possible to be converting mass and/or tapping into existing energetic waves. It just has to come from some transformation (conservation of energy).

Here's a fun little thought experiment that just came up for me; the rotations of planets making their infinite turns in space, or of course their circular prograde (or retrograde) rotations around the sun, despite debris in space which should in theory slow down a planets rotation - they do not - seem to prove perpetual motion and hence perpetual energy. How can it be that the orbital moon produces both heat and tidal movement energy on our planet while keeping it's rotation; this alone seems to disprove the law of conservation of energy in regards to perpetual motion. Now before we get into orbital decay, I think it's relevant to point out the obvious, exploiting this "feature" of nature for energy purposes. A large object in space generates its own gravity, this is known, and can elicit it's own satellites which in turn can have their own gravity field (such as our moon) which can have an effect on their host planet. This effect, such as tidal energy, can be harvested freely, hence your supposed impossible perpetual motion device. Now how to replicate that on Earth?

Um...no...it's well known that planets do slow or increase spin based on the universal gravity equation. The Earth/moon system has caused both the Earth and moon to slow their rotations over time through tidal forces. Eventually, the moon will leave the Earth and then the tidal drag of the Sun will eventually slow the Earth's rotation to a tidal lock situation. If you take a look at both Mercury and Venus, both rotate very slowing (Mercury has a three to two ratio of rotation to orbit around the sun and Venus has a retrograde rotation, ie, it rotates in the opposite direction that all other planet rotate and on top of it, rotates at about the same number of days that it takes to orbit the Sun).

[Taem]

Forgive me, I'm using this thread now to ponder some unrelated thoughts instead of starting a new thread. I figure with the way I've pushed this thread towards the fringe, there's no reason stop now, lol.

-I wonder why, on a molecular level, the universal gravity equation does not apply. Ever wonder why our molecules are more attracted to each other than to Earth's own gravity? Is there indeed another force of gravity we're unaware of on the quantum level? Why do our bodies stick together at all instead of fall apart at their molecular level and pull downward with the Earth's gravity? As I'm sure you all know, a unless molecules are bonded (ex. H2O), then they are not attached, but are merely attracted to one another. Suffice it to say, this internal attraction (gravity) is clearly stronger than Earth's own gravity. I wonder what causes it?

-Are you ready for this? Sound waves have been proven to travel faster than light speed;
https://phys.org/news/2007-01-mach-scien...aster.html
https://www.livescience.com/1212-sound-p...light.html

-Quantum effects on molecules in a wave pattern; ex. Observation of the molecule affects reality:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19...055013.htm


-Consciousness changes matter. 5-sigma of proven results showing consciousness effects are not limited by distance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

-Interesting video on waves. Nice breakdown at min 20+ on quantum effects and how a particle can be in different places at once without existing in between those spaces. Waves are essentially energy transmitted to atoms. Something to keep in mind when realizing the potential of energy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-HXZTepH4

Bringing it all together, on a quantum level, there is a unique gravity, sound can travel faster than light speed, matter behaves as both a particle and a wave, a wave is essentially energy transmitting the will (state) of an atom, conscious observation can have an effect on the quantum level. Other than stating my own observations here, I'm not inferring anything towards the realms of alternative energy... only making observations at this point.

[Ruvanal]

-I wonder why, on a molecular level, the universal gravity equation does not apply.

It does. That is why your body tends to stay on the ground and not float away.

Ever wonder why our molecules are more attracted to each other than to Earth's own gravity?

Not since I looked at a basic science book of decent quality while in elementary school.

Is there indeed another force of gravity we're unaware of on the quantum level?

None that I have seen reported in any reputable science reports. There may be some wild speculation about such things at smaller scales than of the quarks, but we are far from being able to probe at those scales for testable results currently or in even in the foreseeable future. IIRC the power requirements to probe at those levels would be greater by at least a few orders of magnitude than the entire global energy output.

Why do our bodies stick together at all instead of fall apart at their molecular level and pull downward with the Earth's gravity?

Electromagnetism, see my second answer above for where to learn about this.

As I'm sure you all know, a unless molecules are bonded (ex. H2O), then they are not attached, but are merely attracted to one another. Suffice it to say, this internal attraction (gravity) is clearly stronger than Earth's own gravity. I wonder what causes it?

Again electromagnetism. You clearly do not seem to understand that at the current state of the universe, these are two different forces. And as an extra note, scientific testing shows that electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravity over equal distances.

10^36=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

[Lissa]

Again electromagnetism. You clearly do not seem to understand that at the current state of the universe, these are two different forces. And as an extra note, scientific testing shows that electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravity over equal distances.

10^36=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Nit - 4 forces (possibly more, but haven't been seen as yet).

Gravity (weakest, but longest range)
Electromagnetic (second weakest, second best range)
Nuclear Weak (second strongest, short range, on the order of nanometer = 10 ^- 9 m)
Nuclear Strong (strongest, extremely short range, on the order picometer and less = 10 ^ -12 m)

[Lissa]

Clean up on aisle 2 Bolty, need a clean up on aisle 2.