Re: 100 New British Nukes
At 2:39 PM 10/8/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: Honestly, I just glanced at the Hydrogen Program Plan and did some very quick back-of-the-envelope estimates. I came up with 15 or 20 nuke plants. Jones Beene estimated 7, which is probably closer to the mark. I forgot that a nuclear plant produces three times more raw heat energy than electricity, so with 50 percent efficient pyrolysis you end up far ahead of where you would be with electrolysis from electricity. I was estimating half of 1,000 MWe; it should be half of 3,000 MW heat. It is not surprising that Zimmerman also recommends thermal cracking instead of electrolysis. The advantages of this method are common knowledge, and they are described in any book about the potential hydrogen economy. Many processes use heat for some steps in order to obtain products more efficiently electrolysed in later steps. Electrolysis of any such product (e.g. HBr at 0.8 volts) then benefits from high temperature and pressure, and thus further utilization of thermal energy in the process. Hydrogen generation may be a means of gaining full nuclear plant utilization when nuclear capacity exceeds basline power requirements. This is achieved by running the nuclear plant at full capacity and generating hydrogen with excess energy (energy above consumer demand) and waste heat. I found it surprising that the DOE Annual Energy Review: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf shows a steady INCREASE in nuclear power generation in the US. Somehow I was under the (wrong) impression nuclear power generation was on the wane, due to plant closures and no new plant construction. Could it be the present DOE plans for a hydrogen economy is really a plan for a nuclear economy? Uranium ore must presently be at a nearly an all time low cost due to low demand and increased finds. It is also true that there are various processes for producing hydrogen from coal, and there are plentiful reserves of coal in the US, especially in Alaska. Coal mining may be far more harmful than building a lot of nuclear plants though. Construction of a centrally located farm of nuclear plants (e.g. in Texas) and using existing gas pipeline corridors for hydrogen transport may be a sensible strategy considering both economic and security requirements. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: 100 New British Nukes
Horace Heffner wrote: I found it surprising that the DOE Annual Energy Review: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf shows a steady INCREASE in nuclear power generation in the US. Somehow I was under the (wrong) impression nuclear power generation was on the wane, due to plant closures and no new plant construction. You are correct that plants have closed and no new ones have been constructed. I think the total is down 5 or 10 from the peak. However, the remaining plants are now being run at full power more often, and downtime for maintenance and repair has been reduced. The refuelling operation is carried out more quickly and smoothly. Industry sources say this is because workers are more experienced and better methods have been developed. I hope they are right, and they are not cutting corners. - Jed
Re: Tectonic versus planetary expansion
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:09:09 -0500, you wrote: BlankWylie asks if I have an interesting viewpoint on the subject. No, just the ongoing dialogue mentioned with a since passed geologist friend. Your interest leads me to believe that you have some views. Please feel free to express them here. Perhaps the first recorded discussion on the matter is in Job chapter 38. Talk about questions. Richard -- John Fields
Re: Tectonic versus planetary expansion
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:35:41 -0500, you wrote: Oops... Hit the wrong button; sorry! -- John Fields
The GAIA SUBCRITICAL REACTOR with hydrino augmentation
Wasn't itMark Twain who, in a long letter to someone, apologized for its length by stating that he didn't have enough time to write a shorter note? Well, consider this to be a similar apology in the era of email where with the availability of "cut and past," it seems thatshort but meaningful messages take way too much time. Yesterday, the idea of using the Mill's microwave technique as an integral part of a subcritical reactor was broached. I have played around with some of the nucleonic calculations, based on Mills reports, particularly the Rowan study. Unfortunately even Mills has never stated the critical detail which would allow an accurate model. Although Mills has stated that at some point in hydrino shrinkage (n/25 or thereabouts) the process becomes unstable and auto-catalytic - after which a virtual neutron results; we do not know how long that process takes in an actual environment of continuous irradiation, nor the probability of any hydrino reaching the state (n/25) and subsequent immediate virtual-neutron.For the purposes of this design, I assumed that 10% of all hydrinos will eventually become virtual neutrons in an average time of 100,000 seconds of irradiation and that additional gamma irradiation in a reactor would only help, not squelch the process. This is probably extremely optimistic, because if true, it would allow less than 3 tons of uranium carbide to reach "virtual" criticality due to ongoing hydrino "virtual-neutron" supplementation (aftera day-long startup process). And far less if D2 is substituted for H2. If this was true, BLP should drop everything else they are doing, find new investors, and switch over to the hydrino boosted subcritical reactor. 