Using earth as power source

Spinning with respect to what?

>If there's energy all around us, why is it so hard to tap into?
energy =/= useful energy

>The main core of their study is ok, but their interpretation and application to earth isnt.
Does that article really have anything to do with geology at all? It's a proposed method for how fusion can occur in an iron crystal lattice. It calculates the heat produced by this reaction using information on the earth's core, which is modeled by physicists not geologists. If you're able to refute this study using what you've learned in geology, maybe it's time I switch my major to geology. But honestly it sounds like you have no tangible refutation and you're just jealous that another human was creative enough to work out the theory while you sit around looking at rocks and dust.

I have no idea of geology. Mind explaining where it fails exactly?

currently writing it down for

earth core is modelled by geophysics. You obviously have a very partial and uninformed vision of what geology is.
if you want a detailed refutation, just keep in mind that my problem is not his study of this mecanism, which is actually quite well done, but his trying to apply it to Earth when he has obviously no idea what he's talking of.

first of all, he refutes the possibility that there is an inner heat production. here are his arguments:
> the concentration of lead in crustal rocks isn't high enough to account for earth's intern heat production.
Most of Earth's intern production is caused by MANTLE radioactive decay. So, looking at crust's composition is just absurd.

> The linear slope of temperature change from the core to the crust can be explained by heat generation in Earth’s inner core only.
......And D" phase changes, and SLAB graveyards, and latent heat at the edges of LLSVPs, AND the fact that it's even probably not "negatively linear".
>the temperature curve must have two peaks, one in the crust (6–40km) and one in the mantle (410–2900km).
Except the mantle is convecting. Don't worry, Lord Kelvin made the same mistake.

>As for the fourth question, if radioactive decay has also been occurring on Venus, which is Earth’s sister planet with similar size and composition, we should observe plate tectonics as a result of the carbonate magma-ocean. (but we don't)
because Venus' mantle isn't hydrated, not because there aren't radioactive decay in it. This was proven true years ago with the datation of venus' resurfacing events.

>Alternatively, we consider inductively the possibility of nuclear fusion, which does not create harmful radioactive waste.
I can't even see what he calls "harmful radioactive waste". This isn't a nuclear plant, it's radioactive decay, that lead to nothing but stable isotopes. plus we are shielded from it by hundreds of kilometers of rocks, so there is no way it can be harmful to us.

let's continue.

Using pure hcp iron is rather doubtful as earth's core is made from an Iron-Nickel alloy, but that's small an error compared to the rest.
However, using for the H percentage in the core, a value that comes from a study that : 1, goes only up to 7.5 GPa, (when core pressure goes over 300 GPa), and 2, only adress the maximum H content of hcp iron is pure intellectual dishonesty.

making the assumption that Earth’s primitive heat supply has already been exhausted is irrelevant with every current estimates. Not explaining why making such an assumption is either extreme lazyness, or pure stupidity.

The presence of an inner D-rich core would be seen by seismics. It isn't.

And, for a little final. a heat production from the inner core and the inner core only, would make no sense regarding known outer core and mantle convection patterns, or Earth thermal history. Those require an mantellic internal heating.
Furthermore, the composition of mantellic rocks has proven to be coherent with a mantellic internal heating.

Thanks. Meanwhile I took a look through the paper as well and I read what the current accepted theory of Earth's heat is.

The unanswered questions truly don't make much sense. He also generalizes Labaune et al result of low-energy (not to be confused with cold) fusion reaction to every possible reaction. That is he creates the major problem of how can those georeactions take place in first place. That said the method presented as noted is interesting in its own right.

Also on
>without harmful radioactive wastes
Yes, there will be no radioactive wastes but how is this safer than gamma rays? (Not that it matters as we're well shielded.)

Good you're thinking outside the box: But did you do a feasibility (sanity) study?

it's not feasible given the actual stete of technique and it's not something we want to do

Ain't no thang