[redwood]

Something hot should not be thought of as inert, because something hot by definition is something with incredible internal velocity. But then there are multiple definitions of inert..

I think what you're saying, though, is that if you contain something extremely hot and dense, you cannot get any useful energy out... Because the energy needed to contain it prevents you from getting anything out. Right?

Because I'm coming from a perspective that says: if you can contain something like a small bit of solar core: and if you can let some of that heat leak to the outside environment: you can derive terrific power from the thermal dynamics at work.

The sun exists in the pressure-free vacuum and thus extends to a far less dense outer layer where the heat gradient (the argument against power potential per volume) is low. However if you could contain the sun into a smaller volume, it would have the same massive heat flux but over a much lower surface area and thus with far more power potential per volume.

I assume we're not so much disagreeing: over focusing on different issues. Is it correct that you're saying that the act of containment itself prevents the ability to harness the flux?

[arbitrarywords]

We might be slightly talking at cross purposes. I agree that something hot contains a lot of available energy. I'm making the point that it may not produce any available energy (i.e. inert in the sense of nuclear fusion).