5000 to 6000 pounds of uranium in an safe unpressurized 100 megawatt reactor in a size factor which would fit into - say a railroad car and have a base cost factor of less than the average house here in Mill Valley and be safer than a tankload of propane... well that's a hard combination to beat.Anyway, this would be an exciting prospect... the only problem being that, personally I do not believe that Mills is correct in this CAF hypothesis. Why the long write-up then? Well, the potentialadvantages of this are so outstanding that even if there is only a chance in a million of Mills' being correct, it is almost criminal for a committed environmentalist and free-energy advocate not to mention it... To backtrack, Mills introduced a concept called CAF - columbic annihilation fusion, but has offered precious little in the form of actual proof to back it up. I find myself in the squirming position of accepting the reality of a "shrunken" hydrogen atom, at least through stage one (and even then it could be shrunken due to other reasons); but most importantly do not see the hydrino as necessarily an entity which can keep shrinking to become a virtual neutron. However, R. Mills is a far smarter guy than me or anyone I know, and has raised and sunk more than $50 million into his pursuit; therefore -for purposes of this piece, I will assume that he knows preciselywhat he has been talking about and publishing. Consider a thin plasma and a temporary nanosecond in time when the electron from a free hydrogen atom (not a molecule) gets trapped near a helium ion. Then thermal and electrostatic agitation causes the heavier catalyst (helium) to try to pry off the electron; but it will instead radiate photon energy if it cannot quite succeed, then causing the electron orbit to fall into a quantum sub-orbit (or as Mills' calls it: a redundant ground state). In effect, the electron's angular momentum has given up the energy which was radiated by the He ion and we are left with shrunken hydrogen. Carry this out for 137 steps and we have a virtual neutron. Carry it out with Deuterium and we havetwoneutrons. Mills says no orbits are stable after a few hundred eV are radiated, and the orbit of the hydrino then becomes so eccentric and that it immediately collapses intothis virtual neutron. Is there any reason why this entity would not serve as the make-up neutron in a subcritical reactor scheme? In fact, it slightly more negative near-field (my guess) should if anything increase its cross-section for inducing fission. THE GAIA SUBCRITICAL REACTOR WITH HYDRINO BOOST All things considered, energy from uranium fission involves some exasperating tradeoffs, but nevertheless can be easilyrationalized as the lesser of all evils, at least for providing favorably-priced reliable energy for a future world where oil prices have sky-rocketed out of control. Plus, if done right, it can be cleaner and safer than combustion. But before rushing into a frenzy of 'throwing good money after bad,' it would be advisable to determine if the base technology for fission can be improved very significantly (which would also give LENR and ZPEprojects, not to mention normal hydrino projects,more time to mature
Re: OFF TOPIC Iraqi aluminum tube story finis
Dear Vortexians, I am quite sorry I ever got into this thing, and if I have wasted bandwidth, I do apologize. This will likely be my last message on this subject. snip Iraq did not attack us, etc. period. The addition of the word 'period' makes it that much clearer then? No, Iraq did not attack us. We attacked them. I am not denying this. I am merely questioning whether it was right or wrong. and since weve killed more people in iraq so far than saddam has in the past decade, yeah, id argue over whether or not its better to have him gone. he was a dictator. he was not that bad a one, and there are many worse. I might be able to agree with this above paragraph if I had consumed a rather large quantity of Jack Daniels, but I fear I would succumb to alcohol poisoning first, if you catch my drift. Not that bad? Pardon my asterisks, but give me a f***ing break. And the dead as well. saddam disarmed. he complied with regulations. the rule of law was being followed in iraq. Are you willing to