>That was your original question. It contains, as everyone is aware, your original statement that stars work by converting gravitational potential energy into l

>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. That was a gross simplification but technically correct, without the constant force of gravity which confines the gas there is no sustainable fusion reaction in stars. On earth we replace gravity with magnetic confinement. >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. If I phrase it as the energy required to maintain the magnetic confinement field in a fusion reactor in order to maintain the fusion reaction would it be better? Because now you are arguing semantics. >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. Which is exactly my point the, what confines the nuclear reaction in the sun is a complex process which involves the inward pull of gravity this is what prevents the sun from blowing out until it cools down, you constantly keep ignoring this fact. On earth we use magnetic fields those magnetic fields require power now I agree that in a reaction that is an equilibrium there is no work between the field and the plasma as both of them are opposing and equal but we still need to power that field if we power it by the excess heat from the fusion reaction the question is then is there any other excess heat that can be used to generate electricity in addition to what is required to power the magnetic field, and this is with a hypothetical 100% efficient model.