bet your life on that? I am not. as for cold blooded mass murderer, and so was abraham lincoln by your logic. after all, a hell of a lot more americans died in teh civil war than have died in iraq under saddam. and they wouldnt have died had lincoln just let them seceed. My logic is obviously misunderstood in any case. My feelings on the civil war are not going to be addressed here. If they were, someone would invariably wonder where I am from, and that will get stirred into the mix. It goes without saying that more Americans died in the civil war than in Iraq under SaddamI was not referring to American deaths under Saddam, I was referring to Iraqi deaths under Saddam. Apples and oranges, so the saying goes. In the event that Saddam had finally managed to build or aquire nuclear weapons, who can say what the American deaths might have been? teh precense of mind to not be offended? where do you get off? why would you be offended? others are free to worship as they please. thats whats so great about this country. Uh...get off? I was not particularly offended...I was remarking that too many people get offended by hearing someone say something about his or her god that is not politically correct, or using the term black as opposed to african-american...the US is too hung up on speaking 'politely' and 'correctly'. Yet I am called a racist if I do not like some kid driving past my home at 3am blasting ghetto music loaded with cursing. I truly begin to wonder what IS so great about this country nowadays. Maybe that seems a little contradictory to what I've written above and in previous posts...I suppose it is in a way, but when dealing with humanity there is always contradiction. Take this as you will, I never meant to offend you or anyone else, I was merely speaking my mind. Maybe others here feel as I do, maybe not. I am personally tired of the topic, and I am sorry I got into it. Have a nice day, --Kyle P.S., the have a nice day was not sarcastic. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: Hydrogen energy x 100
Jones wrote: Interesting point from M.C. : With all this talk about ethanol and hydrogen, let me take note of the water bath calorimetry experiments of Mills which showed a heat release from hydrogen 100 times greater than by combustion of the same amount of hydrogen. The only obvious drawback to the Mills process, assuming his published results hold up under closer scrutiny is *energy density* which is a term that we are not used to hearing much about. As best I can tell, this lower energy density is due to the requirement of needing a rather thin plasma, which is irradiated with the RF but mildly so, and requiring a great deal of spatial volume relative to the energy produced. In the first paper on the H-He+ experiment, Mills noted that the energy density was comparalbe to an IC engine. Most of the work reported has been of research character, not to see how high the energy density could be pushed. Jones is right, the fundamental energy density of the reactiosn are less than nuclear reactions seen in LENR. In lab LENR experiments there is much evidence that the reactions occur at isolated sites and only a small portion of a target mass may react. When the reaction is actually understood, then it may be possible to fully engage a target mass in the LENR reactions and marvelous devices built. We are an unknown distance in time and man-years from that point. At this point Mills is further down that road than LENR is, in terms of organization, focus, and funding. Where both technologies will take us is not determined yet. One thought occurs here in the context of a nuclear reactor. Reactors are just the opposite - having extremely high energy density. Can some of the best features of each technology be combined? Lets consider the Mills microwave Everson [sp] tube which uses hydrogen and helium, irradiated at the common oven frequency of 2.45 Ghz. It just so happens that those two gases, mostly He with about 10% H2 are both easily accommodated and usable within a reactor for several purposes - either neutron moderation or heat removal and especially conversion of heat into electricity, or for all of these. But the best thing is... once a hydrino reaches a certain level of shrinkage according to Mills, it will become more and more neutron-like so that near the final 137th stage, we have in effect a virtual neutron. This feature could allow hydrinos to become the makeup virtual-neutrons in a subcritical reactor scheme. What Jones has not mentioned above is that at each stage of hydrino-hydrino reactions leading to that theoretical point, more and more energy is released -- hundreds of eV per atom. Also, the descent of one hydrino on that scale is balanced by the ascent of another toward ground state. These reactions are very complex; while their spectral signatures are seen, details are very sketchy in publications and may be studied for years. snip Mike Carrell
